Ferguson

[Colonel]

hmm, this thread is still going on and people still haven't accepted that Black crime rates are significantly higher then white crime rates or that black on white violent crime is insanely higher then white on black?

Since its been posted so many times over in this thread and the other thread that was closed there is no sense in bothering with those pesky facts that the left has decided to leave out of the narrative of this and other similar stories. Now I'll be attacked for this post and it will be called racist, etc but it doesn't change the facts that the black population accounts for a much larger portion of the crime then whites when adjusting for population. Check the FBI crime stats for the foundation of this.

Much less whether or not blacks, whites, or green people are the bigger criminals doesn't change the facts of this specific case. This case when a known violent criminal assaulted a cop, then attempted to return to finish the job and was then shot and killed by said cop. It wouldn't matter if he were white, black, latino, irish, an alien from pluto, the result would have been an officer upholding the law and shooting said individual when a threat to life was present.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There’s something else about the image that is reprehensible, besides the bogus math. It’s more subtle, but perhaps therefore more pernicious. Let’s grant for the sake of argument the opening data (which I haven’t been able to confirm or disconfirm): that, with all forms of violent crime considered, black-on-white instances outnumber white-on-black by a ratio of 5 to 1. The graphic they use to represent that shows one white guy pointing a gun at one black guy, followed by a graphic of five black guys pointing a gun at one white guy. To represent the purported facts, the second half of the image should more properly show five black guys pointing guns at five white guys: for every one white guy who commits a violent crime against a black guy, five black guys commit a crime against five white guys. The subtle insinuation of the graphic as it is instead actually handled is that blacks are ganging up in number on white people, attacking in groups of five to one (or later, with the bogus math, in groups of 25 to 1 or 200 to 1). It plays on its intended audience’s anxieties about lawless gangs of black men.

 

[Senethro]

Since its been posted so many times over in this thread and the other thread that was closed

The thread that was closed for so many borderline racist potential infractions that the moderators couldn't be bothered sorting it out? Please don't go trying to bury this thread the same way.

 

[Berzerker]

General rule of thumb, when somebody uses the term "blacks" exclusively, not as a shorthand for "black people" or "the black community" but just as the default collective noun for black Americans, it's because they understand it's no longer acceptable to say ""n---s" but don't understand why.

so it isn't racist to use "blacks" as shorthand for black people but it is racist to use it for black Americans?

really?

thats BS, I grew up in San Francisco during the "black power" movement and it was blacks themselves who began using the term. My generation grew up with the word as part of the culture.

colored > negro > black > african american

 

[Senethro]

so it isn't racist to use "blacks" as shorthand for black people but it is racist to use it for black Americans?

really?

thats BS, I grew up in San Francisco during the "black power" movement and it was blacks themselves who began using the term. My generation grew up with the word as part of the culture.

colored > negro > black > african american

TF was commenting on the use of the word in the racist infographic that has since been removed. Racists can make any word dirty. Their forked tongues make everything come out all hissed.

 

[Berzerker]

well in that case, general rule of thumb - I should look for context before becoming self righteous

sorry TF

 

[sophie]

so it isn't racist to use "blacks" as shorthand for black people but it is racist to use it for black Americans?

really?

thats BS, I grew up in San Francisco during the "black power" movement and it was blacks themselves who began using the term. My generation grew up with the word as part of the culture.

colored > negro > black > african american

black guy/woman: generally ok
black people: okish, but "People of color"/"African Americans" (in some but not all contexts) preferred

blacks/the blacks: not ok; makes you sound like an old racist.

 

[bhsup]

African American? No. I detest hyphenated American crap. Be American, period.

 

[Leonel]

African American? No. I detest hyphenated American crap. Be American, period.

Well I suspect it's born from a conflict black people feel for America. I've been told the conflict is similar to if you had an uncle that molested you as a kid but put you through college later on. Like there was the whole slavery and segregation thing but vast improvements in how black people were treated later on make it difficult to fully get past. So for now, I can understand the hyphenation.

 

[Berzerker]

black guy/woman: generally ok
black people: okish, but "People of color"/"African Americans" (in some but not all contexts) preferred

blacks/the blacks: not ok; makes you sound like an old racist.

Black people is ok, but blacks is racist? So white people is okay, but whites is racist? How about people with red skin? How does pluralizing a non-racist word make it racist?

Old I am, old enough to have grown up when colored and negro were becoming outdated where I lived - replaced with blacks... by blacks. Thats the word my generation - black, white and every shade of brown between - grew up on.

I dont think y'all understand that. Back in the 70s it was the blacks who wanted to be called black. The irony with that argument is blacks keep inventing new labels for themselves while the whites are still the whites.

People of color, African Americans, all I see are more syllables to say black. I'm too old for new tricks, but you've just put the word blacks in the company of racial slurs and I suggest you explain that to the middle aged blacks who adopted the term. Isn't people of color rather vague? Maybe even offensive to people of color who aint invited to the party? You know, the other 6 billion people on the planet?

 

[Kyriakos]

"People of color" sounds a bit convoluted- which makes it prone to seeming like an unintended euphemism. Personally i see no issue with "black people". Ok, black is associated with lots of things, and some of them even sinister (dark, the night, lack of knowledge etc etc) but it should go without saying that terms are not really tied to actual people anyway.
I don't see anyone feeling sad that "white people" is used, claiming that white can be symbolically tied to other problematic connotations (eg monotony, albinism etc), so it can be said that this debate is the product of very different problems and not one of words. Remember that you cannot regulate either what one means when using a term, nor how they may punctuate it, and banning terms is always backfiring or creating taboos.

 

[Flying Pig]

Black people is ok, but blacks is racist? So white people is okay, but whites is racist? How about people with red skin? How does pluralizing a non-racist word make it racist?

It's not the plural, it's the part of speech - an adjective is less offensive than a noun, because it consciously affirms that the people involved are still people. Historically, people who say things like 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' aren't making a meaningful distinction between the three categories.

 

[Domen]

Then "dogs" is also more offensive than "dog animals", I suppose.

black people: okish, but "People of color"/"African Americans" (in some but not all contexts) preferred

What if they live outside of America, for example in Europe ???

People of color ??? - uhm, everyone is of some color(s), not just them.

thats BS, I grew up in San Francisco during the "black power" movement and it was blacks themselves who began using the term.

Indeed.

This whole thing is not about terms but about reputation. Any term can be offensive and any can be "okish", because it depends on connotations these terms carry. Each time Sub-Saharan Americans chose a new name for themselves, it eventually became a slur, since people who offend them also changed the term they used.

This is why for example 100 years ago "they are Negroes" was considered PC, while "they are blacks" was considered offensive.

"Negro" is anyway just a Portuguese word for "black" (and it originates from Latin "niger", which also means black or dark).

Racists can make any word dirty

And that's why there is no point in bothering to replace established words by new ones each time someone "makes them dirty".

Quite the contrary, it would be better to stick firmly to said words but to build up their positive image and good connotations.

For example, "look our president is a N---- person, look how great are the N---- people, do not believe what racists say."

===========

Edit:

I don't see anyone feeling sad that "white people" is used, claiming that white can be symbolically tied to other problematic connotations (eg monotony, albinism etc), so it can be said that this debate is the product of very different problems and not one of words. Remember that you cannot regulate either what one means when using a term, nor how they may punctuate it, and banning terms is always backfiring or creating taboos.

Fully agreed! You actually wrote the same as I did and before me, too bad I had not read your post before writing mine.

 

[sophie]

Then "dogs" is also more offensive than "dog animals", I suppose.



What if they live outside of America, for example in Europe ???

Yes that is why I said "in certain contexts"

People of color ??? - uhm, everyone is of some color(s), not just them.

Don't be obtuse. Language is arbitrary. Get over it.

Indeed.

This whole thing is not about terms but about reputation. Any term can be offensive and any can be "okish", because it depends on connotations these terms carry. Each time Sub-Saharan Americans chose a new name for themselves, it eventually became a slur, since people who offend them also changed the term they used.

This is why for example 100 years ago "they are Negroes" was considered PC, while "they are blacks" was considered offensive.

"Negro" is anyway just a Portuguese word for "black" (and it originates from Latin "niger", which also means black or dark).

It's funny how on the one hand you grasp completely the idea that words have connotations outside of their denotative purpose, and that those connotations change and warp over time, such that a word that was perfectly fine 100 years ago can now result in a punch to the face, and then 2 paragraphs later completely miss that point. Etymology is nice, but we don't use "hart" and "hind" anymore and I don't see you complaining about our use of the word "deer". Words change. That's language.

 

[hangman]

African American? No. I detest hyphenated American crap. Be American, period.

No. There are different cultures in this country, and the demand to assimilate into the mainstream "American" (read: WASP) culture is what is killing my people's language and culture. I have never understood the hegemonic and jealous approach to minority cultures within America's borders.

-Sincerely, a Cajun

Black people is ok, but blacks is racist? So white people is okay, but whites is racist? How about people with red skin? How does pluralizing a non-racist word make it racist?

Basically yes. I don't fully understand it myself, but I think the implication by using a plural is that "blacks" describes a hivemind, while "black people" describes people who are black. It's sort of just...how it sounds. Maybe it's a generational thing.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's funny how on the one hand you grasp completely the idea that words have connotations outside of their denotative purpose, and that those connotations change and warp over time, such that a word that was perfectly fine 100 years ago can now result in a punch to the face, and then 2 paragraphs later completely miss that point. Etymology is nice, but we don't use "hart" and "hind" anymore and I don't see you complaining about our use of the word "deer". Words change. That's language.

Deer can't know what we call them. And if they could... would the issue there be about the word or with bad feelings due to hunting/other stuff?

Words themselves are not really subject to censoring as a 'damnation of memory' tactic. Even if a word is repressed it will either resurface or form into a new word with a similar meaning as the first one.
It seems very logical (and imo obvious) that the issue with slurs is not the actual term but the political problem with noted antipathy in social groups which are tied in the non-resolving affair of trying to ban terms or hide behind such a supposedly unjust failure to destroy words. They can't destroy words, cause words aren't destroyed. Luckily it is also true that no human ever actually needs something which he can never do anyway.. Noting that the parameters for exploding social friction (or worse) are likely more ominous in the US, the solution can never be something inherently impossible such as damning language and hoping it will go away.

 

[Domen]

Exactly, I agree with Kyriakos, changing terms is futile as long as connotations just skip to the new term. And that was my point.

But if you disagree then it would be nice if you also started using the term Slavons or Slovans instead of Slavs. Just an example.

 

[bhsup]

No. There are different cultures in this country, and the demand to assimilate into the mainstream "American" (read: WASP) culture is what is killing my people's language and culture. I have never understood the hegemonic and jealous approach to minority cultures within America's borders.

-Sincerely, a Cajun

Are you a Cajun first or an American first?

-Sincerely, an American

 

[Domen]

Are you a Cajun first or an American first?

-Sincerely, an American

Why are you always telling other people what they should be thinking, bhsup ???

If he is a Cajun let him be a Cajun. Are you afraid that Cajun minority will be too big and a Cajun separatism will start ???

Are you afraid that he will not be willing to sacrifice his life for your beloved America in a war against terror, or in a war for oil ???

 

[hangman]

Are you a Cajun first or an American first?

-Sincerely, an American

Most Cajuns don't have this idea that they have to choose between the two. They can be Cajun and American at the same time. You're only demonstrating my point that mainstream American culture is often hegemonic and jealous with respect to minority cultures.

But if I had to choose, I'd say Cajun, because American culture is not the culture I grew up in, and I have no particular loyalty to a nation that's done quite a lot to try to destroy us.