You made it a point to say that everyone in this topic was talking about Social Construction, if they were, that was not what this topic was totally about, this topic is about race period especially for black people and anything black people have to say concerning this topic is no more or less relevant than your idea of social construction. When you made it a point to say that everyone was talking about Social Construction, you eluded that I was the only one who was not. That is why my interpretation of what you said was that, I was off topic. I believe you know that but you are rather good at twisting things to look good in your direction.

This is what the initial poster of this topic said...

"I think the term african-american is not a good term for people who are of african descent,my family are from jamaica and since they live in the u.s. they should be called jamaican american or afro caribbean american.i call myself jamaican american,african american should be for people how were born in africa not america.


tell me what you think..."

If this person is not talking about titles or the ethnic labels black people have, I don't know what he or she is talking about. However, I woudln't say your idea as well as other peoples idea on Social Construction does not fall into the concept of what the initial poster is talking about but hey, what i wass talking about also falls into the scheme/context of this discussion as well.


Again, Attempting to Redirect: ;)


What do people in this discussion think about British settlers who by their own will, settled in South Africa? They were and still are racist against the black people who were already there, that being the black indigenous South Africans.

Those British people for the purposes of political reasons, as well as for many other underlining reasons, they are fighting for the right to become as South African as the real South Africans. They are fighting to be referred to as South Africans. This very same thing happened to the Aboriginals of Australia.

How does the above relate to this idea of "social constructs, social construction?"

No, I said "other posters", not "every poster". And there was no implication in any of my posts that you were the only one doing anything.

Again, I did not say your statements were inappropriate for this thread, I explained that your responses to me included incorrect interpretations of my statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylo (Post 1425621) We are talking about the basic ways in which people understand racial categories and the fact that such things as racial categories were invented

Who is we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylo (Post 1425621) Again, I did not say your statements were inappropriate for this thread, I explained that your responses to me included incorrect interpretations of my statements.

Okay, gotcha, gotcha. My impression of you is that you did think that what I was discussing was out of bounds with the idea of social construction but you won't admit to that so let's just drop it and move on. I'm not going to change and from the looks of it neither are you.


Desperately attempting to redirect:

What do people in this discussion think about British settlers who by their own will, settled in South Africa? They were and still are racist against the black people who were already there, that being the black indigenous South Africans.

Those British people for the purposes of political reasons, as well as for many other underlining reasons, they are fighting for the right to become as South African as the real South Africans. They are fighting to be referred to as South Africans. This very same thing happened to the Aboriginals of Australia.

How does the above relate to this idea of "social constructs, social construction?"

3 ways loyalty of African American Women to African American men are killing them
 

Loyalty of African America Women to African American Men literally killing them…

How do I love thee let me count the ways….

3 ways loyalty of African American Women to African American men are killing them

1) Physically-70% of new AIDS cases are African American Women-Most African American women date AA men and often times our hope to marry a strong, good AA man leaves of in a precarious position in that we in essence are all dating the same pool of men-many of us won’t date outside our race and (not all) but quite a few AA men have no problem dating outside and inside the race-which brings various issues to the table when you are not monogamous.
Socially-Finacially-70% of AA women are the head of the household- which means socially and mentally we are killing ourselves because (for the rest please visit - Thestateofblackamerica.blogspot.com) This is a new blog that I find interesting

^^^

Easy solution: ALWAYS protect yourself physically, socially, and financially regardless of who you date. Love yourself and be loyal to yourself before loving and being loyal to a man of any race or ethnicity.

<---loyal to black men because there isn't a shortage of good ones out there :)

"We" was me, DSTRen13, and DSTCHAOS.



I've "admitted" several times that that's what I think. However I did not indicate that the social construction of race was the only topic to be discussed in this thread.

Best wishes on GC.

Laylo...why??
 

Laylo,

Why are ya'll playing with this clown? She clearly knows nothing, and she has no idea what she's talking about. I read all of her post and realized that I was wasting my time in doing so. She doesn't know the difference between African Americans, South Afrikkaners, or true Africans. Why would she? Clearly, she has never been expected to know the differences in these nomenclatures that define nothing more than geographical states of existence, and the ethnigroups that live according to the placings of these names. She's probably not a full blown racist, but moreso, a closet one. As a matter of fact, Sista is probably a dude, faking to be female. Don't waste your time Laylo.

7th

Exactly. ;) :)

Sometimes the topic may get the person involved or it is just the troll. I know I let a troll or two get under my skin before. Laylo knows that person is not worth the time.

I see..
 

1908Revelations,

I see and I dig that. To school her/him through his/her apparent sophomoric understanding is brilliant. Good deal.

7th

When someone misunderstands something that I do understand or says things about me that are untrue, I'm inclined to clarify. But I do know that you have to choose your battles and I agree that in this case I should not have bothered. I just got caught up. I'll do better in the future.

That's what I thought it meant.




Then you would not have to make it a point to point out what you and someone else was discussing. Particularly, when it was you who first approached me after I made a contribution to this topic which you so happened to disagree with. I was not the one who initially approached you with a rebuttal and then turned around and made it a point to mention that me and others were talking about such and such.

Now, best wishes to you

Soror I was just telling 7th about how I was livid about a thread in our Ave about dating and how I was mighty P.O.ed!! There is nothing wrong with clarifying what you meant.

BTW....I love your siggy

As far as my being called a closet racist and a clown, it doesn't phase me coming from a bunch of wanna be professors and fake scholars.

I tried to redirect the topic for the longest, it was your obsessed colleague who kept it up. I am very stubborn so I do have the stamina to keep going, even if it is all for nothing. However, nothing is not always for nothing and we even learn from the time we think we have wasted. What I have learned is, you are all a team of phonies who keep evading my question. I asked a question which no one seems to be able to deal with. I wonder why?




Those British people for the purposes of political reasons, as well as for many other underlining reasons, they are fighting for the right to become as South African as the real South Africans. They are fighting to be referred to as South Africans. This very same thing happened to the Aboriginals of Australia.

How does the above relate to this idea of "social constructs, social construction?


Help me out here, I am only trying to learn what this social construction B/S seems to be about. :rolleyes:

Sista,
Why are you trying to learn what the "social construction b/s" is all about from the fake scholar-wannabe professor-phonies. Since you think we don't know what we are talking about, why don't you pick up a book and find out for yourself, an intelligent, proactive woman would. If you need some help, some authors to start with are Michael Omni and Howard Winant. Also, Marilyn Halter has a good book about the Cape Verdean-American struggle with race and ethnicity where she touches on the discussion of race being a social construct.

Ch2th...how did you know that you fake wanna be scholar?? J/K

You faker!!!
 

Ch2tf,

From one fake scholar-wannabe professor to another, good chit. You made us look good. :) Whew! I was getting worried that we were losing the battle to an asinine precocious perpetrating clown whose statements are only perniciuos to herself.

7th

They are wonderful but Sista might get confused if she's having a hard time in this thread. :p

I argue she should start with Joe Feagin and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. They do introductory level textbooks.

Feagin & Feagin was my Sociology of Race & Ethnicity text ... decent book :) However, she still may be confused. And it would probably offend her, besides.

I was being sarcastic.
I'm not trying to learn anything from you guys concerning social construction.

What I said was just a way to redirect you guys from your calling me names. I figured, have you guys think I want to learn something and then your little egos would stop the name calling and actually come to my aid. None of you guys paid attention to my roll eyse face after the post or you did yet you missed the tone of sarcasm. I am not mad at you guys at all and I hope you are not mad with me.


I think you know what you are talking about, in terms of knowing what you have been taught. I didn't mean at all that what you have been taught seems to be the real deal and therefore I am open to learn more about it. I understand deep down below, what this social construction is all about. That is why I asked you to tell me how is it right or socially acceptable for British settlers to get a way with renaming their self South Africans? It is not right for them to do that and if we let people get away with thinking that because they forced their way into someone else's country and been there for a long time that that makes it okay for them to now say they are original Africans, we would really be setting our self op for future damage.

Social Construction is seems to be a well put together sociological theory that was put together not only for good converstation and food for thought but also to justify the theft of other peoples land and to justify the same rights of the people who first occupied that land. Political rights, rights of ownership to land and so forth. Social Construction, it is a set up.


How many black people do you know that stole land and then wanted to claim they were the originals to that land? If black people went to Europe right now, without even trying to steal the land and just settling there, no way in the world would they be trying to claim original Europenas to that land and if they did, they wouldn't even be able to get away with it.

First of all the "title" South African is NOT a race but a NATIONALITY. We were speaking on RACE as a social construct (i.e. black, white, latino, asian, etc.) White people, descendents of British settlers, and anyone else born in S. Africa are South Africans (national identity), just like a person born in the U.S is an American, just like someone born in Mexico is a Mexican. What you are talking about, from what I gather from your post(s) is colonization issues not 'race' issues. It may appear to be a 'race' issue because the parties involved are of different 'races', but what you seem to be concerned with is colonization. In many cases a discussion of 'race' runs parallel to that of colonization but they are not one in the same.

What's up my fellow fake scholar...etc....
 

Ch2tf,

Hey buddy!!!! I just want to add that, when defining a white person born in South Africa, the ethnotype is defined as South Afrikkaner. This is done specifically to make the distinction between blacks born in South Africa and whites born there. Sista, I hope tha you don't mind me trying to help school your catamitish ass, cause I do so out of love. :)

7th

Ah, but that is the subtle trick of this whole situation. Historically, South Africans are blacks, African people. In a sense, you could just say that South Africans are the blacks who indigenously occupy the southern part of Africa as well as West Africans are the black people who indigenously occupy the West part of Africa. American is not entirely the same as your parallel to South Africa in terms of national identity. If a West African visited South Africa, he would not be seen as a foreigner yet he would be seen as a black person coming from the West of Africa. He would not be able to come into South Africa or any parts of Africa as a white person and be seen as anything but foreigner.


Historically, Americans are Native Americans reddish brown people. As well as Egypt is historically black African people. However, we don't talk much about those indigenous people who once belonged to those lands and it is a no wonder why for years producers have been getting away with depicting Egyptian characters as anything but black people; to the point where it has gotten that people actually think that the real Egyptians were anything but black. However when one looks at the Egyptian Hieroglyphics, the majority of the people on the Hieroglyphics are black, brown or reddish brown people and the only people who are depicted as white are the invaders. Not to mention, the DNA test done on the Mummies showed that the Egyptians had high levles of melanin equating to present African black people.

Any way, we don't hear anything about the above in history. My point is, conquerors, settlers and people who go around stealing land, they are the ones getting the credit for everything original, they are stealing the land, stealing the benefits of the land and now they are stealing the race, ethnicity and contributions that those particular races and ethnicity's of people contributed through out history. Pretty soon, because America was conquered by the white man, any contributions any American made weather the American is black, brown, native American or Asian, history will argue that people like Martin Luther King, Tupac and so forth were white people. Some will argue that people like Tupac and Martin were native American and some will argue that people like that were black or probably Asian . This whole social construction thing just sounds like propaganda which will promote that the theft of contributions, land and identity is just one of those things.

I can't tell you how many present day Moroccans and Egyptians who are white argue that historical Egyptians were white as well. They really think life began in North Africa with their people. Or do they really think that? :rolleyes:

I am trying to find a source as we speak but you haven't heard about Whites residing in South Africa who are fighting for the right to be seen as African? These same people, most who were prominent figures in the apartheid movement, refuse to fill out census forms in which they would have to identify themselves as either African, White, Indian or Chinese. The same people who, back then during the apartheid regime, wanted nothing to be associated with blcak people and their cultures. Now that the tables have turned they want to be called the sons and daughters of the soil. What a joke!

here is a question....

why would the current south african government let anyone associated with the apart-tied (when even close friends were tied away from each other by instutionalized racialism [racism is different]) government stay in the country after the regime change?

also, do they still have three capitals?

Remember this: economically, there was not a revolution per se. Whites were and still are the monied elites in the nation. The govt. has had to work with this reality, while attempting to open economic opportunities for blacks and other groups. Case in point: a brother in my present graduate chapter went to South Africa a few weeks ago on vacation. When he was Johanessburg, he went to an upscale restaurant. The only blacks there were the wait staff. When he entered the door the hostess warmly welcomed him and went out of her way to cater to him, remarking she was glad to see a black person there as a patron. So, in many ways, economically and socially, there is still de facto apartheid.

And again I'm going to tell you that a substantial portion of your 'issue' is one that deals with colonization and its consequences. Race is often, if not always intertwined with said issue, but what you are speaking of needs to be dissected beyond the race factor. I personally do not have enough substantial knowledge of this particular situation, and I feel that your descriptions and diatribes do not come with enough background for me to make an informed statement on the facts of the case, but I will get back to you when I can.;)

I Personally take issue with you comparing MLK to Tupac.

There are a lot of people who believe a lot of things that may not be true. Even when informed and educated, people will often take a position on something that many others cannot fathom. It is a part of life. The only thing that can be done is to educate others. After that, it is up to the individuals. Hell the KKK still believes in killing Af-Am, that we don't belong here, etc. And as long as they exist they will, no matter what is done, how we progress, etc.

Did you just put the "contributions" of Tupac up there with those of Martin Luther King?

Aside from putting those two together in the same sentence......this whole paragraph is borderline ridiculous.

:eek:

old quote but just made me spit my drink on my work computer...thanks soror!!!!:mad: :D
LMAO!!!

I don't see how colonization could interfere with the idea of Social construction when in fact, we were talking about Social construction in reference to the way blacks in America are viewed as, in terms of race.



I'm sorry, I should have made my self a bit more clear. I used Martin Luther King as an example because he got involved in a struggle where he struggled for all people, not only that, in the future, it could and would be easy to construe his full name for a name belonging to a European. Also, White people love to take credit for doing something as courageous as Martin did. I mentioned Tupac in the same sentence with Martin because I don't know if you have noticed but pretty soon, young blacks will get bored with Rapp music, as black people tend to get bored with many of their creations hence, moving onto something else. When that happens, white people hapily will pick it up and they have already been preparing to do so. White people have been observing how blacks tend to create and create over and over, hence leaving behind what they previously invented. White people will love to be the ones who take over and take full credit for rapp music. Next thing you know, Mackavelli will go from who he originally was, that being a white man, to Tupacs altered ego back to Tupac, in the futre of course, originally, being white. When that happens, of course, white people will have taken over and the black Tupac won't be anything but a myth whereas the true Tupac will be a white man. All of the urban Rapp movies will feature white Tupac...

Ha, ha, ha :eek:

I now see how, no matter how much it is explained to you, and no matter how many sources you are referred to with regards to colonization and race as a social construct, you are not going to get it. I'll ask someone to pray for you because I don't even have the patience to do that.

I think wanda sykes has a good take on the whole matter....

If people didn't integrate, there wouldn't be a such thing as colonization and there wouldn't be a such thing as racism, hence, there would not be a such thing as racial distinction. Maybe a such thing as class, higher and lower but not racism hence racial distinction. If not for colonailsim, theft of land and intergration, we would not be talking about Social Construction. Do you understand that? I don't care if you try and turn this around to make it seem as though I just don't get it. Bottom line, Social construction wouldn't have been thought of, if there wasn't some type of underlining propaganda to detour the not well thought out futurisitic/present results due to colonialism, integration and theft of land. Perfect example, South Africa.

Social Construction:
A social construction, or social construct, according to the school of social constructionism, is an idea which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society. The implication is that social constructs are human choices rather than laws of God or nature

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction

This is one of the most insanely fucking idiotic things I have ever read on this board. Shut up and get off of your high horse. You are an incredible moron.

Slavery was insane, the annihilation of the Tazmanian aboriginals was insane, The bubonic plague was insane, Aids is insane, people are insane, Blowing up the melonsian islands with nuclear bombs and then placing the natives to that island back on the island, was insane but guess what? It happens and it all did happen :eek:

Incredible? Yes, Moron? No

Just a plain old realist :p

Is there anyone out there who understands and knows what I am saying? If so, please, step up and say something. Don't say something in my defense but say something because it would be the right thing to do. I mean, the name calling is really not necessary. However, I know that the truth is subject to causing people to go bonkers. :eek:

People are most likely calling you names because you continue to talk and use examples of which it is obvious that even you yourself don't understand. Case in point your choice to define and the bold certain sections of the above definition clearly show that you lack certain critical reading skills. You chose to excerpt the above definition to "prove" that a social contstruct in an invention or artifact..." But what you failed to realize when trying to make said quip is that you are only supporting what just about everyone here has been trying to tell you. But just a word of advice on critical reading. When using above referenced definition of social construct, you must insert the social construction you are intending to speak about. Since 'race' is the social construct being spoken of in this thread, I'll give you an example. Replace 'race' with "social construct" and you get the following:

"'race' is an idea which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society."

This explains how the concept of race has and will continue to change and be "flexible" in American society, just as much as it explains how the concept of race varies within and between the U.S., Latin America, Europe, Africa. etc.

Ch2tf ... you have so much more patience than I will ever have. I'm glad you understood what she was talking about by quoting wikipedia.com, because I definitely didn't ...

Can you interpret this part? I have no idea what she is trying to say (really, I don't know why I want to any more, except it's kind of a morbid fascination).

What does that mean?? :confused:

This is incorrect. Colonization, racism, and racial distinctions did not begin because of integration. These constructs can and do exist in relatively racial and ethnic homogenous environments.

Instead of going back and forth you, because this has apparently become your thread, I just urge you to read those sources that we mentioned to you pages ago. Do NOT start with Omi and Winant's racial formation theory because you will get lost in it like you did this thread. Begin with the introductory-level textbooks provided by Joe Feagin and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.


You had to go to Wikipedia for that? Wow. I told you what a social construction is pages ago.

This thread is frustrating to some of us because even some of our students don't take as long to grasp these concepts or at least read up on them themselves, as you have. If you want to discuss, do so after you have the basic understanding and can apply them more broadly.