Quote:
Originally posted by sadatx
"bloody hell"? You english there shakran?
|
Nope, just picked up the habit from a british friend of mine
Quote:
First off, do you think caucasian is f**king accurate? Far from it. Yet, there it is in use today in America, meaning white.
|
Nope, and I think it's a stupid descriptor. It doesn't matter, but I'm white, and to the people who want to bandy terms such as "caucasian" around, I say big deal. Let's move on to something more important.
Quote:
And this is all indicative of why all the younger kids coming up don't understand the import of any of this. This is why they don't see where the anger and pain come from. And why they'll be quick to say "African-American isn't accurate you don't have any right to use it" without understanding any of America's history and how that makes all these issues much much more complex.
|
Well of course you have the RIGHT to use it, but I have the RIGHT to object to it if it's not accurate. Seriously, what's the point of this phrase? The majority of people using it have never even seen Africa. The best result you can hope to get by insisting on being called African-American is a cultural and racial divide from the rest of the people in this country. I'm tired of people saying "he's black" or "he's white" or "he's African American." Why not, "he's a person?"
Quote:
I think the question boils down to this: Do you all honestly think that these three kids (especially the South African kid, who just moved here) fully understand the history of race relations between black and whites in America?
|
Careful, you're trapping yourself. If you're saying that kids, because of their youth and the fact that they obviously did not live through slavery/segregation/etc, cannot understand the history of race relations, then that logic applies to all children, including black children. Why, then, insist on filling all the children's heads with racially divisive poison when we could use their innocence as an opportunity to enforce the idea that we're all people, not that we're all different races.
Quote:
And do you think they have any clue as to why what they did could be seen as being offensive? (And I'm sure the South African kid understands the complexity of race relations in South Africa, but that's a whole nother ball of wax.)
|
Yes, I do think that they knew they'd offend people. So what? Why can't it be that they were offended that the award was a) racist and b) blatantly so, when an African American gets suspended for applying for it simply because he's white? Why is it that only minorities have the right to take offense at racism?
Quote:
They just saw the words, but they still don't get the meaning.
|
A black kid in 1960 is suspended for putting posters around the school announcing that he wants to be valedictorian. He's suspended because he's black, and shouldn't have tried to get the honor when it was obviously meant for the whtie kids.
A white African immigrant in 2004 is suspended for applying for an award that expressly says it's for African immigrants. He's suspended because he's white, and shouldn't have tried to get the honor when it was obviously meant for the black kids.
Mind telling me exactly what the difference is there?