'black' and 'white'

[SkyPanda]

here's a short rant.


I've always felt that the terms 'black' and 'white', as used to distinguish people by race, are offensive and innappropriate in formal situations.

Mostly because the terms are a caricature of the people concerned- (very few people actually have black or white skin) but also because of their impracticalities and divisive qualities.

Anybody here who feels the same as I, or who fervently disagrees?


I realise that in many cases there isn't a more appropriate term to choose, and that they all have their problems. There's also the whole 'race is a cultural construct' debate, which probably ties in very strongly with this.

[otters~1]

I realise that in many cases there isn't a more appropriate term to choose, and that they all have their problems.

Exactly. I have many friends who aren't my race (Caucasian), and we call each other all kinds of things. It's all in fun.

Used seriously, and with a bad connotation, those words are unacceptable. However, if they're said without any malicious intent, it's much less of a problem.

[SkyPanda]

Used seriously, and with a bad connotation, those words are unacceptable. However, if they're said without any malicious intent, it's much less of a problem.

Reading that, i'll just add that my issue lies solely with formal use, irregardless of intention.

So you think that the intent effects whether or not the words are inappropriate?

[Tanner]

I realise that in many cases there isn't a more appropriate term to choose, and that they all have their problems. There's also the whole 'race is a cultural construct' debate, which probably ties in very strongly with this.

Well, that's exactly it. Communication between people isn't perfect and there are some caveats to it. One of them being that we can't (and don't have to) describe everything perfectly; we just have to describe things so that others understand what we're talking about. I suppose you're correct when saying that "black" and "white" are inaccurate terms for the most part, but I think the negative connotations for those terms are kept to a minimum and that there's no real substitute at this time. Where do you stand on the use of masculine and feminine pronouns given that many people as not purely either from a psychological standpoint? Would you be offended if I called SlappyMcGee a Canadian because the only true Canadians are the Native Americans? Of course not because you know what I mean when I say, "He is a Canadian." I may not be being entirely truthful, but I'm being truthful enough for you to understand me and that, my friend, is communication.

So you think that the intent effects whether or not the words are inappropriate?

Of course. Authorship, man. Get on it.

[otters~1]

Used seriously, and with a bad connotation, those words are unacceptable. However, if they're said without any malicious intent, it's much less of a problem.

Reading that, i'll just add that my issue lies solely with formal use, irregardless of intention.

So you think that the intent effects whether or not the words are inappropriate?

Not only that, it's the only thing that effects appropriateness, in my opinion. The same applies to swearing. It means nothing, unless you mean something by it.

[MattKestrel]

Well, I think it's a little disrespectable to label everyone black or white. I mean, if I was holding a party and my guests were Caucasian, Japanese, African-American and Middle Eastern, referring to them all as black would be crass and just not very helpful in general.

[29403]

Since I am part black, part white, in England people classify me as black, and in Africa people classify me as white.
I agree with flagmyidol here, it's only when it gets bad when it gets serious. I never use those words because it just divides white people and black people, and it's just... you know... weird

[Tanner]

Well, I think it's a little disrespectable to label everyone black or white. I mean, if I was holding a party and my guests were Caucasian, Japanese, African-American and Middle Eastern, referring to them all as black would be crass and just not very helpful in general.

Wait, what? I... I suppose I agree that calling a Caucasian "black" would not be helpful but is this what we're debating? Maybe I'm in the wrong thread here...

I agree with Laurie here, it's only when it gets bad when it gets serious. I never use those words because it just divides white people and black people, and it's just... you know... weird

Laurie hasn't even posted in this thread yet! Now I know I'm in the wrong thread. What the heck is going on?

[29403]

Damn it, I blame our cat avatars!

[otters~1]

Damn it, I blame our cat avatars!

Sorry.

[capt_weasle]

I agree with Tanner. For the most part, I don't think they are harmful in the right context, because they are simply terms used to describe someone you might otherwise have a hard time discerning (see the beginning of this video). There's a difference between describing someone based upon their actual characteristics and describing them on how you perceive them - as this is where stereotypes come in, along with negative words used for descriptions (negro, etc).

[scythe]

I basically agree with George Carlin's ideas on the matter.

I think the whole reason we're encouraged in this country to think of ourselves as "black and white" (instead of "pink and brown," which is what we are) is that black and white are complete opposites that cannot be reconciled. Black and white can never come together. Pink and brown, on the other hand, might just stand a chance of being blended, might just come together. Can't have that! Doesn't fit the plan.

Everything we use to describe people is a caricature or simplification, though. Eyes aren't really blue or brown, they're black and white and blue or black and white and brown and we only mention the color that changes.

"African-American", though, is a stupid term. Everyone traces their ancestry to Africa.

[otters~1]

Black and white, bottom line, are just terms that have come to mean more than a color. When we use them, we are using a different definition of the word. It has nothing to do with skin color anymore.

PS: George Carlin could make anything funny.

[//Zander]

something is only racist when you use it in a malicious and offensive way, about their origins. I feel that calling a dark person black is not racist whatsoever if it is done with no desire to offend the person. I have a black friend who I described to someone as being black. He was standing next to me, and he didn't care, but the other person started bitching about racism. what pisses me off though is when something happens to a black person, or they are called black, but when this happens to a whit guy it's not the same...
I dont see blacks as being abnormal, they are just another kind of person. like macs and pc's... well not really.

but also I kinda wish I was black, black people are so much cooler... I can't figure out why michael jackson changed...

[29403]

So if people use White and Black, what do you call a mixed race black & white like me?
Black + White is Grey, but I am never ever called grey.

[//Zander]

So if people use White and Black, what do you call a mixed race black & white like me?
Black + White is Grey, but I am never ever called grey.

you're grey!!!
nah, it's all about how dark you are compared to the viewer... well I think in your case it would be

[SkyPanda]

Of course. Authorship, man. Get on it.

Offense can often be unintentional.
I can try not to be an ass, but that doesn't necessarily mean I won't end up being an ass, and if somebody then tells me "stop being an ass" then I should stop, even if I wasn't intending to be an ass. I hope that crystal-clear analogy cleared things up for you. :)

Communication between people isn't perfect and there are some caveats to it. One of them being that we can't (and don't have to) describe everything perfectly; we just have to describe things so that others understand what we're talking about.

There are people in the world who could accurately be desribed as "fatties". However, this word is not used in formal situations, because it is offensive and disrespectful. For the same reason, I believe that the terms 'black' and 'white', despite being words that many people will understand, have no place in formal situations.
While I agree that there does not currently exist a term that could be perfectly accurate, I maintain that 'black' and 'white' need to be replaced, if not by something more accurate, then at least by something more appropriate. That, my friend, is respectful communication.

I think the negative connotations for those terms are kept to a minimum and that there's no real substitute at this time.

The fact that there are even negative connotations at all is even more reason to find substitute words. Furthermore, the lack of a substitute does not make the current terminology acceptable.

Where do you stand on the use of masculine and feminine pronouns given that many people as not purely either from a psychological standpoint?

The masculine and feminine pronouns are not exaggerations, are not usually perceived to be offensive, and do not actual refer to a persons psyche, by the way. For those who physically blur the boundaries, I believe that a term of the subject's preference should be used. Navigating language respectfully can sometimes be tricky, but thats no reason not to seek to be ever more accurate and polite.

For the most part, I don't think they are harmful in the right context, because they are simply terms used to describe someone you might otherwise have a hard time discerning

There is nothing wrong with describing a person's skin colour as 'fair skinned' or 'dark skinned' or whatever. The colours of various body parts tend to crop up in descriptions. I only have a problem with terms like 'black' being used to refer to cultures or races in formal situations.

Everything we use to describe people is a caricature or simplification, though. Eyes aren't really blue or brown, they're black and white and blue or black and white and brown and we only mention the color that changes.

When we talk about eye colour, we actually refer only to the iris, not to the entire eye. So that example is no good. This theory sounds interesting though, do you have another example?

[Atilla]

So if people use White and Black, what do you call a mixed race black & white like me?

Mixed race.

There are people in the world who could accurately be desribed as "fatties". However, this word is not used in formal situations, because it is offensive and disrespectful. For the same reason, I believe that the terms 'black' and 'white', despite being words that many people will understand, have no place in formal situations.

That is not comparable because "fatties" is deliberately insulting. This would be analogous to referring to black people as "niggers" in a formal context.

The fact that there are even negative connotations at all is even more reason to find substitute words.

The word "woman" has negative connotations among misogynists, but I don't think that means we should replace it. The reason it has negative connotations among these people is that they do not like the group it refers to. By the same token, some people just don't like black people, and will continue to not like black people regardless of what you call them, and thus view whatever term you come up with as having negative connotations.

There is nothing wrong with describing a person's skin colour as 'fair skinned' or 'dark skinned' or whatever. The colours of various body parts tend to crop up in descriptions. I only have a problem with terms like 'black' being used to refer to cultures or races in formal situations.

...are you suggesting that we should refer to "dark-skinned-people culture" in a formal situation? If so, do we have to describe feminism as the "people-with-vaginas' movement" so as to avoid offence?
Besides, black is as much a state of mind as a skin color these days, what with the decreased stigma on interracial romance and all. I know people who will proudly declare they're from a black culture, but look as pale as I do (and no, they're not pretentious idiots who are tryin' to be coo', yo).

[SkyPanda]

...are you suggesting that we should refer to "dark-skinned-people culture" in a formal situation?

No, I don't think I was suggesting that at all. 'Black' isn't appropriate for descriptions either, (unless the person's skin is actually black), which is why I used the terms 'fair' or 'dark'.

The word "woman" has negative connotations among misogynists, but I don't think that means we should replace it. The reason it has negative connotations among these people is that they do not like the group it refers to. By the same token, some people just don't like black people, and will continue to not like black people regardless of what you call them, and thus view whatever term you come up with as having negative connotations.

I was under the impression that by 'connotations', tanner was referring to colour association.

That is not comparable because "fatties" is deliberately insulting. This would be analogous to referring to black people as "niggers" in a formal context.

'fat people', then.
I was attempting to argue that the accuracy and appropriateness of a term are unrelated. 'Fat' could be accurate, yet also inappropriate- in that instance 'overweight' would probably be the more appropriate term to use.

[capt_weasle]

'fat people', then.
I was attempting to argue that the accuracy and appropriateness of a term are unrelated. 'Fat' could be accurate, yet also inappropriate- in that instance 'overweight' would probably be the more appropriate term to use.

I believe the term you are looking for is "horizontally challenged."

Seriously, though, I think that if you call someone a "nigger" your being racist, and if you think everyone should be called "light-skinned" or "dark-skinned" you're just being too politically correct, which is ridiculous. If you really want to stop generalizing, go to Home Depot, grab some of those color reference cards, and just match them up to the person you are talking to/about so you can be sure to be as accurate as possible.

[Tanner]

If you really want to stop generalizing, go to Home Depot, grab some of those color reference cards, and just match them up to the person you are talking to/about so you can be sure to be as accurate as possible.

QFE

Of course. Authorship, man. Get on it.

Offense can often be unintentional.
I can try not to be an ass, but that doesn't necessarily mean I won't end up being an ass, and if somebody then tells me "stop being an ass" then I should stop, even if I wasn't intending to be an ass. I hope that crystal-clear analogy cleared things up for you. :)

You're correct in that meaning is insinuated as well as derived on both the sending and the receiving ends. However, I'm only directly responsible for the sending end of meaning. I am indirectly responsible because, as a good member of society, I do my best to make the world a decent place to live so when someone asks me to do something as a favour at it requires no additional effort on my part, I do it. I don't have to do it, but I do because I like making people happy.

[SkyPanda]

if you think everyone should be called "light-skinned" or "dark-skinned" you're just being too politically correct, which is ridiculous

Calling somebody 'light-skinned" is indeed more politically correct, and more physically accurate, then calling them 'white'. That is true.

However, when most people say that something is TOO politically correct, they are either saying that people are going too far out of their way to avoid offense, or are butchering language to avoid offense. (if you're referring to other things, please specify).

Calling somebody 'dark-skinned' instead of 'black' is NOT butchering language, because the word 'black' is an exaggeration. And calling somebody 'dark-skinned' instead of 'black' is NOT going too far out of your way. It slots in nicely with other descriptions like "brown-eyed" or "blonde-haired". Therefore, although 'light-skinned' is politcally correct, it is not TOO politically correct. Wins in every way.

If you really want to stop generalizing, go to Home Depot, grab some of those color reference cards, and just match them up to the person you are talking to/about so you can be sure to be as accurate as possible.

Now as i'm sure i've already said, I wouldn't propose referring to those currently known as 'white people' as 'light-skinned people'. The only time i'd recommend using 'light-skinned' is when you need to physically describe a person, like in the video you posted. When it comes to referring to a race or culture, like the words 'black' and 'white' attempt to do at the moment, any kind of skin description is inappropriate and insufficient, really.

You're correct in that meaning is insinuated as well as derived on both the sending and the receiving ends. However, I'm only directly responsible for the sending end of meaning. I am indirectly responsible because, as a good member of society, I do my best to make the world a decent place to live so when someone asks me to do something as a favour at it requires no additional effort on my part, I do it. I don't have to do it, but I do because I like making people happy.

I said "calling a person 'black' or 'white' is innapropriate and offensive in a formal situation". You just said, "I have no obligation to not be offensive". You haven't really argued against what I said.

Using offensive or racist terminology in a public or political environment will cause problems and will have legal/other consequences. These change from situation to situation, country to country, etc.

[wolfgang]

"African-American", though, is a stupid term. Everyone traces their ancestry to Africa.

Seriously? African Americans have been separated from Africa for less than four hundred years. It's been what? Many tens of thousands of years since the ancestors of Europeans migrated from Africa. A little perspective can do wonders.

if you think everyone should be called "light-skinned" or "dark-skinned" you're just being too politically correct, which is ridiculous

Calling somebody 'light-skinned" is indeed more politically correct, and more physically accurate, then calling them 'white'. That is true.

However, when most people say that something is TOO politically correct, they are either saying that people are going too far out of their way to avoid offense, or are butchering language to avoid offense. (if you're referring to other things, please specify).

Calling somebody 'dark-skinned' instead of 'black' is NOT butchering language, because the word 'black' is an exaggeration. And calling somebody 'dark-skinned' instead of 'black' is NOT going too far out of your way. It slots in nicely with other descriptions like "brown-eyed" or "blonde-haired". Therefore, although 'light-skinned' is politcally correct, it is not TOO politically correct. Wins in every way.

I think he was referring to the fact that you are catering to the minority that might go out of their way to be offended by the terms, and I generally feel like these people are just doing it so they can feel victimised. In the vast majority of cases the words are stripped of any derogatory meaning and are received as such. So why exactly are they inappropriate in 'formal' discussion?

It's a ridiculous cause you've adopted, on exactly the same level as people who dislike 'Merry Christmas' because it's offensive.

[Tanner]

You're correct in that meaning is insinuated as well as derived on both the sending and the receiving ends. However, I'm only directly responsible for the sending end of meaning. I am indirectly responsible because, as a good member of society, I do my best to make the world a decent place to live so when someone asks me to do something as a favour at it requires no additional effort on my part, I do it. I don't have to do it, but I do because I like making people happy.

I said "calling a person 'black' or 'white' is innapropriate and offensive in a formal situation". You just said, "I have no obligation to not be offensive". You haven't really argued against what I said.

Using offensive or racist terminology in a public or political environment will cause problems and will have legal/other consequences. These change from situation to situation, country to country, etc.

Alright, I feel like this is getting a little convoluted here so let's go over what we do and do not agree on.

Agree:
- Words that are intentionally offensive and unambiguous about shouldn't be used in polite conversation.
- Not all words are unambiguous and some hold different meanings and trigger different emotions among different individuals. This is normal and just a by-product of our socialization.
- When asked to stop some offensive behaviour, you should stop.
- If you don't, you have to deal with the consequences.

Disagree:
- When asked to stop some offensive behaviour, you must stop.
- Of course, whether the terms black and white are offensive but please refer to the second point in the "agree" section.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe we only disagree on the second point. If that's the case, this conversation isn't really going anywhere.

[Atilla]

if you think everyone should be called "light-skinned" or "dark-skinned" you're just being too politically correct, which is ridiculous

Calling somebody 'light-skinned" is indeed more politically correct, and more physically accurate, then calling them 'white'. That is true.

No, it's not. Many people who are considered "white", like Mediterranean types, actually have quite dark skin. Calling them fair-skinned would be inaccurate. Your terms do not actually line up with races properly.

Also, it's not accurate because when people say "white" or "black", they're referring to your heritage as much as the colour of your skin. People from a European background are "white", even if they have a heavy tan; Indigenous Australians are "black", even if they have fair skin.