Racism, prejudice and terminology (Bad News: EGYPT spinoff)

[karena]

So those here that are not of a typical majority uk type skin colour, you see we have a problem. The terms we use could be out of ignorance, or it could be because the whole subject is messed up to the point that no one really knows what is acceptable to all. I used the word 'coloured', to me that was a polite term of reference.

I dislike the term ' black ', because of reasons mentioned here by others, black people are not black, but many shades of the colour brown and if you look at it further, though I do not go out in the sun much, my skin colour as it is now due to normal everyday weathering, is a lighter shade of brown. Some would call that white, but I fail to see where a lighter shade of brown is white.

So you define yourself as 'coloured' too then? I think the concepts black and white goes some way beyond the colour of skin.

But whatever word is used one has to remember the context in which the word is used, surely people can discern from written sentence in what way a word is meant. If they can do this and understand, why pick up on one word in that sentence and display disgust, when they know no offense is meant by the words surrounding that word.

I have not seen any disgust displayed here. I think it was pretty respectfully and tactfully brought up and has stayed so throughout a discussion that could so easily descend into something very different.

Perhaps a way forward for all of us is for people of another ethnology, to not be so sensitive to single words in sentences, understand the context and forgive those others who struggle to choose the correct word when none yet is defined that is comfortable to all.

The white person can be offended too, just like a man can be offended about sexism, and able-bodied person can be offended about the joke about the disabled person. It is not for the people discriminated against to lighten up. Of course forgive and understand, but surely this can be at the same time as politely mentioning it. I'm grateful to the person who told me the America, USA distinction; it means I can communicate better without inadvertently offending and alienating people.

(Just to mention, from my many ethnically different friends, I have been called many things, whitey and others perhaps in the wrong context would be offensive, but I decided long ago, what I may be called by another, I will not take offense to, because for someone to attempt slander or ridicule by colour, is just a reflection on themselves. Any other adjective used to describe me, long haired yeti, fungus face, bean pole or similar, I can put up with, because it is only the person's observation and they are only one person, they are also things I can change if I so wished, but my skin colour, largely I can't change, so for someone to pick out a person for something they cannot change is frankly pathetic)

Exactly, possibly hence the sensitivity.

 

[Caroline_afifi]

Any other adjective used to describe me, long haired yeti, fungus face, bean pole or similar, I can put up with, because it is only the person's observation and they are only one person, they are also things I can change if I so wished, but my skin colour, largely I can't change, so for someone to pick out a person for something they cannot change is frankly pathetic)

Why 'put up' with that? this is about prejudice or bullying. Why should anyone get used to be called names because they are 'different'?

I get what you are saying about changeing something but it is a bit like the 'fat' argument. In theory, you dont have to be fat but why should people put up with this kind of abuse?

I think it is a different discussion to the one about accepted terminology for people of different cultures and race.
Like I said, as far as I have been made aware, 'Black' is a political term agreed upon as the accepted word to describe people whom are non white. This has been a consultation process through Goverment agencies with non white communities.
For me, if this the accepted term through a democratic process of consultation with the various communities then I am happy to accept that.

 

[da Sage]

So, the reason behind racial profiling is to make sure that all populations are being served fairly. Hmmm... that doesn't make sense. If racial fairness is a real moral principle and everyone was treated as a human being rather than a race or skin color, there wouldn't be any need to resort to such a measure to begin with.

Racial fairness is a real moral principle. Unfortunately, not everyone is racially fair, even if they are trying to be. Collecting data by race should be unnecessary, but it is useful. For example, if Asian kids' reading scores go up 20% in the course of a year, that usually means the school is doing something right. If they go down...it usually mean something is not right (although locally, it could also mean an influx of new students arriving from Thai refugee camps).

I think that it would be better to track the individual students' scores for this purpose (and add the racial data in from there), but the No Child Left Behind Act has different requirements.

I don't think tracking racial data should be necessary...but I think it is extremely helpful right now in certain institutions. I think allowing people to choose their racial identification, or allowing multiple choices, are all helpful approaches. Some of my friends think it should be done away with entirely, but I think the data helps give a clearer picture of people's experience with schooling, banking, job hunting...

We don't collect racial data in banking, but IMO we should - and use them to judge/penalize the creditors when cross-checked with the applicant's credit score/history...I think the higher-interest loans given to black people at dealerships and some banks are a result of prejudice, not credit problems. Creditors need to see some real repercussions from that, but the problem is, how can we prove it without the data?

And don't even get me started on the car loans sold to our military (young people with little credit, but with guaranteed income). 19% for a used car loan? Tell anyone you know who bought a car through the MILES program to call their bank, and check their rate...and consider refinancing immediately through their local credit union or local bank. *off soapbox*

 

[khanjar]

Something I have found out about government forms, whatever, you will in these forms find a question at the back asking for a persons race, as if that mattered. Personally, I always ignore this question,or tick 'other', depending on the mood.

My reasoning, I want to be treated like any other, not have some operative reading the form start seeing a colour, as often a mind's eye picture of colour can change things depending on the person viewing, or even deciding. I may be accepted or rejected based upon the facts laid down, not a perceived racial type.

This is particularly common with claim forms for UK benefits.

 

[da Sage]

My apologies if it was seen as offensive, that was not my intention. As to is the word used in the UK, yes, to a certain extent, all depending on the age group and location, what was learned in a lifetime is hard to shed whence a new description of anything comes along. The truth is, many in my age group are somewhat uncomfortable with descriptions of the various races of people and very much fear offending, as we just don't know what is the current unoffensive description is. I have grown up with the term coloured as a polite word for what the elder generation used, they not meaning to be offensive, but it is what they learned in their lifetime, and so on. With each generation words change, but now, what is the correct term, we hear so much, it is confusing, if we use one word, we find it is ok for some, but not ok for others.

I think the modern American term is "of color" for anyone not "white". Negro and colored were polite many years ago, but not anymore (in the USA, anyway). And "African-American", and "Asian-American" are very popular, too.

I prefer the terms black, white, Asian, Latino/a, Indian (for people from India), Native American (for people from pre-CC Americas), but I will always call people what they prefer, if they let me know.. I have gotten into arguments with a housemate who insisted in calling me "European-American"...I told him since I called his people "African-American" instead of black at his request when talking about racial issues, he should meet me halfway and call my group "white". I never did convince him that my family wasn't a "Klan family", though...he firmly believed that all white southerners were members of the KKK.

I have also heard American journalists calling a black Russian athlete "African-American" while interviewing him. The new term is *that* ingrained. I wonder what the next term will be...

 

[da Sage]

That's what they say. But when I had students who were illiterate through no fault of their own and went to try to enroll them in a literacy program, I was told none existed, why, cut backs, not enough money. But somehow, our government had billions of dollars to go drop bombs on Iraq! I lived in the Bronx, and there wasn't any money for health care, schools, affordable housing. Three years after Katrina and still people in the mostly black areas of the 9th ward still living in shambles, so what help? Cure racism? How? In the United States a house in a Black, mixed or minority neighborhood is still worth significantly LESS than the exact same house in an ALL WHITE neighborhood, so where is the help? Its still bullshit designed to keep people separate and play them off one against the other.

Is the lack of programs racism, or just unjust planning?

I've been excluded from career programs, once on the basis of race, twice on the basis of income. I'm only upset about ONE of those - I don't think I should have been kept out a job training program, just because I was currently taking temp jobs.

I agree with you that there is not enough help from the government institutions for minorities. About the house, that is market value, not determined by the government. When the market values are fair, then we will be much closer to a just world.

 

[khanjar]

I at the time in my youth when seeking employment as a Merchant Navy deck officer cadet could not see why I was point blank refused an application for a cadetship with Nigerian National sea ways. I at the time could not understand why, but I later found out from other mariners, colour.

This made me realise how it must be for many people not my colour around the world, the prejudice that exists, this was part of my training to accept all regardless of colour, but I am in a position to do so, whereas many not my colour who experience prejudice on an ancestral and daily basis might have a different view, I can accept that, given their experience.

 

[Yasmine Bint Al Nubia]

I'm not really sure where the thread became de-railed, but I do find it interesting that many Caucasion people on the forum have so many ideas, opinions about the word "black" and who is and who is not.

Every last one of us is a product of our environment, history and cultural conditioning. For those that live in Europe, Australia and elsewhere where Caucasians represent the economic and political majority, please don't forget the psychological effects of colonialization. These terms colored and black and negro, yellow red and whatever were terms used to describe people that were not of European heritage. These were NOT the terms that people of India, Africa, Asia call themselves. These were terms foisted upon THEM. These were not terms made up during our lifetime...generations of people have re-defined themselves based on how Caucasians saw them...and not how they saw themselves.
So I understand and emphathize with your positions, I understand that you may not feel it's necessary to fill out racial identity on forms, I understand that you think it's unfair, I understand that you don't think the word 'black' should apply to non-whites.
Guess what so do I!
But we are the product of this twisted ideology, you and I.
So you may not like using certain terms, fine and good..but has anyone given a thought as to how people choose to define themselves and why?
Mya made excellents points in her post!

I don't like the term coloured, even though some may think it's polite. To me it denotes a comparison and division between white and non-whites. it doesn't take into account my cultural background.
In America, I'm considered Black..not because it's the true color of my skin..but because I descended from the people in Africa.
I'm an African-American.
I'm Black because it represents a moment of self-definition in America..a political and social awakening.
I think it's important to offer a different POV. Agreement is not required..as it doesn't really change anything.
Yasmine

 

[da Sage]

What is correct according to your guidance, particularly for those from Indian sub continent asnd from far east. I should know as I work in childcare, but actually, apart from the Racial origin question on our REgistration forms for children, we tend to do everything we can to avoid saying anything - and so do children.

Me: Give it to Chris

Child: Do you mean Big Chris, Chris with a bluie jumper etc for several minutes. Neither of us saying Black Chris, the one with brown skin or similar when this is obviuosly te most noticeable thing about him!

I used to be much more idealistic regarding this sort of thing...as a teenager I got so upset when my mother would ask me if a particular friend was black or white (she was just trying to figure out if she already knew them). I thought it was racist...but then I realized she was just trying to eliminate 50% of the possibilities (because where we lived, there were lots of white and black people). I made an internal compromise, I would say their ethnic "look", but always add other descriptors, too. Of course, this is how she always describes people to me...race is just one of many things she sometimes mentions.

I was similarly annoyed when a neighbor could not find any other description for my wonderfully talented theater teacher than "that heavy woman", or similar. So I prodded her until she came up with something else. I don't have a problem with describing someone as slender, plump, or heavy...I just don't allow that to be the only thing I notice or mention! So now I say "Tall black Chris wearing the blue sweater today", or "Kathy, the white teacher with the chestnut-colored hair and high cheekbones, a bit full-figured", and I can the guilt - it's just a descriptor, not a value judgement.

 

[gisela]

Great read and some great points from everybody. I certainly get a bit more educated on the subject.

I remember the first time I heard the english term "Caucasian". I was baffled! I had NO idea that some people considered me caucasian and that I had to tick that box. (I was twelve and going to live in Canada with my family.) I certainly did not feel caucasian as that for me indicated people living in Caucasus, and still do.

 

[Aniseteph]

Something I have found out about government forms, whatever, you will in these forms find a question at the back asking for a persons race, as if that mattered. Personally, I always ignore this question,or tick 'other', depending on the mood.

My reasoning, I want to be treated like any other, not have some operative reading the form start seeing a colour, as often a mind's eye picture of colour can change things depending on the person viewing, or even deciding. I may be accepted or rejected based upon the facts laid down, not a perceived racial type.

This is particularly common with claim forms for UK benefits.

It is probably all entered into a computer by someone who doesn't care one way or the other, or have any say in the outcome! For the public sector I would expect that nowadays the race info is stripped off before anyone gets to make a potentially discriminatory decision.

 

[da Sage]

It is probably all entered into a computer by someone who doesn't care one way or the other, or have any say in the outcome! For the public sector I would expect that nowadays the race info is stripped off before anyone gets to make a potentially discriminatory decision.

Exactly.

 

[Marya]

I had deliberately picked America as I don't like US as I am sure there must be other United States of other things (I may well be wrong) and I didn't like to feed the US hegemony.

Estados Unidos de Mexico

Geographically speaking, Canada, USA, and EUM are all part of the continent of North America

 

[karena]

Well I never knew that was the full name of Mexico! Thanks Marya

 

[Mya]

Well I never knew that was the full name of Mexico! Thanks Marya

Blow me down! Neither did i.

 

[Marya]

Well I never knew that was the full name of Mexico! Thanks Marya

Ok, I double checked and wikipedia says it is actually Estados Unidos Mexicanos, and the Seal of the county has that on it. Sorry for getting it slightly wrong.

 

[gypsy8522]

Racial fairness is a real moral principle. Unfortunately, not everyone is racially fair, even if they are trying to be. Collecting data by race should be unnecessary, but it is useful.

Racial fairness may be a real moral principle NOW, but it wasn't 50 years ago in the South of US where black people were horrendously treated by their white 'masters'. Since morality wasn't invented over the turn of the century, I personally don't agree with that.

While laws change and religous texts that were once interpreted a certain way are "re-adjusted" to fit, there are certain things rooted in the cultural mentality of people that remain strong and preserved. This holds true the world over.


Jena Six - Profile of the Jena Six Trials

For example, if Asian kids' reading scores go up 20% in the course of a year, that usually means the school is doing something right. If they go down...it usually mean something is not right (although locally, it could also mean an influx of new students arriving from Thai refugee camps).

I think that it would be better to track the individual students' scores for this purpose (and add the racial data in from there), but the No Child Left Behind Act has different requirements.

I don't think tracking racial data should be necessary...but I think it is extremely helpful right now in certain institutions. I think allowing people to choose their racial identification, or allowing multiple choices, are all helpful approaches. Some of my friends think it should be done away with entirely, but I think the data helps give a clearer picture of people's experience with schooling, banking, job hunting...

We don't collect racial data in banking, but IMO we should - and use them to judge/penalize the creditors when cross-checked with the applicant's credit score/history...I think the higher-interest loans given to black people at dealerships and some banks are a result of prejudice, not credit problems. Creditors need to see some real repercussions from that, but the problem is, how can we prove it without the data?

Yes, racial data might not be collected in banking where it's needed. Why collect such info when it will be used for the reasons you mentioned, ie for the advantage of "coloured" people? I still don't see any reason behind asking for someone's race on an application form other than limiting human acheivement and making marginalized people feel more inferior than they already are.

And don't even get me started on the car loans sold to our military (young people with little credit, but with guaranteed income). 19% for a used car loan? Tell anyone you know who bought a car through the MILES program to call their bank, and check their rate...and consider refinancing immediately through their local credit union or local bank. *off soapbox*

And don't get me started either on racial profiling. Denying young military people car loans for not having enough credit is NOT the same thing as denying a group of people loans or jobs and humiliating them based on their race. The latter, according to Amnesty International, is a violation of human rights. Racial Profiling.
I can wait a few years until I'm a little older to get a car loan, but changing my skin color is not in my hands (I'm not Michael Jackson) and I am not going to change my name and religion either just in order to please others because they have a problem with it. *cough* Obama. Oh, please don't think I'm blaming the man for literally bending down on his knees and swearing to God that he was never anything but a Christian. If anything, it just proves he's a smart man. He knew there is no way on earth he could be president of the United States unless he did that. I mean if being black is a disgrace by itself and it could make him lose, he wouldn't want to add "Muslim" to the mix.

 

[karena]

The latter, according to Amnesty International, is a violation of human rights. Racial Profiling.

Quite where I stand of collecting race information on forms, I don't know. But this is totally different racial profiling to what Amnesty are talking about. The reason they can say x% of y race were targeted is because it is recorded. If it wasn't for collecting this info they wouldn't have been able to prove the problem existed. How can arresting people based on race be stopped, unless it is recorded what race they were to see if there is a disproportional number of a certain race being arrested (except in an ideal world of course, where it would just stop cos it's wrong)??

 

[Babylonia]

It drives my DH absolutely that the boxes to check are usually Black, White or Hispanic. Uh, Hispanic means Spanish speaking and you can be any race and be Hispanic. People are always commenting "You're Cuban, but you're white."

 

[gypsy8522]

Quite where I stand of collecting race information on forms, I don't know. But this is totally different racial profiling to what Amnesty are talking about. The reason they can say x% of y race were targeted is because it is recorded. If it wasn't for collecting this info they wouldn't have been able to prove the problem existed. How can arresting people based on race be stopped, unless it is recorded what race they were to see if there is a disproportional number of a certain race being arrested (except in an ideal world of course, where it would just stop cos it's wrong)??

Unfortunately, data and numbers are not used as evidence and they do not prove anything.

Amnesty International is not a governmental organization, it does not have access to records or enough evidence to prove racial profiling is happening. And that's why they are not able to take any action until now. Out of all the people who have been racially profiled, very few had the courage to speak up and filed charges, and just look at the number of lawsuits that have been dismissed. While you have one side insisting that racial profiling exists, the other more powerful side insists that it doesn't.

I just don't see how continuing to group people as a race (rather than human beings) is going to create fairness. The sad part is when racial info is collected, it is done for all the wrong reasons. Do you seriously believe that a White police officer in the US is going to "get arrested" for racially profiling a non-White person whom he thinks looks suspicous and criminal like? Arrested by whom? The fact is that Black people do get arrested more, twice the rate for lesser offenses. Is that enough evidence to penalize officers for discrimination? Apparently not.