| Subject: Re: "The blacks" |
Author:
Astrid
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 16:44:41 09/25/02 Wed
In reply to:
Raisinmom
's message, "Re: "The blacks"" on 14:08:59 09/25/02 Wed
>Without context, "the blacks"
>has no humanity to it.
Do you feel the same about "the caucasians" or "the whites" or "the aboriginals"? All of these can also refer to different peoples in different cultures. "black" is more than just a colour--it's also a race. Yeah, I think I am missing your point here, sorry.
>I realize that in the quote in question there WAS
>context, but that doesn't negate what I'm trying to
>explain: that the term itself, even when used in a
>positive context, is objectionable to some because the
>context is *all* that gives the term a human or
>cultural association.
Ok, my question is, is there anything special about "the blacks" that doesn't apply to another group of people? If we used a biological term like "negroid" instead, would that be better, worse or the same?
I think ultimately the issue here is that "the blacks are always taking jobs from us" is racist, not only because it's conspiracy theory, but because it's a sweeping generalisation. "The blacks who have achieved greatness in the 20th century should be honoured during Black History Month" is not only a nice idea, but it's also talking about a specific group--therefore not a generalisation.
The issue on the board was of a specific group of blacks--those who fought for civil rights. They are not "the blacks", but rather, "the blacks who fought for civil rights".
Saying "The Chinese are bad drivers" is racist because it says that one thing (in this case, a negative thing) applies to ALL Chinese people. Saying "The Chinese who emigrated to Canada in the 19th century were mistreated by labour leaders" is ok.
Agreed?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 