OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
Maybe to revisit IMUS...........
That's exactly the problem I have with it as well. Before I go any further, I'm going to indulge you and act as if there really are such things as "african americans" or "black people" or other "persons of the negro (or for that matter, oriental or caucasian) race" or any such claptrap as that. The idea that there's any real sort of biological truth above and beyond physical appearance behind the concept of "race" is rubbish as far as I'm aware. I am racist in preference to only one race: the human race. Everything after that is window dressing. But I digress...
The term "African American" as a socially acceptable term for blacks (although it's questionable just how 'black" they are, but as John Shaft would point out, I'm not really that white either, but that's another matter) is problematic in that I don't know what to call such a person who isn't an American.
Shouldn't they just be called "Africans" and whites be called "Europeans" in the same sense that we no longer use "yellow" but rather "Asian" or "Native American" instead of "red." Personally I don't think color descriptors to identify races is all of that offensive or degrading, but rather inaccurate. And if a color descriptor really is based on something with offensive connotations (****** being the best example), would it really kill us to chage it?
Thoughts?
The term reeks of apology to me. Also, it makes the assumption that a black person has ancestors in Africa and that they are American, which are both false.
Central America, South America, the Middle East, and Asia all have black people.
That's exactly the problem I have with it as well. Before I go any further, I'm going to indulge you and act as if there really are such things as "african americans" or "black people" or other "persons of the negro (or for that matter, oriental or caucasian) race" or any such claptrap as that. The idea that there's any real sort of biological truth above and beyond physical appearance behind the concept of "race" is rubbish as far as I'm aware. I am racist in preference to only one race: the human race. Everything after that is window dressing. But I digress...
The term "African American" as a socially acceptable term for blacks (although it's questionable just how 'black" they are, but as John Shaft would point out, I'm not really that white either, but that's another matter) is problematic in that I don't know what to call such a person who isn't an American.
Shouldn't they just be called "Africans" and whites be called "Europeans" in the same sense that we no longer use "yellow" but rather "Asian" or "Native American" instead of "red." Personally I don't think color descriptors to identify races is all of that offensive or degrading, but rather inaccurate. And if a color descriptor really is based on something with offensive connotations (****** being the best example), would it really kill us to chage it?
Thoughts?