Racism questions

[mommyoffive]

1 minute ago, kand said:

For a practical, current example, take Covid. It’s very clear that people of color are being disproportionately affected compared to people who are white. This applies not justify  people who are Black. Though it doesn’t apply to all non-white groups (I believe East Asian and South Asian Americans are not generally being as hard hit, but I expect that varies by area). It makes sense to talk about the impact on people of color vs white people in this case. There are lots of similar examples. 

See above for Covid example. 

To me it’s similar to hearing someone refer to “Oriental” people. I grew up hearing that a lot. Fortunately it’s become more rare, but it always hits me weird when someone says it. 

African American may be mislabeling people though. Not everyone with dark skin is from Africa. Nor are they all American. 

It’s really hard to imagine how someone could get in a position to be a politician and have no idea that “colored people” is no longer a polite term, and is in fact inappropriate. I’m certain my kids would all know that and would never use that, and even my elderly parents, who can sometimes make some comments that make me cringe, would know better than that. Maybe there are some parts of the country where people still say that and that’s why it sounds normal to you? I don’t know. I can’t think of why else it would. 

Yes, I know.  That is why I don't like it.  Or other labels.

[DoraBora]

7 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Why is it offensive to say a colored person but not offensive to say 'people of color'? 

Why isn't it offensive to call people "white"?  I'm not white.  I don't know anyone who is. Copy machine paper is white. 

I'm also not Caucasian.  My ancestors aren't from the Caucasus Mountain area (near the Caspian Sea).

But I'm called Caucasian, or White, non-Hispanic.

[DoraBora]

2 minutes ago, kand said:

Has the word “white” historically been used to exclude you from various public facilities in this country? 

Not personally.  Of course not.  I still find being called "white" ridiculous.

[katilac]

1 minute ago, DoraBora said:

Not personally.  Of course not.  I still find being called "white" ridiculous.

Not personally? I mean, not anyone, right? The word "white" has not historically been used to exclude anyone from various public facilities in this country. 

[Farrar]

13 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Yes, I know.  That is why I don't like it.  Or other labels.

First off, it's all very well that you - and several other people in this thread - don't "like" labels. But it's deeply disingenuous to act like you cannot see visible differences between peoples. Skin color is not invisible to people with sight. We cannot help but see it. Children cannot help but see it. When we avoid discussing it, we're not avoiding actually seeing it and before you claim that you somehow miraculously do, think about how ridiculous that sounds. We also cannot avoid knowing it's there. Nor can we avoid the fact that racism exists. Saying "I don't like labels" does not erase racism. In fact, saying "I don't like labels" is a way to prohibit victims of racism from discussing racism. It says, I refuse to listen to you discuss race. 

Practically speaking, if we do not discuss race - or ethnicity, poverty, gender, language, hair color, genetic mutations, disabilities, whatever - any differences between peoples that exist - then it is impossible to know if there are problems specific to those groups. If people with red hair turned out to be more susceptible to a particular cancer, then how does it help us fight that cancer for the medical researchers to say, "Oh, I don't like to label people by hair color," and then refuse to do any studies to figure out why gingers are dying of a particular cancer more than other people? That would be a ridiculous thing to assert and do. Yet, by saying "no labels" that's what you and others ask of research. Oh no, we aren't allowed to ask if one group is disproportionately affected by something. That might remind us that there are differences and that would be uncomfortable? Why?

Discussing race is not a form of racism. Race exists as a concept. People ignoring that it exists only reinforces its power.

[DoraBora]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

Not personally? I mean, not anyone, right? The word "white" has not historically been used to exclude anyone from various public facilities in this country. 

The question was, "Has the word "white" historically been used to exclude you from various public facilities in this country?" (emphasis mine)  I was answering the question, not the broader question of all of the wrongs ever committed against "non-white" people.

I just don't like being called "white" or "Caucasian", because it seems strange to me.  It's not likely to change, but it bothers me.

[Farrar]

This thread is ridiculous. I can't believe I just responded to anything in it. These answers are out there in so many places. I can't believe anyone is actually confused that colorblind ideology is a way of reinforcing racism or that there's a loaded history behind "colored" that isn't there with "people of color." You just don't want to know and don't want to be challenged at this point.

[Roadrunner]

1 hour ago, kand said:

For a practical, current example, take Covid. It’s very clear that people of color are being disproportionately affected compared to people who are white. This applies not just to people who are Black. Though it doesn’t apply to all non-white groups (I believe East Asian and South Asian Americans are not generally being as hard hit, but I expect that varies by area). It makes sense to talk about the impact on people of color vs white people in this case. There are lots of similar examples. 

See above for Covid example. 

This makes me cringe. It is affecting people in certain profession (work that can’t be taken home) and with certain medical conditions (that might be more likely found among certain groups), but it isn’t color that Covid is going after. I would rather see the discussion about economic realities than “these poor brown people.” 
Again, it isn’t affecting my neighbor, a wealthy but a very brown Iranian. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Melissa Louise]

27 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

This makes me cringe. It is affecting people in certain profession (work that can’t be taken home) and with certain medical conditions (that might be more likely found among certain groups), but it isn’t color that Covid is going after. I would rather see the discussion about economic realities than “these poor brown people.” 
Again, it isn’t affecting my neighbor, a wealthy but a very brown Iranian. 

In many countries, but particularly the US, race acts as a proxy for class. BIPOC communities are disproportionately excluded from resources as a class, due to historic inequity.

Re increased susceptibility to Covid, causative factors seem multifactorial (sex, age, type of work, type of housing, obesity, other morbidities). Poorer people are more greatly impacted by some of these factors than wealthier people, and BIPOC are disproportionately represented amongst the poor. 

There are poor whites working in dangerous industries. There are wealthy POC who who don't deal with public transit and overcrowding. At an individual level, your race doesn't predict your susceptibility; at a class level, it can explain some stuff. 

 

[Roadrunner]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

In many countries, but particularly the US, race acts as a proxy for class. BIPOC communities are disproportionately excluded from resources as a class, due to historic inequity.

Re increased susceptibility to Covid, causative factors seem multifactorial (sex, age, type of work, type of housing, obesity, other morbidities). Poorer people are more greatly impacted by some of these factors than wealthier people, and BIPOC are disproportionately represented amongst the poor. 

There are poor whites working in dangerous industries. There are wealthy POC who who don't deal with public transit and overcrowding. At an individual level, your race doesn't predict your susceptibility; at a class level, it can explain some stuff. 

 

You don’t need to explain me that. I am not an idiot and understand very well how you prefer to label.
I object being called BIPOC. 
 I am saying it’s better to be more precise. Native Americans can be susceptible to certain illness that African Americans aren’t. If you want to talk about medical issues, be precise about the community. If you any to talk about economic issues (the fact that Covid devastated our farming community because of work conditions), then talk about that. 
There aren’t two communities - whites and the rest. There are many communities here. 

[Melissa Louise]

16 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

You don’t need to explain me that. I am not an idiot and understand very well how you prefer to label.
I object being called BIPOC. 
 I am saying it’s better to be more precise. Native Americans can be susceptible to certain illness that African Americans aren’t. If you want to talk about medical issues, be precise about the community. If you any to talk about economic issues (the fact that Covid devastated our farming community because of work conditions), then talk about that. 
There aren’t two communities - whites and the rest. There are many communities here. 

Oh, I don't think you're an idiot. I was sort of agreeing with you, but clearly didn't do a good job of expressing that. Sorry. I agree that reductive approaches aren't particularly helpful and that more precision, rather than less, is ideal. 

 

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

5 hours ago, Melissa in Australia said:

Sorry if I upset you. 

I have never called someone black. Nor do I know anyone who does. Except some now decease inlaws in Canada. In my area of Australia Aboriginals are called Aboriginals,  Sudanese are called Sudanese, Italians are called Italians, Chinese are  called of Chinese descent. 

To call someone the colour of their skin is frowned at. It would be like calling Chinese yellow skins or slant eyes. 

The only time I could imagine calli g someone the colour of their skin would be if there was a police report for a wanted dangerous person and they were giving a description. 

I do think australia has quite a different set of racial issues to the US and terms that in the US are really unacceptable have only become that way in more recent years.  Partly that may just be because we’re kind of racist but the history is different too.

[Ausmumof3]

3 hours ago, Farrar said:

Are these genuine questions or just ways to try and stir the pot? Like, is there actually a confusion that there's a historical basis for "colored" people that is rooted in a time of great racism but that "people of color" is a phrase that was invented and is pretty widely embraced by many non-white peoples? 

And am I actually seeing serious arguments for colorblindness here or is this just more stirring the pot? Like, seriously, I don't know at this point. Do people really not understand that naming skin color - something infants can see and react to - is not racist. Naming race is not racism.

Promise I’m genuinely not trying to stir the pot.  I’m wondering why it’s ok to talk about skin colour but at the same time it wasn’t ok for someone in the royal family to wonder what colour a baby’s skin would be?  I mean I totally get that it could be racist in the context or the way it’s said (like if the implication is that somehow having darker skin would be a bad thing - and I’m quite able to believe that in the context that may have been what was being implied). but I’m trying to figure out the difference.  Couldn’t it be that talking about babies skin colour is just like talking about eye colour etc etc?  We definitely talked about how ds had blue eyes like dad and wondered if the others would because genetically it’s less likely.  I mean it’s not something I ever would talk about because I’d be too scared of saying it or coming across wrong but then maybe avoiding the topic is problematic too?

[Ausmumof3]

In response to the original question I think someone explained in another thread here that people of colour puts the people aspect first rather than the colour of the skin first, kind of how there’s a difference between saying someone is autistic versus has autism or disabled versus had a disability.  Even as I write that I’m kind of realising that this are sort of negative comparisons which doesn’t seem right.  Apologies if I’m wrong I’m definitely not an expert in these things.  I do try to learn and change as I know.

[Melissa Louise]

8 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I do think australia has quite a different set of racial issues to the US and terms that in the US are really unacceptable have only become that way in more recent years.  Partly that may just be because we’re kind of racist but the history is different too.

It just doesn't make sense here to conflate, say, brown Asian experience with indigenous or Torres Straight Islander experience and it seems we're moving away from even that broad grouping lately in favour of more specific names for local groups of people. And the immigrant experience, say, of being Somali, is different again. We also have a lot of anti-Asian prejudice, where in some other non-Au contexts, Asians are considered white-adjacent. Not here! Even when people of colour choose a 'racialized person community identifier', it's not BIPOC, it's not Black, it's Blak. But that's only for the I. And the TS. 

BIPOC, people of colour - they are UK/US terms, which some younger groups use here, but which really don't make much sense here. 

[SoCal_Bear]

Maybe the issue is focusing on being too literal and thinking strictly of word meanings versus the concept that certain words and phrases actually come to embody certain ideas in a culture and society. This about the phrase social distancing. Its literal meaning of the word is still the same, but what it really means in this 2020 is something completely different than what it meant prior to 2020. The actual use of colored carries a lot of negative social and cultural history around racism that is not apparent unless you deliberately chose to learn about that history and why it is loaded. There are many words and phrases that people use often have no idea are quite loaded. 

For example, the term Chinaman. The use of this term is derogatory because it is used in the context of racial slurs. The literal meaning is correct and accurate if you interpret it as a person of Chinese descent and even though it was historically a compound word like Englishman. However, this term should never ever be used because it is the equivalent of the n-word for Asians. 

Even when you don't completely understand, perhaps you can take the point of view that in your personal lived experience you don't fully grasp why this is offensive. Then you have two choices 1) accept the feedback/counsel that this word is considered highly offensive by people of color/minorities/non-white communities and just stop using it, and 2) recognize that there is some history and knowledge that you don't know and you have a choice to either not learn about or do become educated about. People of color don't actually have a choice about having this knowledge because their lived experience and histories have already sadly educated them about "colored" and all that means.

I hope these links might help if you want to learn more as I sincerely think you are open to becoming educated about this topic:
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/03/30/295931070/the-journey-from-colored-to-minorities-to-people-of-color

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-dahleen-glanton-colored-email-reading-list-20200304-utx7geiwm5hupa3t7w6xr3xqn4-story.html
 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by calbear

[Carrie12345]

3 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Promise I’m genuinely not trying to stir the pot.  I’m wondering why it’s ok to talk about skin colour but at the same time it wasn’t ok for someone in the royal family to wonder what colour a baby’s skin would be?  I mean I totally get that it could be racist in the context or the way it’s said (like if the implication is that somehow having darker skin would be a bad thing - and I’m quite able to believe that in the context that may have been what was being implied). but I’m trying to figure out the difference.  Couldn’t it be that talking about babies skin colour is just like talking about eye colour etc etc?  We definitely talked about how ds had blue eyes like dad and wondered if the others would because genetically it’s less likely.  I mean it’s not something I ever would talk about because I’d be too scared of saying it or coming across wrong but then maybe avoiding the topic is problematic too?

To “wonder” is normal. I always wondered what my kids would look like. To “worry” is a whole different thing. No one truly worries that a baby’s eye color is going to be *problematic.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I can assure you, again, that I am expressing genuine confusion about people of color vs colored people.  It is literally the same description.   Is it a big deal to stop  using the expression? Of course not.  If I actually can understand the difference enough to remember it.  But I very much identify with the poor politician ( and trust me I have no concept of who is is or who he stands for) who stumbled over saying black vs colored and chose colored and got crucified for it.  

I feel for you in that correct terminology and certain other features of “people who are different from me” can come into and fall out of favor quickly and it is hard to keep up sometimes. I mean, hey, I recently discovered on here that impulsively saying, “Watch yourself!” to a woman who almost ran into my grocery cart sounds hostile to quite a lot of people, while to me, it’s a normal, regional expression meant to protect another person from impending harm. I do feel for people, particularly older people, who stumble over what term to use because maybe they remember someone said recently, “Hey, Bob, just FYI, ‘colored people’ is not terminology we use anymore,” but are presently forgetting the term they should use. 

I wouldn’t defend terminology the way you do here, though. If people in a certain group say they don’t like the use of that syntax and word choice, I train myself not to use it anymore. A parallel might be, “He’s Jewish” vs. “He’s a Jew.” Literally the same description, but some Jewish people (not all) don’t like the second, because it seems connected with Anti-Semitism and all the atrocities Jewish people have suffered. Having said that, I do know some Jewish people who are not bothered by, “He’s a Jew,” and who say this themselves. But so long as I know some or many Jewish people do not like the implications of the other way, I just trained myself not to say it. 

[SKL]

9 hours ago, Scarlett said:

That is absolutely bizarre to me that you would never describe someone by the color their skin. Do you also never use hair color or any other physical description to discuss someone?

It used to be such a sensitive topic where I grew up (as in people of color would visibly bristle at any mention of color), I learned to avoid it if at all possible.  I remember having lunch with a black friend and trying to explain which waitress I was talking about.  She finally said, "you mean the black lady?"

[SKL]

8 hours ago, Farrar said:

First off, it's all very well that you - and several other people in this thread - don't "like" labels. But it's deeply disingenuous to act like you cannot see visible differences between peoples. Skin color is not invisible to people with sight. We cannot help but see it. Children cannot help but see it. When we avoid discussing it, we're not avoiding actually seeing it and before you claim that you somehow miraculously do, think about how ridiculous that sounds. We also cannot avoid knowing it's there. Nor can we avoid the fact that racism exists. Saying "I don't like labels" does not erase racism. In fact, saying "I don't like labels" is a way to prohibit victims of racism from discussing racism. It says, I refuse to listen to you discuss race. 

Practically speaking, if we do not discuss race - or ethnicity, poverty, gender, language, hair color, genetic mutations, disabilities, whatever - any differences between peoples that exist - then it is impossible to know if there are problems specific to those groups. If people with red hair turned out to be more susceptible to a particular cancer, then how does it help us fight that cancer for the medical researchers to say, "Oh, I don't like to label people by hair color," and then refuse to do any studies to figure out why gingers are dying of a particular cancer more than other people? That would be a ridiculous thing to assert and do. Yet, by saying "no labels" that's what you and others ask of research. Oh no, we aren't allowed to ask if one group is disproportionately affected by something. That might remind us that there are differences and that would be uncomfortable? Why?

Discussing race is not a form of racism. Race exists as a concept. People ignoring that it exists only reinforces its power.

I am not colorblind, but having lived with people of color for decades, I can honestly say that I forget our skin color is different, unless there is some reason for it to come up.

I can't speak for whatever my kids noticed when they were little, though they rarely if ever mentioned skin color until at least age 5 or so, and then only when there was a reason it might matter.  Their preschool/KG class (they stayed with mostly the same 8-9 kids for 3 years) was about 1/3 "white," 1/3 "black/mixed," and 1/3 native American/indigenous.  Who was what color literally never came up with my kids.  Our house is 3/5 "brown," and color only comes up in limited contexts, e.g., skin care / health issues and when discussing the larger societal issues around race.

Color comes up in society partly because it is relevant in some contexts, and partly because some people have reasons to make it more relevant than it needs to be.  The former is never going away.  The latter will continue as long as there is something to be gained from it.

[SKL]

7 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

This makes me cringe. It is affecting people in certain profession (work that can’t be taken home) and with certain medical conditions (that might be more likely found among certain groups), but it isn’t color that Covid is going after. I would rather see the discussion about economic realities than “these poor brown people.” 
Again, it isn’t affecting my neighbor, a wealthy but a very brown Iranian. 

There are both biological and economic reasons for the statistical racial differences.

The likelihood of a person having a vitamin D deficiency, which impacts Covid outcomes, is higher in darker-skinned people.  There may be other biological factors as well.

[mommyoffive]

8 hours ago, Farrar said:

First off, it's all very well that you - and several other people in this thread - don't "like" labels. But it's deeply disingenuous to act like you cannot see visible differences between peoples. Skin color is not invisible to people with sight. We cannot help but see it. Children cannot help but see it. When we avoid discussing it, we're not avoiding actually seeing it and before you claim that you somehow miraculously do, think about how ridiculous that sounds. We also cannot avoid knowing it's there. Nor can we avoid the fact that racism exists. Saying "I don't like labels" does not erase racism. In fact, saying "I don't like labels" is a way to prohibit victims of racism from discussing racism. It says, I refuse to listen to you discuss race. 

Practically speaking, if we do not discuss race - or ethnicity, poverty, gender, language, hair color, genetic mutations, disabilities, whatever - any differences between peoples that exist - then it is impossible to know if there are problems specific to those groups. If people with red hair turned out to be more susceptible to a particular cancer, then how does it help us fight that cancer for the medical researchers to say, "Oh, I don't like to label people by hair color," and then refuse to do any studies to figure out why gingers are dying of a particular cancer more than other people? That would be a ridiculous thing to assert and do. Yet, by saying "no labels" that's what you and others ask of research. Oh no, we aren't allowed to ask if one group is disproportionately affected by something. That might remind us that there are differences and that would be uncomfortable? Why?

Discussing race is not a form of racism. Race exists as a concept. People ignoring that it exists only reinforces its power.

For me personally when talking about myself I prefer African American.  However that isn't all that I am so it doesn't even really fit.  I am of mixed race.    That is what I was speaking of.  Me.  What I would like to be referred as.  Not what others want to be referred as.    I didn't say that I can't see differences in skin color.   It doesn't say that I refuse to discuss race.  But thank you so much for putting words into my mouth.  You are reading what you want into what I am saying.  You personally can't ever know what I mean by saying I don't like labels, because it is personal.  I was talking about myself.   If people want to be referred to by a certain term I am fine with using what they prefer.  

In my house we talk about race, a lot.  We have to.  Growing up there was never a conversation in my house even though my sibling and I were of mixed race and didn't look like our only parent.   It was confusing and hurtful.  So I know not to do the same for my kids.  This isn't a taboo topic in my life or world.  

But you  telling me that that I can't avoid the fact the racism exists is really rich.  Thanks.  I think I know that.  I am reminded of that everyday of my life.  It is never something I can forget. I have been labeled  lots of things in my life.  Most all very hateful and rude.  So you have to remember that when someone doesn't like the label that you want to put on them.   Race for me has been a very very painful part of my life.  It isn't something that I can ever forget.  I have been labeled, harassed by people of all colors because I was never the right color for any group, had a lot of insensitive things said and done to me.  I just don't  want to be labeled anymore.  

 

And I didn't say we shouldn't talk about differences in people when we need to gather information about people for research purposes.  

[mommyoffive]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

I am not colorblind, but having lived with people of color for decades, I can honestly say that I forget our skin color is different, unless there is some reason for it to come up.

I can't speak for whatever my kids noticed when they were little, though they rarely if ever mentioned skin color until at least age 5 or so, and then only when there was a reason it might matter.  Their preschool/KG class (they stayed with mostly the same 8-9 kids for 3 years) was about 1/3 "white," 1/3 "black/mixed," and 1/3 native American/indigenous.  Who was what color literally never came up with my kids.  Our house is 3/5 "brown," and color only comes up in limited contexts, e.g., skin care / health issues and when discussing the larger societal issues around race.

Color comes up in society partly because it is relevant in some contexts, and partly because some people have reasons to make it more relevant than it needs to be.  The former is never going away.  The latter will continue as long as there is something to be gained from it.

Yes.   

[gstharr]

Scarlett O'hara??

[Scarlett]

Thanks everyone.  I didn't mean to upset anyone, and I am being honest when I said it was confusing to me.  I do understand that the word colored has a bad history....I guess I just can't see how 'person of color' is better.  

 

[Scarlett]

27 minutes ago, gstharr said:

Scarlett O'hara??

Oh boy.  Am I going to have to change my screen name? 

[Scarlett]

11 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

I live in an area with a high percentage of black people in the US.  They refer to themselves as black. African-American doesn't really work well because it leaves out other black groups like blacks from the Caribbean.

"Colored" has negative connotations related to segregation, Jim Crow, lynchings, white supremacist views, etc.   We wanted to climb under the table out of embarrassment when my husband's granny, white woman born and raised in rural Mississippi in the early 1900s, used that term to refer to the wait staff (who weren't present when she used it, thank God!.)

I'm from PHX and there's a divide between the terms Latino/a/x and Hispanic.  When I went to high school, about 40% of the students fell into that category and most referred to themselves as Hispanic. I think I hear Latino more now, and I do know a significant percentage don't like the gender neutral Latinx. They also identify as Mexican, Guatemalan, Puerto Rican, and such.

I use white and Caucasian interchangeably and it often comes up in the context of my family because of the 5 of us, one is Asian and the rest of us are Caucasian or white. Interestingly, we adopted her from S. Korea, and on her official Korean paperwork, her race is listed as Korean, not Asian.  Not every culture categorizes race the same way.

My sons-in-law are mixed with one being half Mexican and half Irish ancestry and other being 3/4 white and qualifying as Native American/First Nation (NA/FN) with the US government because of the other 1/4.  He looks white with light skin and dark brown eyes and dark brown hair. He doesn't identify as NA/FN.  I'll have to ask him if he identifies as such on Census and other paperwork that allow for multiple answers.  I know he didn't for college; if he had he could've gone for free or almost free, but didn't out of respect to his granny's tribe (Hopi.) Many people with NA/FN ancestry use the term "descendant" instead of identifying as a tribal member, usually when they're less than half and weren't raised in the culture. 

We have quite a few Asian immigrant friends.  They all refer to themselves as Asian and their country of origin interchangeably like Indian, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.  

I don't understand this.  Why would it be disrespectful to his granny for him to use NA funds that he qualifies for to go to college.

[HS Mom in NC]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don't understand this.  Why would it be disrespectful to his granny for him to use NA funds that he qualifies for to go to college.

Because those funds are intended for those who are both culturally and genetically NA and didn't grow up in affluent neighborhoods with a lot of privilege. He did.  He grew up in an upper middle class area with one of the best STEM oriented public schools in the country and is completely mainstream American culturally. His NA granny helped raise him, but he isn't at all culturally NA.  Not even a little bit. Those funds are limited, and if he took them for himself, they wouldn't be available for actual NAs who truly need them.  He got a significant scholarship based on his off the charts SAT scores.  It's just like people can actually afford to pay college tuition applying for scholarships. It's morally wrong to steal from the underprivileged.

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Because those funds are intended for those who are both culturally and genetically NA and didn't grow up in affluent neighborhoods with a lot of privilege. He did.  He grew up in an upper middle class area with one of the best STEM oriented public schools in the country and is completely mainstream American culturally. His NA granny helped raise him, but he isn't at all culturally NA.  Not even a little bit. Those funds are limited, and if he took them for himself, they wouldn't be available for actual NAs who truly need them.  He got a significant scholarship based on his off the charts SAT scores.  It's just like people can actually afford to pay college tuition applying for scholarships. It's morally wrong to steal from the underprivileged.

Ah.  I completely disagree with that way of thinking but that is his choice to make.  

It is not stealing if you qualify for it. 

[MercyA]

10 hours ago, Farrar said:

This thread is ridiculous. I can't believe I just responded to anything in it. These answers are out there in so many places. I can't believe anyone is actually confused that colorblind ideology is a way of reinforcing racism or that there's a loaded history behind "colored" that isn't there with "people of color." You just don't want to know and don't want to be challenged at this point.

I think *maybe* you don't realize what bubbles some of us live in. 

I only learned that "colorblind ideology is a way of reinforcing racism" here, and it was only a few years ago. Should I have searched for and found out about that earlier? Probably. But I didn't. It wasn't because I didn't want to know and didn't want to be challenged. There are only so many hours in the day and frankly most of mine were spent on OCD-related behaviors before I was medicated. 🙂

IDK. I worried about asking the question about cultural appropriation in my thread because I thought people might think I was lazy and/or uneducated. But it helps to have friends explain things sometimes.

Edited March 11, 2021 by MercyA

[Carrie12345]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Ah.  I completely disagree with that way of thinking but that is his choice to make.  

It is not stealing if you qualify for it. 

There’s stealing - the legal term, and then there’s stealing - the ethical term. Individuals’ systems of ethics vary.

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Ah.  I completely disagree with that way of thinking but that is his choice to make.  

It is not stealing if you qualify for it. 

I agree with both of you.  It's not stealing, but it still feels morally wrong to take a scholarship meant for people who, as a group, need the scholarship economically, when you do not.

If he were not economically privileged, had no scholarship, and all the rest was still true, I would probably not find it morally wrong to take the scholarship.

There are scholarships my kids could apply for due to their biological heritage, but I would not encourage them to do so for similar reasons.

[Carrie12345]

12 hours ago, Scarlett said:

‘Colored people’ Makes your skin crawl?  Interesting. To me it is just a description.  I don’t hear ‘ subhuman’ when someone says colored...... I think this is all about intent at any given point in history.  

Focusing on intent relieves us of our duty to others. Focusing on impact relieves others of the burden we might otherwise place on them.

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

See, this sounds outrageous to me.  (I know you're not being rude here, at all, just trying to understand).   I can't imagine any person in the US thinking that 'colored people' isn't a horrible phrase.   Is that a phrase that is spoken where you live?    Here (Deep South!), I haven't heard that phrase in 25 years or more.   Even then I remember the cringe I felt (and everyone else cringed, too).    I watch a lot of documentaries and since I was young, I always looked forward to Black History Month on pbs.   (I know BHM is controversial, but it was the only time I ever got to watch docs and movies about Black people because February was the only time they really showed those movies.  Every year I looked forward to February for that reason.   Right now, dh and I are making our way through docs I dvr'd in February.    We learn so much from them.)     When I hear 'colored people' I automatically see the images from those docs:  "colored water fountain", "colored people entrance", and such and it just makes me flinch.    

Well, I probably will cringe now when I hear it.  LOL.  See I just got educated.  My question was not so much why is colored offensive, but why is people of color not offensive.  

I don't know if people around here use either phrase.  I mean I know my dh's co-workers refer to themselves as brown. But they are from India, so not AA.  I was raised up in AR and heard the N word a lot.  That was offensive 40 years ago when I was a teen but it was used a lot.  Not by my mother nor did she allow it from us.  

[Scarlett]

11 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Focusing on intent relieves us of our duty to others. Focusing on impact relieves others of the burden we might otherwise place on them.

Yes.  I agree.

[HS Mom in NC]

33 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Ah.  I completely disagree with that way of thinking but that is his choice to make.  

It is not stealing if you qualify for it. 

Not according to Jesus in Matthew chapter 12. If you obey the letter of the law, but leave someone in need in doing so, you're sinning against them and God just like in this passage where it's permissible to break the letter of the law to meet someone's need. Ethics is so much more than just technicalities, it's about the intention of you heart and the effect your actions have on others.

³ He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: ⁴ how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? ⁵ Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? ⁶ I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. ⁷ And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. ⁸ For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Not according to Jesus in Matthew chapter 12. If you obey the letter of the law, but leave someone in need in doing so, you're sinning against them and God just like in this passage where it's permissible to break the letter of the law to meet someone's need. Ethics is so much more than just technicalities, it's about the intention of you heart and the effect your actions have on others.

³ He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: ⁴ how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? ⁵ Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? ⁶ I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. ⁷ And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. ⁸ For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

While I agree, I think it would be difficult to determine if you were actually 'taking from someone else' when it involves a government program. 

[SKL]

People of Color will likely become an unacceptable term in the future.

And who knows - like "Black," the term "colored" might be acceptable again someday.

It's just how things evolve.

[HS Mom in NC]

11 hours ago, kand said:

 

African American may be mislabeling people though. Not everyone with dark skin is from Africa. Nor are they all American. 

I

Another reason African-American isn't always useful is in situations where people whose ancestors have lived in Africa for centuries come to the US and become citizens. My brother works at Intel with an immigrant from South Africa who is white with Dutch ancestry.  It's a very logical argument to say he's African-American, and that was his inclination for quite a while, but that term doesn't at all apply to him in an American cultural context.  When immigrants and children of immigrants refer to themselves as Korean-American, Asian-American, etc. he falls into a category we haven't found a consistent equivalent term for.

I went to church with an immigrant from Algiers who became a citizen.  He's not of Arab descent (something that matters to people in the culture he was raised in) he's an olive-skinned French speaking Caucasian, but he can't use the term African-American because it doesn't fit.  So a continental references have to be abandoned in his case too and he can only use a country of origin designation in Algerian-American.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[KungFuPanda]

12 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I can assure you, again, that I am expressing genuine confusion about people of color vs colored people.  It is literally the same description.   Is it a big deal to stop  using the expression? Of course not.  If I actually can understand the difference enough to remember it.  But I very much identify with the poor politician ( and trust me I have no concept of who is is or who he stands for) who stumbled over saying black vs colored and chose colored and got crucified for it.  

You can argue that the definitions are "literally the same" if you completely ignore the historical and political connotations of the word.  A LOT of words can be rendered virtually meaningless out of context.  The word "bat" means nothing by itself.  You just can't know what it IS without more information. You can also think of the difference between "he was drinking kool-aid" and "he drank the kool aid." History and context make those phrases COMPLETELY different.  They would be indistinguishable to a student just beginning to learn the language.  However, as you become more proficient in a language you can understand it at a higher level.  With some effort, most people can grasp even the complex nuances of their own native language.  

[Scarlett]

34 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Another reason African-American isn't always useful is in situations where people whose ancestors have lived in Africa for centuries come to the US and become citizens. My brother works at Intel with an immigrant from South Africa who is white with Dutch ancestry.  It's a very logical argument to say he's African-American, and that was his inclination for quite a while, but that term doesn't at all apply to him in an American cultural context.  When immigrants and children of immigrants refer to themselves as Korean-American, Asian-American, etc. he falls into a category we haven't found a consistent equivalent term for.

I went to church with an immigrant from Algiers who became a citizen.  He's not of Arab descent (something that matters to people in the culture he was raised in) he's an olive-skinned French speaking Caucasian, but he can't use the term African-American because it doesn't fit.  So a continental references have to be abandoned in his case too and he can only use a country of origin designation in Algerian-American.

That is all very interesting.

 

[Scarlett]

15 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

You can argue that the definitions are "literally the same" if you completely ignore the historical and political connotations of the word.  A LOT of words can be rendered virtually meaningless out of context.  The word "bat" means nothing by itself.  You just can't know what it IS without more information. You can also think of the difference between "he was drinking kool-aid" and "he drank the kool aid." History and context make those phrases COMPLETELY different.  They would be indistinguishable to a student just beginning to learn the language.  However, as you become more proficient in a language you can understand it at a higher level.  With some effort, most people can grasp even the complex nuances of their own native language.  

Good points, thank you.

 

[KungFuPanda]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

I think *maybe* you don't realize what bubbles some of us live in. 

I only learned that "colorblind ideology is a way of reinforcing racism" here, and it was only a few years ago. Should I have searched for and found out about that earlier? Probably. But I didn't. It wasn't because I didn't want to know and didn't want to be challenged. There are only so many hours in the day and frankly most of mine were spent on OCD-related behaviors before I was medicated. 🙂

IDK. I worried about asking the question about cultural appropriation in my thread because I thought people might think I was lazy and/or uneducated. But it helps to have friends explain things sometimes.

I think this is a legitimate point.  When you live in your liberal blue-state bubble (guilty) you can forget that the pace of social change is slower in other areas.  Conversations we had in earnest in Maryland years ago are just getting started in other places today.  Our rate of progress as a nation can be frustrating, but I feel it is important to be encouraging to people who are moving in the right direction and to nudge them along as kindly as possible.  Getting annoyed and calling people ridiculous when they're just starting to learn something is counter productive.  

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Oh boy.  Am I going to have to change my screen name? 

It might be time to start thinking about it.  I know of more than one dance troupe that waited a bit too long to remove "gypsy" from their names and it was socially very uncomfortable for them towards the end.

[Tanaqui]

I'm just going to note - and I don't want to pile on you here, Scarlett, but I think not only did you not notice you did this but few other posters noticed either! - that you refer to Native Americans in the past tense in a previous comment. Quoting and copy-pasting is back to being nonfunctional for me, so I may get the exact phrasing wrong, but you said "I have no idea why that [your use of the word tribe] would be offensive to Native Americans who actually had tribes at some point".

They're still around, they still have their history and their relatives and their socio-political grouping (even those who are not recognized by the federal government).

And, again, this is not to point any sort of particular finger at you here, just to show that this sort of thinking is absolutely insidious. You're talking about them in the present, but still using the past tense. You definitely know they're still around - but you manage to speak of them as though they're not, which, to be fair, is what we were all encouraged to think for generations, that Native Americans were either gone or declining rapidly and, at any rate, unimportant.

[HS Mom in NC]

1 hour ago, KungFuPanda said:

You can argue that the definitions are "literally the same" if you completely ignore the historical and political connotations of the word.  A LOT of words can be rendered virtually meaningless out of context.  The word "bat" means nothing by itself.  You just can't know what it IS without more information. You can also think of the difference between "he was drinking kool-aid" and "he drank the kool aid." History and context make those phrases COMPLETELY different.  They would be indistinguishable to a student just beginning to learn the language.  However, as you become more proficient in a language you can understand it at a higher level.  With some effort, most people can grasp even the complex nuances of their own native language.  

Yes.

The in the NA tribe I lived next to for the first 43 years of my life (Pima) it's a terrible insult to refer to one as "chief."  It's the same degree of insult as using the N-word for a black person.  Outside of that context it can be an affectionate nick name for someone with decision making privileges and it can be the correct title in certain lines of work. Both are true at the same time.  One doesn't negate the other, so in social situations we have to understand the social context of words and those we're around. Code switching is a social skill when done to respect the feelings of others who have been unjustly treated with words and actions.
 
As the parent of an international adoptee of a different race than me, I have to maintain a tension between 2 things: teaching her self-respect by not tolerating people intentionally insulting her based on race (or anything else) and teaching her to be tolerant of well-intentioned mistakes by people asking genuine questions so they're less ignorant of the world and others around them.  It's usually very easy to tell the difference.  I do think there are some hyper-sensitive types in any group of people who can't seem to resist the urge to assume the worst. I've met two of them in the adoptive community. They need to learn to reign it in and put on thicker skin.

So I've learned to ask questions when using terminology I'm unsure of.  That sounds like, "That's a beautiful necklace.  Does that stone or design have a particular significance to your tribe?  Is tribe the right word?" It signals that you're teachable and you appreciate differences.

[HS Mom in NC]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

While I agree, I think it would be difficult to determine if you were actually 'taking from someone else' when it involves a government program. 

Do you think government funds for programs are unlimited?  They're not.  And even if they were, government funds for NAs are a small way to attempt to remedy terrible social and economic burdens so many NA peoples are living in today.  My well off son-in-law is not one of those people.  Official government criteria cannot codify every aspect of the spirit of a law, so we have to rely on people being decent and sensible about whether or not they are truly a disadvantaged person.  He is not.  His distant cousins are. He's moral and knows the difference.  Everyone else should too, but too many immoral people are greedy and want to take what belongs to others for their own personal gain.

[Scarlett]

29 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Do you think government funds for programs are unlimited?  They're not.  And even if they were, government funds for NAs are a small way to attempt to remedy terrible social and economic burdens so many NA peoples are living in today.  My well off son-in-law is not one of those people.  Official government criteria cannot codify every aspect of the spirit of a law, so we have to rely on people being decent and sensible about whether or not they are truly a disadvantaged person.  He is not.  His distant cousins are. He's moral and knows the difference.  Everyone else should too, but too many immoral people are greedy and want to take what belongs to others for their own personal gain.

Of course I don't think the programs are unlimited.  But if they had intended for people to only use the benefits if they are poor they would have attached income limits.  

And well off is a very general description.  It doesn't make a person immoral if they define well off or need differently than you do. 

[Hoggirl]

I have not read all of the comments, but the President of the United States just used the word, “tribe.”

[KungFuPanda]

1 hour ago, Hoggirl said:

I have not read all of the comments, but the President of the United States just used the word, “tribe.”

Obama used "tribe" in casual conversation too.  I think that particular word is a non-issue.

[Carrie12345]

10 hours ago, Hoggirl said:

I have not read all of the comments, but the President of the United States just used the word, “tribe.”

 

9 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

Obama used "tribe" in casual conversation too.  I think that particular word is a non-issue.

That is the word that’s currently written into all of our government  documents to denote NA lands/gov’t. So, we have federal, state, territory, tribal lands, county/parish, etc., local, and individual private property. It doesn’t necessarily refer to a group of people, but a level of government organization to which funds would (and must) be specified, because they’re considered separate from the other categories.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Carrie12345