| Subject: Re: "The blacks" |
Author:
Raisinmom
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 18:41:13 09/25/02 Wed
In reply to:
Astrid
's message, "Re: "The blacks"" on 16:44:41 09/25/02 Wed
>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 don't like "the whites," but "the caucasians" or "the aboriginals" is less problematic because they are explicit names for groups of people, not just descriptive words that could, based on context, mean a group of people (like white and black). This is the root of my problem with "the blacks" -- not that it refers to different people in different cultures (that was part of my post about the term African-American) but rather that, by itself, the words "the blacks" do not refer to *any* people or *any* culture. When you say "the Chinese," you must be referring to a person or thing related to China. When you say "the aboriginals," you can only be referring to a particular group of people. When you say "the blacks," however, you could be referring to something totally inanimate and having nothing whatsoever to do with African-Americans or their culture. Because black (and white) are all-purpose adjectives, unlike "Chinese" or "Thai," they sound dehumanized when prefaced with an article. I realize black is more than a color -- but the words "the blacks" doesn't really reflect this.
>
>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?
Hm, there are other objections to "negroid." But if we could leave all those aside, its use would at least answer the concern I've heard and relayed here: at least then the term would necessarily refer to a people or culture. You wouldn't have headlines in Vogue screaming that "Red is the new negroid!"
>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.
True, but not a point related to my posting.
>
>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?
Well, remember, I didn't think using the term "the blacks" was necessarily racist. Anyway, saying "The Chinese are bad drivers" a problematic thing to say because of the level of generalization. I agree the second sentence is fine because it's factually accurate in a way the first sentence could not possibly be. But again, I think you've missed my point (or I haven't explained it): it wasn't the generalization of "the blacks" that I was reacting to, but rather the fact that it's a very impersonal, nonhuman way to label a group of people. This is why "the blacks who..." construction is less problematic, and "black people" is much less problematic: both are explicit that we are talking about black *people*. Not that the context would leave that in doubt -- just that it leaves a funny taste to use a term not tethered to a people or country.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 