Ferguson

[SerenityNigh]

Quite apt that the banner ad I see in this thread is an unlit lightbulb

 

[Elong]

Haha it happens, it's a word, it has negative connotation, but people don't always mean it in that way when just typing or speaking fast. It's not always intended as racist, like the N-word has to be.

Let's put it this way - if "person of color" is acceptable, then you'd have to stop using the term whites and use "person of non-color" - would that happen? Of course not.

It's a hierarchy:

N-Word > Coloured > Person of Color > Black

None of those words are "good" - but if one has to be used to split a subject matter like Ferguson or the wider topic of racism, it's the latter.

But in pretty much any other context, skin colour should be the last adjective used.

Totally. The fact that skin colour is still used to classify people into groups is horrible to me. It should be "people protesting" not "blacks protesting".

 

[SerenityNigh]

Haha it happens, it's a word, it has negative connotation, but people don't always mean it in that way when just typing or speaking fast. It's not always intended as racist, like the N-word has to be.

Let's put it this way - if "person of color" is acceptable, then you'd have to stop using the term whites and use "person of non-color" - would that happen? Of course not.

It's a hierarchy:

N-Word > Coloured > Person of Color > Black

None of those words are "good" - but if one has to be used to split a subject matter like Ferguson or the wider topic of racism, it's the latter.

But in pretty much any other context, skin colour should be the last adjective used.

Person of Colo(u)r isn't always bad like some words are; racism is of course largely contextual. Using The in front of blacks almost always is racist.

 

[Tubey]

Totally. The fact that skin colour is still used to classify people into groups is horrible to me. It should be "people protesting" not "blacks protesting".

It's more about academic purposes - when studying the wider issue of Ferguson or issues like it, you have to faction for it to make sense.

Looking at slavery, for example. If every study had "people enslaved" and made no mention to blacks, then it'd confuse as it'd be disregarding the social context of why a certain set of people were mistreated.

Black is the most tasteful of a bad set of options for that purpose.

 

[Elong]

It's more about academic purposes - when studying the wider issue of Ferguson or issues like it, you have to faction for it to make sense.

Looking at slavery, for example. If every study had "people enslaved" and made no mention to blacks, then it'd confuse as it'd be disregarding the social context of why a certain set of people were mistreated.

Black is the most tasteful of a bad set of options for that purpose.

For sure when studying history, but in the present day, it's abhorant, it's not that I want to disregard the terrible past, it's more a hope that we might end up unified one day. Sounds dead cheesy and it's a pipe dream with so much water under the bridge that shouldn't be easily forgotten but we can live in hope.

 

[Tubey]

Person of Colo(u)r isn't always bad like some words are; racism is of course largely contextual. Using The in front of blacks almost always is racist.

Indeed, but... well, take this article:

http://news.sky.com/story/1321517/missouri-unrest-suspect-shot-dead-by-police

A "knife-wielding" suspect has been shot dead by police in north St Louis, not far from where an unarmed black teen was killed by an officer, setting off days of unrest.

Now compare it to this:

A "knife-wielding" suspect has been shot dead by police in north St Louis, not far from where an unarmed person of color was killed by an officer, setting off days of unrest.

One hits the eye and has the possibility of negative connotation rather than a necessary adjective more than the other.

 

[Tubey]

For sure when studying history, but in the present day, it's abhorant, it's not that I want to disregard the terrible past, it's more a hope that we might end up unified one day. Sounds dead cheesy and it's a pipe dream with so much water under the bridge that shouldn't be easily forgotten but we can live in hope.

Not just history though, in news reporting, general discussion like we're having here - you can't talk of Ferguson without acknowledging the underlying cause; "a cop shot dead a person" wouldn't explain why "people" were rioting against "other people".

 

[orchard]

 

[SerenityNigh]

Totally. The fact that skin colour is still used to classify people into groups is horrible to me. It should be "people protesting" not "blacks protesting".

It's cultural too. There is a distinct culture in America in black communities, and it needs a name. There's sometimes not any better name than the most obvious choice. African-American is useful too, but it seems this phrase is going out of style locally. It has its limits too; my Jamaican neighbor railed on about being called African-American when he was neither. His kids of course were American, of Jamaican descent, but he did not accept the title African-American. To him, black was best and simplest, whenever Jamaican was not appropriate.

In short, I don't see anything wrong with calling someone a black man*, but all words have context and must be given due consideration of their appropriateness.

*Granted, as an upper-middle-class white male, I have some privilege that may blind my view.

 

[chicoazul]

It's ok Chico seems to have gone now

Oh aye and its me getting strips teared by everyone else on this thread for moving the topic onto your abhorrent views mate.

 

[chicoazul]

I blame Farage for energising these dull simpletons.

 

[orchard]

 

[RaleighBlue]

"Black" isn't a problem at all contextually.

Just like "White" or "Asian" aren't. It's a descriptive term, like tall or short, heavy or thin. It can be racist when it's unnecessary descriptive text or when used inappropriately. But it is not, in itself, a racist term. If I meet a black man on the street he is likely to be African American - but what if he's visiting from London? Then he is not an African American. If someone needed a description of that man, then black is an appropriate and entirely non-racist descriptor.

Just like if someone described me to someone that had no knowledge of me, I would expect 'white' to be a descriptor. You see it news reports both ways - "An unidentified white male, six foot..." etc.

Black is only a problem when used in a racist context.

 

[Elong]

Not just history though, in news reporting, general discussion like we're having here - you can't talk of Ferguson without acknowledging the underlying cause; "a cop shot dead a person" wouldn't explain why "people" were rioting against "other people".

Yes of course, I merely mean that in a dream world there wouldn't be these underlying reasons in the first place. Not trying to be ignorant of history and the appalling way they were treated, it's just bizzare how we are as a race.

The question I'd ask is what more should be being done to bring both races together? What's it going to take for people to realise it's not okay.

 

[Tubey]

"Black" isn't a problem at all contextually.

Just like "White" or "Asian" aren't. It's a descriptive term, like tall or short, heavy or thin. It can be racist when it's unnecessary descriptive text or when used inappropriately. But it is not, in itself, a racist term. If I meet a black man on the street he is likely to be African American - but what if he's visiting from London? Then he is not an African American. If someone needed a description of that man, then black is an appropriate and entirely non-racist descriptor.

Just like if someone described me to someone that had no knowledge of me, I would expect 'white' to be a descriptor. You see it news reports both ways - "An unidentified white male, six foot..." etc.

Black is only a problem when used in a racist context.

Exactly.

That's why I have person of color down as less acceptable, simply because it's not a status of equal weighting. Black and White are equal.