So this has been exploding on my Facebook feed, and it's sparking enough discussion I figure I might as well have one here too.



This was my response I made previously.



So that's my current stance/view on the matter.
Thoughts?

Call black people black, white people white and be done with it. Calling somebody African American is, in my opinion, a ridiculous racial identifier. It would be like me identifying myself as European-Canadian, which is pretty dumb considering I was born in Canada, Europe is a diverse place that has more than just white people, and it sounds like some kind of unnecessary attempt at political correctness.

Let's also add the fact that not all Africans are black. You don't call Egyptian/ Syrian/ Libyan/ Algerian/ Moroccan people African Americans, and they've been there since ancient freaking times. Even South Africa has a huge white population. You'd call one of them, provided they moved to America, white, not African-American.

I can see why she is tired of the label. I would be, too.

Good point which I also didn't consider.

I have already conceded in that she's right on the african american aspect of it. But I think she's blurring too many lines/simplifying far too much by trying the same when it comes to sexualities and LGBT terms. Strictly in terms of english language usage mind you, I completely agree about treating everyone as people and equals. But that doesn't require the abolishment of certain terms/words to accomplish.

A lot of this is a product of harmful influences on the culture. The phrase 'African American' only exists because for over a hundred years we used 'Black' and 'Negro' and other words as negative. Now it's *great* that the younger generations (like me, and probably you) are comfortable with simpler words because we can say them without malice being meant or heard. America wasn't always like that -- still isn't, in lots of places.

So when she's like "Hey, come on, can't I just be an American?" That's indicative of social progress that's happened since Oprah was her age. When Oprah was her age, saying that would mean 'I'm turning my back on black culture,' in a time when that's all anybody wanted a famous black woman to do. That used to mean giving up. Now it means something different -- but those wounds are still going to feel fresh for a long time.

Anyway that's just one ignorant white guy's take. I don't know what I'm talking about, just tell me the thing I have to say that makes me not sound racist, and I'll go with that.

The whole African-American thing is like the Irish-American or the German-American to me. Trying to connect with their roots by adding an ethnicity to '-American'. You're just bleedin' American.

In the end we're all Somalian and Ethiopian.

we lub u Lucy

If you were born in Africa and you one day decided to move to America and become a resident of the country, you're an African American. Regardless of your skin complexion. If you're black and live in America, you're just black and that's it.

I had a chance to watch the video now, I am now aware she means she doesn't want any descriptive label, period, even going so far as to say she identifies with being Caucasian and Asian... which is where I'm definitely starting to see where you're coming from, Gwazi. I was expecting something much more along the lines of her simply saying she was tired of being called and African-American instead of black, not "I'm a colourless person, I'm an American, and I'm bisexual and with a woman but don't single me out by referencing my sexual orientation."

This is definitely one of those cases of somebody being clearly detached from practicality and reality. Identifying with a sexual orientation by name isn't offensive or degrading, which is kind of the point of all those pride parades and waving that rainbow flag around so people of their own respective sexual orientation can feel comfortable with themselves in a primarily heterosexual population. Saying "Hey, I'm gay" shouldn't have to be a stigma; it's kind of like you said, Gwazi, it's a handy identifier for people to meet with people and potentially finding a partner. Gee Raven, it's super fantastic that you can accomplish everything by how you feel and not have to communicate with the richly vast language that we as humans developed with other people, but most of us who live in the real world tend to need to describe things, including themselves, to accomplish what we're after. Good luck filing a police report, as well.

"So, can you describe the man who stole your purse?"
"Okay, was he white, black, Asian...?"
"He was American."

Yeah, good luck just getting by with that.

In all honesty I'm getting the vibe from Raven that she's a Hipster who simply hates labels for the sake of using labels.
And my honest reaction to that is, then how do you speak english!?
I mean isn't basically every word a label for something if you think about it?

There are a lot of factors at play here.

I mean, objectively speaking, she is correct. "Race" doesn't exist outside of social / cultural context.

However, socially and culturally, some might argue she's erasing much of her heritage. Though Western/White culture does that already by referring to anyone from Africa as African instead of by their country. Hell, Western culture does that to anyone with dark skin and broad noses regardless of where they're from. I mean, we don't do it with Europe. As already stated, we're Irish-Americans or German-American. Never European-American. American culture is full of faults in its racial system. But, it's already so ingrained into our every day life that we seem to think it's almost a necessity. Not to even mention "mixed" people who probably have some of the worst of it when it comes to identity.

I don't really have a solid opinion here. All that I know is that our racial system has so many flaws and discussing what a celebrity chooses or chooses not to identify as is just pulling a small twig off a very large and very old tree.

Kidd said I mean, objectively speaking, she is correct. "Race" doesn't exist outside of social / cultural context.

Not 100% true, there are small genetic differences between the races. It's why we have different skin colours to begin with.
Nothing that should suggest separation, inferiority or anything like that. But it's not a strictly cultural difference.

Magic Magnum said
Not 100% true, there are small genetic differences between the races. It's why we have different skin colours to begin with.Nothing that should suggest separation, inferiority or anything like that. But it's not a strictly cultural difference.

There are small genetic differences between groups, but not any differences significant enough to divide 7 billion people into three or four races (which we do here in America). So, yes, 100% true.

Saying that there is no such thing as race does not mean there is no genetic variation. It just means there is no such thing as race.

Edit: Also I wanna add that we don't have different skin colors because we're different "races" (another flaw in the racial system). We're different "races" because we have different skin colors.

If you hold dual citizenship in the country of Africa and the country of America then you can call yourself African-American.

Since there is no country called Africa you can't call yourself African-American.

The closest thing to African-American is if you hold dual citizenship in the country of South Africa and the country of America then you can call yourself South African-American.

If you only hold citizenship in the country of America, then you are American, not Asian-American, not African-American, nor any other stupid thing you want to call yourself.

Revans Exile said
If you hold dual citizenship in the country of Africa and the country of America then you can call yourself African-American.Since there is no country called Africa you can't call yourself African-American.The closest thing to African-American is if you hold dual citizenship in the country of South Africa and the country of America then you can call yourself South African-American.If you only hold citizenship in the country of America, then you are American, not Asian-American, not African-American, nor any other stupid thing you want to call yourself.

I was gonna flip if you just left it at "the country of Africa," lol. So thank you for this refreshing POV.

Magic Magnum said
Not 100% true, there are small genetic differences between the races. It's why we have different skin colours to begin with.Nothing that should suggest separation, inferiority or anything like that. But it's not a strictly cultural difference.

Irish people have different genetics then italians, just as much different then from Morrocan, or a Persian, or a chinese. Irish aren't a race. Race means a vastly different thing. There is a bit of viking in half of europe at this point, mongolian to. Our gentic soup is far to muddy to be considered that clearcut. The notion of seperate human races is a flawed scientific practice that was established with the rise of old school darwinism and persisted to make a clear line between us vs them.

Hellis said
Irish people have different genetics then italians, just as much different then from Morrocan, or a Persian, or a chinese. Irish aren't a race. Race means a vastly different thing. There is a bit of viking in half of europe at this point, mongolian to. Our gentic soup is far to muddy to be considered that clearcut. The notion of seperate human races is a flawed scientific practice that was established with the rice of old school darwinism and persisted to make a clear line between us vs them.

By that same logic the idea of dog breeds is a flawed scientific practice because they are capable of interbreeding.
Different races being able to produce offspring and therefore mixing the gene poll doesn't mean race no longer exists all of the sudden.

I mean sure, one day we'll reach a point where the gene's are mixed so much that there aren't really any defined races anymore. But we have not reached that point yet, and hell it's entirely possible for someone to be a race such as say Asian, but still say have some German ancestry.

Also, I never claimed Irish was a race.

The Nexerus said

This a common confusion/defensive retaliation that often get's brought up when race is discussed.

So allow me to make this perfectly clear.

No one is disguising, entertaining or theorizing the idea of a Master Race.
It is simply being noted humans posses some genetic variances/differences among one another, that is not suggesting one is superior.
That's like me saying "By standing next to each other, I can determine my friend is taller is me and has slightly darker skin. Now, using this observation clearly one us is better than the other".
That's bloody insane, can people stop confusing genetic variance with master race ideas?

Magic Magnum said
By that same logic the idea of dog breeds is a flawed scientific practice because they are capable of interbreeding.
Different races being able to produce offspring and therefore mixing the gene poll doesn't mean race no longer exists all of the sudden.

I mean sure, one day we'll reach a point where the gene's are mixed so much that there aren't really any defined races anymore. But we have not reached that point yet, and hell it's entirely possible for someone to be a race such as say Asian, but still say have some German ancestry.

Also, I never claimed Irish was a race.

First off, humans are not dogs. There is more genetic variation between dog breeds than there ever was or will be between humans. Humans on different continents are more genetically similar than than even monkeys within the same species. (I use monkeys as an example because we're closely related to them anyway.)

Let me make a point here:



Even though these twin girls girls are more genetically similar to one another than you and I (and we're both "white") are, they're considered different races. They're literally twins and one will grow up being called "black" and the other "white" because they're apparently so biologically different. And I'm sorry, but if you think that makes sense on a genetic, scientific, and objective level, you're an idiot.

And again, you seem to have this idea in your head that race creates diversity. And this is wrong. Diversity exists without race and race culturally exists as a consequence of diversity. Race creates groups--limited groups. Diversity is a spectrum, though, with no clear distinct lines between humanity as a whole. Denying race does not mean we're ignoring diversity. it actually means the opposite: it means we see that there is more diversity than our made up labels can contain.

Race does not exist. I am an anthropology major (that means I study humans since I get asked a lot--everything about humans) and in literally every anthro class I've had, the first and most fundamental thing discussed is that race does not exist outside of a cultural context. These are subjects taught by professors with Ph. D's who have been studying this subject longer than I've been alive (this is almost 20 years, btw). So I'm real tired of getting into "discussions" about this with people who keep insisting they know more about human diversity than these professors do. I mean, if a physicist explains quantum theory to a person, said person does not go "oh no, that's wrong." But for some reason, anthropology merits a debate. But I digress.

So again, race is not objective, scientific, or biological. There is no gene for race. It's purely social. And I understand it's a little hard to wrap your head around (it was for me), but it is what it is.

Edit: With all this said, though, I don't want to come off as demonizing the concept of race. It's acceptable on a cultural level and it helps people identify others and--more importantly--themselves. However, people give it more credit than it actually has.

Kidd said First off, humans are not dogs.

Really? They aren't? I had no idea.
And here I thought me and my pet dog shared the same mother.

Kidd said There is more genetic variation between dog breeds than there ever was or will be between humans. Humans on different are more genetically similar than than even monkeys within the same species. (I use monkeys as an example because we're closely related to them anyway.)

Now thats what you should of started with (rather than one other thing which I'll get into later) rather than stating the obvious. :P

Kidd said Let me make a point here:Even though these twin girls girls are more genetically similar to one another than you and I (and we're both "white") are, they're considered different races. They're literally twins and one will grow up being called "black" and the other "white" because they're apparently so biologically different.

I should clarify, when I say race I am referring to things such as Asian, African-American (This one we already admitted is in need of mass adjustment), Hispanic and Caucasian.
Not something such as "You are a black race, you are a white race". That being said though, even if we chose to discount race entirely those two would still be called black and white. Not cause of race... but because that's their skin colour.

In the same sense where one of them will be called brown haired, and another blond.

Kidd said And I'm sorry, but if you think that makes sense on a genetic, scientific, and objective level, you're an idiot.

Objectively it's a visual fact, they have different skin colours.
Genetically and Scientifically, there is still some gene variance causing their skin to be different colours.
Now would that alone indicate different race? Probably not, but let's at least not act like there isn't any variance going on here.

+As we expose farther below your knowledge in this is not something you picked up at elementary school or something. This is specialized education you obtained from post-secondary education. In a course that the vast majority of people would not have taken. So fine, for this case you probably know better than I do, but recognize that you received specialized training for this, and others who have not done so are not suddenly idiots.

Kidd said And again, you seem to have this idea in your head that race creates diversity

I never said this.
I refer you to examples I made in my OP.



My argument is that they serve as ways to better explain, discuss etc without having to go into long unnecessary detail each time.
So me saying "______ is asian" is not creating more diversity, but it's saving me from having to go "________ is from _______ country, has ______, ______ & _______ facial features as well as ______, ______ & _______ body features" etc.

Kidd said Diversity exists without race

Really? I had no idea.
And here I thought me my friends who happen to be black, brown and asian were completely the same as me.

Kidd said Race creates groups--limited groups. Diversity is a spectrum, though, with no clear distinct lines between humanity as a whole.

I never said it wasn't flawed.
Hell I outright admitted it was back when I agreed that the term "African-American" was outdated and misused.

Kidd said Denying race does not mean we're ignoring diversity. it actually means the opposite: it means we see that there is more diversity than our made up labels can contain.

Once again, they're descriptive terms made to help save time.
No one who uses terms such as Asian or African American is acting like that's all that defines people.
Even genetically, no one who uses those terms acts like all people of ______ race are the same genetically.

For a non-race example. I am a hetereosexual, one my best friends is bi, and another is asexual.
But by saying this I am not suddenly labeling them as such, or saying that's all they are. I am not at all suggesting that is the extent of who we are, nor do I need to abandon such terms to be able to see them as independent and unique individuals.

Kidd said I am an anthropology major (that means I study humans since I get asked a lot--everything about humans) and in literally every anthro class I've had, the first and most fundamental thing discussed is that These are subjects taught by professors with Ph. D's who have been studying this subject longer than I've been alive (this is almost 20 years, btw).

That's fine, and it's good you told me this.
But for future reference, if you ever intended to discuss a point such as this to someone try starting off with your educational background rather than ending with it.
That way whoever you're trying to convince it aware of your knowledge/expertise from the start, rather than forming opinions/counter-points and then suddenly having to re-think/do it all at the end.

Kidd said So I'm real tired of getting into "discussions" about this with people who keep insisting they know more about human diversity than these professors do.

Being in ECE (Early Childhood Education) I can relate to this, but normally when people start claiming stuff like "Hitting your kids for punishment is not only acceptable, but requires for respect" and "Only Physical abuse exist, all this emotional and psychological abuse and condition crap is bullshit". It can be very frustrating to have been trained to know better in X field, but constantly see everyone else getting it so wrong.

However, with that having been said...

Kidd said I mean, if a physicist explains quantum theory to a person, said person does not go "oh no, that's wrong." But for some reason, anthropology merits a debate.

Like I said above, this was not stuff taught in elementary or high school for everyone. Some of this is specialized knowledge/training, as frustrating as it is to see most people not know better you can't really blame them either. That's like a surgeon getting mad at their patient for not understanding the surgery procedure, or it'd be like your professor getting mad at you for not understanding the stuff you just explained to me before you had even had your first class.

If an expert comes up, set's things right and then people keep arguing and saying otherwise, then you have a legitimate reason to be angry with them. The Expert has to be able to inform the person first, you can't expect everyone else to know it just because you already heard it in class, you need to take the time to explain it to them first.

Kidd said However, people give it more credit than it actually has.

Probably, but a lot of that could be due to what I explained above.
Most people are not properly trained/educated in that content, so you're going to have a lot of people make mistakes about that until more public/generalized education or awareness can get around about it.

Magic Magnum said
Now thats what you should of started with (rather than one other thing which I'll get into later) rather than stating the obvious. :P

Can you not, lol

Magic Magnum said
I should clarify, when I say race I am referring to things such as Asian, African-American (This one we already admitted is in need of mass adjustment), Hispanic and Caucasian.

But that's just it. There are people who do not fit those "races." Race doesn't work. What you're referring to is geographic origin. And, often, Hispanics--for example--are more genetically similar to white or Caucasian people than they are to other Hispanics. This is just another reason why race doesn't work.

Magic Magnum said
Genetically and Scientifically, there is still some gene variance causing their skin to be different colours.

Exactly. But that doesn't make them difference races. Just like an African-American isn't a different race than you.

Magic Magnum said So fine, for this case you probably know better than I do, but recognize that you received specialized training for this, and others who have not done so are not suddenly idiots.

No, that's fair. I understand. I was a little harsh, haha.

Magic Magnum said
Hell I outright admitted it was back when I agreed that the term "African-American" was outdated and misused.

Yes, you did. However, if something is this flawed, then it doesn't work on a scientific level. People, on average, cannot guess a person's race correctly over 80% of the time. That's a 20% if this was a test--a test that would quickly fail. To further this point, I recommend checking this quiz out. It asks you to sort people into races and I can almost guarantee that you'll fail.

Magic Magnum said
For a non-race example. I am a hetereosexual, one my best friends is bi, and another is asexual.
But by saying this I am not suddenly labeling them as such, or saying that's all they are. I am not at all suggesting that is the extent of who we are, nor do I need to abandon such terms to be able to see them as independent and unique individuals.

No, but heterosexuals like the opposite gender. Bisexuals like both men and women. And asexuals are just not interested in anyone sexually. This is a given. You cannot do that with race. There is not a single universal trait or gene that applies to a single race. Not all African-Americans have dark skin (refer to the twins for example--the white one is still descended from a black parent). Not all Caucasians have narrow noses.

You're absolutely right that your sexuality doesn't define who you are but it isn't comparable to race. Labels with human sexuality work very, very well. Labels with human diversity do not.

Magic Magnum said
But for future reference, if you ever intended to discuss a point such as this to someone try starting off with your educational background rather than ending with it.

I suppose I should. That's fair. Though I'm cautious about doing so via the internet because people are quick to dismiss it as bull shit or trying to "win points."

Magic Magnum said
If an expert comes up, set's things right and then people keep arguing and saying otherwise, then you have a legitimate reason to be angry with them. The Expert has to be able to inform the person first, you can't expect everyone else to know it just because you already heard it in class, you need to take the time to explain it to them first.

Very true. I suppose I was being a little ridiculous, haha.