Re: Re: Semantics revisited...
 

I am glad that you are the new authority on which definitions are "correct." And also, it is good that you were sent to determine who "owns" particular words, as well as why a "race" may or may not like them.

ktsnake has had valid points all throughout this thread, and he is absolutely right. Just because Webster says it, that does not make it so. My life and your life have seen 2 different perspectives of discrimination, I assure you. And with that comes 2 different defintions of racism and prejudice.

You have dismissed my point as being closed-minded because it is hard for you to think about. Race is not something tangible or visible, no matter how much you would like to believe it so. When you say someone is of the race BLACK, you are neglecting their ancestory...they may be African-American, they may be Jamaican, they may be Canadian, etc. All of THESE labels are nationality. BLACK is a SKIN COLOR (however archaic the term). WHITE people may also be AFRICAN-American, Jamaican, Canadian, etc. Same argument. The little boxes we check on tests and surveys are used to CLASSIFY us. Just like the concept of race was created to do. If you do not believe that I think you are somewhat naive.

Changing tracks...
 

Would anyone agree on this statement:

The only way to end racism once and for all is to stop thinking of ourselves as "different" because of the color of our skin.

We can acknowledge that we come from different backgrounds, have different life histories, experiences, etc... All of these things add up to make us who we are. We should know these things, understand our roots but NOT segregate ourselves accordingly!

As long as there are little checkmarks on tests where we have to decide whether we are caucasian, pacific islander, african-american, etc and we have to have systems like affermative action in place to protect minorities, we are creating something that divides us and sets up these intangible racial boundaries.

When we say that one group needs reparations based on the color of their skin or just accept members of another color to a country club it can't end.

I'm a human, you're a human.. we're all humans (unless you think you're at some other place along the evolutionary scale!)

--This is the ONLY means to the end, changing society to remove racial boundaries.

Re: Re: Re: Semantics revisited...
 

I never said I was the new authority on anything. Nor did I state I determine ownership of words. I say no one owns words. Don't get smart with me, this is just a discussion, not an attack on you.

By that same argument, if you want to be balanced, just because its in Webster doesn't make it wrong, and if doesn't meet your personal definition of the word, it doesn't mean anything either. I don't know nor do I absolutely assure you that our perspectives of discrimination are different. Maybe our opinions are, but don't make assumptions about people you don't know, just some friendly advice.


I never called you closed-minded or dismissed your points, apparently you believe so. I never wrote that race is color, this is more of a neicy comment, but go back to my second to last post and you'll see what I wrote is practically the SAME as what you tried to bark at me.


This isn't about semantics, this topic centers around a subject matter that no one here has the guts to admit. All races, no matter how you define them or classify them or describe them CAN and DO commit racism onto another race - also by however you wish to label them. This is the only argument I am trying to make. I have not sat here arguing anything but that. Unfortunately, everyone thinks they are smarter because they can nit-pick at every word I type to make it sound like a vicious statement.

Racism is whatever you want it to be, if it's yogurt with fruits on top, then so be it. But NOBODY owns the word Racism, and I'm sorry to tell you this, but that includes the black community (however you would like to imagine it). Words carry different meanings not just by the way they are said but by who says it.

You may think what you want about me, it's human nature. Naive, possibly on certain levels, but not this. I do not get involved in topics I don't have a good understanding of. The only thing I wanted to get across, which was lost a long time ago, was that racism exists in everyone. But I see now that no one is willing to say it, so I'll drop this useless debate.

- RUgreek

Re: Re: Re: Re: Semantics revisited...
 

Kinda sucks that you are bowing out without having really made a viable argument. I did not intend for my original comment to be smart alecky and if it came across that way, I do apologize. Nothing personal here, promise.

That being said, I have no judgment formed about you. I do not know anything about you other than what you post on the boards. Therefore my comments are derived from the nature of your comments.

The fact that you seem to believe that blacks are claiming ownership to the word "racism" is an odd thought to me. You make it seem like blacks get ruffled over the concept merely because they are protective of the WORD itself. Please correct me if I am wrong, this is how I interpret your posts.

Your quote:
Racism is whatever you want it to be, if it's yogurt with fruits on top, then so be it. But NOBODY owns the word Racism, and I'm sorry to tell you this, but that includes the black community (however you would like to imagine it). Words carry different meanings not just by the way they are said but by who says it.

In reality, racism (no matter what definition you use), is something that actually occurs. We have ALL acknowledged that, ad nauseum. Blacks are probably more upset that they are being followed around stores, denied loans, and constantly harassed by police than they are by not being able to "own" the word racism.

I never called you closed-minded or dismissed your points, apparently you believe so. I never wrote that race is color, this is more of a neicy comment, but go back to my second to last post and you'll see what I wrote is practically the SAME as what you tried to bark at me.

And what is it that I tried to bark at you? Just not sure exactly what you are referring to...

This isn't about semantics, this topic centers around a subject matter that no one here has the guts to admit. All races, no matter how you define them or classify them or describe them CAN and DO commit racism onto another race - also by however you wish to label them. This is the only argument I am trying to make. I have not sat here arguing anything but that. Unfortunately, everyone thinks they are smarter because they can nit-pick at every word I type to make it sound like a vicious statement.

This sounded good, but I do think that most people on this thread had the guts to admit exactly what they were thinking...unfortunately! I am not trying to make any statement sound viscious by any means. I would rather ask and have you clarify than to assume the worst about what you meant.

If you must know, I was specifically referencing this quote in my previous posts:

Discrimination deals with POWER
Segregation deals with POWER

Racism is about RACE, there is no disparity, only misunderstanding by certain groups. If you WANT to believe that Racism is attributed to power, fine. But that is INCORRECT, as far as ANY formal definition of the word throughout history is concerned. Understanding the meaning of words is the first step in correcting the problem, until then, you are at a standstill as far as becoming "open-minded." Racism is being misconstrued by the black community, not because they don't understand but because they can't accept the fact that they do not OWN the word.

Let's be clear about this for once. And please, turn on that "open-minded" brain for a second. Isn't it possible that the african-american community is so upset and angry with white americans that some feel the need to take the word Racism and turn it into their personal description of the white community's oppression?

Please do not tell myself or anyone else on this board that we cannot give a "correct" definition, simply because it might be in direct opposition to your own. By the same right that you have to define a word in your terms, everyone else has that same right. When I stated that my experiences were different than yours, I did so based on your definitions. That is because in my mind, definitions stem more from life experience than from Webster's.

Part of the problem is that America is such a paradox. The "Melting Pot," "colorblind," etc., these are all concepts that encourage assimilation into one culture. But while this country was found on "liberty and justice for all," there is still widespread RACISM (on all parts), prejudice/discrimination (which by YOUR definition is committed ONLY by the majority since it involves power), and opppression. The victim in all of these instances are inevitably blacks. And how can we acheive this "melting pot" when ceratin groups are made outcasts from society anyway? Does it make sense?

Understand that I am not someone who whines and complains and never accepts responsibility. I just look at the root of the problem.

And even though there may have been a few isolated acts that were committed by a "minority" on a white person, I would say that it did not have the far reaching consequences that "minorities" in the United States still suffering from today.

I did not mean that you are naive per se. But some of your views are short sighted. Perhaps if you acknowledge (not necessarily AGREE WITH) some of the things I have mentioned, you will begin to understand. I hope that you are not giving up on this topic because I really think you and others on GC have something to gain from this important dialogue.

ktsnake, I hear you and partially agree with you. However, I do not want to become colorblind. When I see someone the first thing I notice is their physical appearance. I want to acknowledge they are different. To me, someone saying "I don't see black or white, just a person" is like saying "I do not see a woman or man, just a person." It discounts an entire physical characteristic, and in my opinion, that is a disservice.

What I meant was not to attribute things to and ASSume things based upon someone's race. For example, a typical racist action would be to ASSume that since you are black, you grew up in the ghetto as that is what I usually see on TV:confused: . Just like if I was to ASSume that because you are a woman you can't hook up your DVD player to your TV:D

I actually do describe people by their skin color.. I do it all the time. There's not a damned thing wrong with it. I'm a white guy, olive skin-tone. Saying that a person is black, asian, white, etc.. is an essential ingrediant if you're describing how someone looks. I'm just saying that just BECAUSE I'm white, ASSuming that I'm a bad dancer, have a small #@%, etc... That's bad...

See what I'm saying?

Re: Semantics revisited...
 

I CAN NOT SQAY THIS ANY BETTER. Just wanted to re-emphasize it.

Language is contained in your brain not in a dictionary. It changes, and is affected by socioeconomic factors.

Accept it and move on people.

Re: Re: WOW
 

Originally posted by RUgreek

Racism is being misconstrued by the black community, not because they don't understand but because they can't accept the fact that they do not OWN the word.


Wow, thanks for telling me what I think about the word racism and that I think I own it. I never knew that. I guess you learn something new everyday :rolleyes:



Since we are trying to breakdown Racism, the word race appears to be BS to you. Why? Honestly, there are different categories of individuals/groups in this world. They are different RACES.

WRONG!

Race is a PURELY SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION. There is no scientific basis for it, it is created wholly by individuals. The same way that the meaning of racism is relative, so is the meaning of the word RACE.

And so you're open-minded self says, well gee, only white people commit hate crimes against black people, so what's up with that?


She never said or implied that. What she SAID was


Your ONE experience and that ONE Militant Black Man, and any other SINGLUAR example CANNOT...

let me emphasize that...

CANNOT

be used to indicate any sort of alarming trend.


There is a world of difference in saying that you can not use one incident as evidence of a trend, or of a general feeling and saying that blacks don't commit hate crimes.

It's just a theory, don't let it bother you too much. This more or less related back to Mr. Farrakhan's groupies. I don't believe word ownership is really keeping too many folks awake at night.

Quote:

WRONG! Race is a PURELY SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION. There is no scientific basis for it, it is created wholly by individuals. The same way that the meaning of racism is relative, so is the meaning of the word RACE.

Ok, until you can accept the opposite side, i.e. that racism can ALSO be considered the physical characterstics of an individual, whether you see it or if it's genetic, then we are at a stalemate here. Some would say it's purely social, others will argue biological.

Quote:

She never said or implied that. What she SAID was Your ONE experience and that ONE Militant Black Man, and any other SINGLUAR example CANNOT... let me emphasize that... CANNOT be used to indicate any sort of alarming trend.

Actually I was referring more to librasoul22 statement that followed that one above:

Quote:

Now when the original poster of this topic or ANYONE can come up with SEVERAL instances of African-Americans/Blacks/etc. committing hate crimes on a Caucasian-American (or any sort of widespread form of discrimination/oppression), then maybe there will be a valid issue.

A statment like that just sounds ridiculous at best :)



librasoul22,

The only reason why I even went to that whole "ownership" scenario, which I regret now because it's really just making this post a big ugly mess (my fault), is because this has been a problem before with the n-word. Apparently on a different debate, there is this whole ownership argument that has to go with who can use or freely say the n-word, and i felt there was a correlation between the two.

I also just want to say, i make no assumptions about anyone here, so take from that what you wish. Formal apologies should go out to librasoul22, lovelyivy84, and neicy81 for making this worse than it really should have been...


RUgreek

It's interesting how someone brought up race as a social construct. You know, us as human beings always have the urge to classify people. Even if we do get rid of racism one day (when hell freezes over), we will still have prejudism ;). Society will just find another way to divide, discriminate, and oppress people.

Um...would you mind elaborating? I will go first. What I meant by that is sort of what neicy81 said earlier. In America, althought there have been several isolated incidents of black-on-white hate crimes, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN NEARLY ENOUGH TO EVER EQUAL THE NUMBER OF HATE CRIMES PERPETRATED BY WHITES ON BLACKS. One or one hundred isolated incidents do not indicate anything in the grand scheme of things. Because stats and facts and anything concrete you may care to reference will tell you that OVERWHELMINGLY hate crimes are perpetrated by white men. In fact, your life experiences alone may jade your persepctive, but they will not cause a significant change in the big picture. Get it?


Ownership of the n-word? My view on that is that it shouldn't matter to you who owns that word. It is not your concern. Why would YOU want to use it? Whether or not a black person chooses to use the word is up to them. Worry about yourself, not who chooses to use what word.

I have never understood why this has been such an issue for non-blacks. Why on earth would anyone else care or want to use the word so bad, knowing its connotations?

Agreed...assumptions suck.

RUGreek Let me break it down for you.

Race is a purely social construct. This is not something debatable, it is a scientific fact.

The only difference that can be positively identified between members of different races are cosmetic- skin color and hair texture. Even that is pushing it- there are people classified as white who are significantly darker skinned than some classified as black. There are black people whose hair is naturally straighter than many whites. There are tendencies and correlations between members of certain ethnic groups, or identified racial groups, but there is nothing that can be scientifically identified as a characteristic of one race.

Here's an example- a person who has two black parents, and yet is lighter skinned than many whites, and can't tan, but burns. Her hair is kinky. What race is she?

Or how about this - a female whose mother is black and whose father is white and yet appears to be completely white- the child is blonde and blue eyed. What race is she?

Or how about this one: A man who is 1/8 black, and yet has dark skin, and straight hair. What race is he?

Or better yet: the whole island of Puerto Rico is a combination of white, indigenous peoples and African slaves. Yet racially they are labeled hispanic. Hispanic is not a race because it encompasses those who are dark as night and positively Nordic in features. It is a culture. Where do you draw lines in that society? You have families where not one person is identifiable as being of the same "racial" group as their brother or sister, or even their mother or father- a mother is black, a father white, and the child looks taino! Yet they are all blood relatives.

Where do you draw a line here? It's absolutely arbitrary and can't be done in a scientific fashion.

This is all not to mention that there really is no such thing as a "black race" in America simply because ALL African-AMericans are a racial mixture to one degree or another as a legacy of slavery and the systemativ rape of black women that took place. The Black American "race" is a mixed one to such an extent that it is impossible to establish a standard of "black". You can't look at a blood test, or an MRI or a catscan and say someone is black. You ALSO can't look at hair color and skin color and say it. It's about personal definitions. There is NO scientific standard. The same amount of misture is often present in whites, even if it is not acknowledged- research has pointed to approx. 10,000 Black Americans "passing" into White America per YEAR in the 1920's and 30's. You don't know wether someone in your family was Italian like they said, or a light skinned black person, making you mixed to some degree.

Historically, attempts to establish a standard of black scientifically has been for the purposes of showing the supremacy of whites.

I won't say that you are doing that though because I don't know you.

ownership of the n word
 

Do you really want to debate this?

Blacks using the word nigger is like women calling themselves bitches- an incidence of cultural reclamation of a word- basically using it before it can be thrown at us in an attempt to degrade or demean. That doesn't make it a good word, it just means that it has a different context and meaning when MANY black people say it, a feeling of brotherhood in struggle.

I can not think of one singleincidence of a white person using the word nigger that can be seen in this light. In my opinion, there is no sense in which a white person can use the word nigger and have a feeling of brotherhood with blacks, or culturalreclamation of this term. Why? Because of the historical fact of why and how nigger was said by whites.

I personally am past the whole debate. You can call me a nigger all day and I'm going to do what I have to do. When all's said and done a word has no power to demean me, but it certainly has the ability to make you look like an asshole when you say it.

In my opinion it is simply immaturity on the part of the person who wants to say it SOOO bad. It's not so much that they want to, but because someone is telling them that they can't, that it becomes something they desire.

Like any little child, they want the forbidden object, here it just happens to be a word.

I understand why blacks say it, even if I myself don't regularly use that word. I have no clue why a white person would ever want to use it and think that that's positive. How is that positive?

I personally find the euphamism "n-word" silly- we all KNOW what you mean, and what you're thinking. It's just a word, and has all the power that you give it!

it's quite simple, the word itself is not something that should be used, period. If a black person calls another "his/her nigga" it's all cool, but g-d forbid a white guy or anyone else of a different race use the word, we have to have a riot. And it doesn't even matter how the word is used by a white person, it's automatically deemed offensive because it came out of their mouth.


Now, if this word is so offensive to the african-american community that they cringe when someone not black uses it, they why use it themselves? That's a very important issue because it's a very confusing situation that black people try to make it confusing. If it's offensive, then it should not be used in that manner, but if it is, then don't get pissy when some white people use it, because I think that's racism.


If someone, and I mean anyone ever walked up to me and used the k-word, I would react in an equal manner. That's the difference, I hope that clears it up.


RUgreek