![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 11th, 2002 08:40 pmHello. I've been taking a break from livejournal because I've been both extremely busy and spending most of my time online ::ahem:: at Lord of the Rings fansites
However, I was working on my social studies essays. We're up to the chapter that talks about slavery, so in writing the essays I've been talking about white people as a group a lot, and black people as a group a lot (I actually tend to say "slave" more often, because it is more specific and doesn't create a false bond, even though it might seem to demean. In my mind it doesn't, really, though). It's been rather difficult for me, because one thing I really loathe is generalizations. [augh! I keep hitting "command-save" because I'm so used to typing my essays and I'm a frenetic saver] I noticed that I was quite unhappy writing "blacks" and "whites", and changed it to "black people" and "white people". However, I was still getting pangs and a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach every time I used one of these phrases. So I started thinking about why, and ending up writing a whole extra page at the end of my essays. It was quite helpful, I think. I also think it's maybe a little bit idealized. Rather in that I left some things out than that what I said is itself untrue. Anyway, here is what I wrote (somewhat added to as I write the entry):
Using the phrases “blacks” and “whites” was almost physically painful to me. I changed everything to “black people” and “white people”, but it still feels quite wrong. I feel like I’m discussing races, not people. I feel like I’m making generalizations. I feel like I’m simplifying people into groups, that you aren’t an individual person, you’re a color. I feel that I’m defining people by their race. I feel very bad. However, unfortunately, although the word “unfortunately” is certainly an understatement in the situation, in the time of which I am writing about, people were indeed separated and defined by their race. Also unfortunately (using the same massively expanded definition of unfortunately that I called upon in the previous sentence), this is still often true today. People of different races are far more equal than they were before; and under the laws of the land (except for recent exceptions, I believe, following September 11 of 2001, when America has begun to view those of Middle Eastern descent differently, as opposed to those of African descent) are technically equal. However, in the minds of the people, barriers are still raised. Races are still viewed as different from each other, when the only thing that changes is the color of one’s skin and sometimes the culture in which one grew up in (and, of course, how you are viewed by other people--the problem I am addressing). “Blacks” and “whites” are not groups of people. “Black people” and “white people” are not groups of people. “People with browner, darker colored skin” is a group of people. “People with more peach, paler colored skin” is a group of people. “People with more tan, medium colored skin” is a group of people. The only common thread that people within these groups share is the shade of their skin. That is the only reason why they can be grouped together; and the only context in which they can be discussed as a group: when discussing different skin colors. Not "races". Not types of people. It does not extend further than skin color. A nationality, also, only shows where a person was born, and perhaps what language they might speak or different culture and customs that they might have and observe. That is all. Your race describes the color of your skin. Your nationality describes the country in which you were born. You cannot use someone's race or nationality to make any sort of statement about them beyond those. Using the words or terms “blacks” and “whites” implies that the groups of people who share these different shades of skin tone have similarities with each other that transcends outward appearances; that all are alike or similar.
so there you have it. ::coughs:: i'm afraid that that's going to sound very stupid, or that there are gaping logical flaws in there somewhere. If there is a similarity between a group of people who have the same skin color, it is not because they are of the same race but because they are of the same culture: they have been raised a certain way, and society views them a certain way.
I believe this was brought on not only by the essays, but by bits of conversation that I heard from Friedman on the bus ride back from the Academons trip. I'm fairly certain he was talking about "blacks" as a voting body. At the time, I felt that this was bad, but couldn't exactly put my finger on it, both because I had not thought everything through clearly, and also because I could not think of a different term. And now can't really either, but I'm fairly certain that's due to my lack of knowledge of the situation than because there isn't one. and if there isn't, one should be created, I suppose. Actually, thinking about it, I can think of a replacement term. People in this situation can really only be defined as people who would tend to vote one way, or support certain programs or candidates. When you support a candidate, it is not because you have a biological trait that forces you to vote for people of the same race as you. Race may have something to do with things, but not because of the skin color but because of the huge cultural baggages that we seem to attach to different races. (wow. well, there I go.)
Anyway. I'm sure I'm not saying anything new, but it was good to think about and put into my own words. I kinda like it. Even though I'm afraid that I've made some gaping mistake or forgotten something that will ruin my logic. >.> But. Yeah.
So. . . that used up a lot of my time. fug. I still have quite a bit left to write.
However, I was working on my social studies essays. We're up to the chapter that talks about slavery, so in writing the essays I've been talking about white people as a group a lot, and black people as a group a lot (I actually tend to say "slave" more often, because it is more specific and doesn't create a false bond, even though it might seem to demean. In my mind it doesn't, really, though). It's been rather difficult for me, because one thing I really loathe is generalizations. [augh! I keep hitting "command-save" because I'm so used to typing my essays and I'm a frenetic saver] I noticed that I was quite unhappy writing "blacks" and "whites", and changed it to "black people" and "white people". However, I was still getting pangs and a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach every time I used one of these phrases. So I started thinking about why, and ending up writing a whole extra page at the end of my essays. It was quite helpful, I think. I also think it's maybe a little bit idealized. Rather in that I left some things out than that what I said is itself untrue. Anyway, here is what I wrote (somewhat added to as I write the entry):
Using the phrases “blacks” and “whites” was almost physically painful to me. I changed everything to “black people” and “white people”, but it still feels quite wrong. I feel like I’m discussing races, not people. I feel like I’m making generalizations. I feel like I’m simplifying people into groups, that you aren’t an individual person, you’re a color. I feel that I’m defining people by their race. I feel very bad. However, unfortunately, although the word “unfortunately” is certainly an understatement in the situation, in the time of which I am writing about, people were indeed separated and defined by their race. Also unfortunately (using the same massively expanded definition of unfortunately that I called upon in the previous sentence), this is still often true today. People of different races are far more equal than they were before; and under the laws of the land (except for recent exceptions, I believe, following September 11 of 2001, when America has begun to view those of Middle Eastern descent differently, as opposed to those of African descent) are technically equal. However, in the minds of the people, barriers are still raised. Races are still viewed as different from each other, when the only thing that changes is the color of one’s skin and sometimes the culture in which one grew up in (and, of course, how you are viewed by other people--the problem I am addressing). “Blacks” and “whites” are not groups of people. “Black people” and “white people” are not groups of people. “People with browner, darker colored skin” is a group of people. “People with more peach, paler colored skin” is a group of people. “People with more tan, medium colored skin” is a group of people. The only common thread that people within these groups share is the shade of their skin. That is the only reason why they can be grouped together; and the only context in which they can be discussed as a group: when discussing different skin colors. Not "races". Not types of people. It does not extend further than skin color. A nationality, also, only shows where a person was born, and perhaps what language they might speak or different culture and customs that they might have and observe. That is all. Your race describes the color of your skin. Your nationality describes the country in which you were born. You cannot use someone's race or nationality to make any sort of statement about them beyond those. Using the words or terms “blacks” and “whites” implies that the groups of people who share these different shades of skin tone have similarities with each other that transcends outward appearances; that all are alike or similar.
so there you have it. ::coughs:: i'm afraid that that's going to sound very stupid, or that there are gaping logical flaws in there somewhere. If there is a similarity between a group of people who have the same skin color, it is not because they are of the same race but because they are of the same culture: they have been raised a certain way, and society views them a certain way.
I believe this was brought on not only by the essays, but by bits of conversation that I heard from Friedman on the bus ride back from the Academons trip. I'm fairly certain he was talking about "blacks" as a voting body. At the time, I felt that this was bad, but couldn't exactly put my finger on it, both because I had not thought everything through clearly, and also because I could not think of a different term. And now can't really either, but I'm fairly certain that's due to my lack of knowledge of the situation than because there isn't one. and if there isn't, one should be created, I suppose. Actually, thinking about it, I can think of a replacement term. People in this situation can really only be defined as people who would tend to vote one way, or support certain programs or candidates. When you support a candidate, it is not because you have a biological trait that forces you to vote for people of the same race as you. Race may have something to do with things, but not because of the skin color but because of the huge cultural baggages that we seem to attach to different races. (wow. well, there I go.)
Anyway. I'm sure I'm not saying anything new, but it was good to think about and put into my own words. I kinda like it. Even though I'm afraid that I've made some gaping mistake or forgotten something that will ruin my logic. >.> But. Yeah.
So. . . that used up a lot of my time. fug. I still have quite a bit left to write.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-12-11 08:22 pm (UTC)I think that the reason that the racial groupings continue to survive is based on the idea that a lot (if not a majority) of people in the U.S. within the same skin color groupings grow up in the same culture (or relatively minor variants on the same culture).
Don't take this to say that I think racial/skin color groupings are a valid way to look at people, or that assumptions and stereotypes are necessarily true. I'm just giving my $.02 as to why people continue to be grouped by physical appearances...
Anyway, I could probably rant a lot more <g> but I doubt I'd make much sense right now...
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 03:42 am (UTC)i'm fairly certain I explained myself poorly on that one. I know what you mean, though! ;)
no subject
Date: 2002-12-11 08:32 pm (UTC)Dave
no subject
Date: 2002-12-11 10:10 pm (UTC)As for race... Well, as you might remember, last semester I taught a prejudice reduction course to high school freshmen. In the curriculum, ethnicity rather than race was emphasized. I basically taught my students that there is no such thing as race. Race is a stupid social construction. People with paler skin are no more of a group than people with darker skin. A dark skinned person from Haiti has very little in common with a dark skinned person that happens to be Maori, but they are both still defined as "black." This is just wrong. As a definition, race just doesn't work. It only works in American for black people because they've consciously CREATED a "black identity" to fight all the prejudice that they've always been up against.
Okay, example. Native American Indian is a "race." The red-man, doncha know. However, most NAI's are appalled to be lumped in with all the other tribes. Pueblos certainly have nothing in common with the Choctaw, the Cherokee have nothing to do with the Hopi, Apache, Mohawk, Ute, Shawnee, Lakota, or the Skokomish. They all have different languages, customs, and even physical characteristics.
And then there's Asian. Asian is a little better than either "black" or "white" as a cultural signifier, but there is A LOT to Asia. The Chinese still have a lot of bad feelings toward the Japanese decades after the invasion and simply HATE to be identified in any way with them. Thai's are nothing like Koreans. Indians are asian, but it's it more descriptive to call them Indian, or better yet, Hindu or Toda or Jainist or whatever?
People normally referred to as "white" have within the last century lost their own sense of ethnic identity and thus don't know how to deal with the identity of others. Did you know that people from Ireland and Italy were HEAVILY discriminated against at the turn of the 20th century? But they've faded into the rest of the populace with lighter skin now. So, instead of "white," how about "European American," or even "Caucasian." (My dictionary defines Caucasian as "of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India: no longer in technical use" so be wary). And instead of black, how about using "of African descent" or "African American." Most African Americans don't know where their ancestors came from so they can't get more specific in their ethnic identities.
Race is not something that is REAL. Ethnicity is a better dividing line, if that line must be drawn at all.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 03:51 am (UTC)Ethnicity is "better" because, not only is it more specific and more truthful, your ethnicity has a greater bearing on your culture and lifestyle than does your skin color--although even that doesn't apply to everyone.
And of course, as you said, it's better not to make a dividing line at all. :)
geez, you know a lot more about this than I do ;)
Although I don't even like the term "African-American", although it does apply to some of the kids at school (and is, of course, much better than "black") I'm fairly certain that most of the kids who have darker skin are from somewhere in the Caribbean. Although, thinking about it, their ancestors might have been brought over from Africa at some time in the past. But I think many think of themselves as being Haitian or Dominican or something.
I often feel very badly because I am aware that Native American is a term that falls horribly short and that the people I'm calling "Native American" are members of individual tribes and not one huge group. But at the same time I know very little about the different tribes and all that. I should look into that, come to think of it, instead of just complaining. (at academons yesterday I got a question wrong about which tribe Andrew Jackson fought. . . ugh. and my US History teacher is the advisor. >.< waaaah!)
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 09:59 pm (UTC)*ahem*
Er, right. Anyway, the only reason I know more about the ethnicity versus race question is because I taught it. ^_^
It's a hard question to address, no matter what. Just do what feels best for you, 'kay?
no subject
Date: 2002-12-11 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-11 10:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 03:53 am (UTC)and I'd been to the site of theonering.net but not to the livejournal ;)
no subject
Date: 2002-12-12 02:31 pm (UTC)And even how ridiculous it sounds...
And you're arguments that you had to identify groups solely based on their skin colour are bang on because that is how they identified themselves. The European descendant Caucasians were proud of their skin colour. And as much as you would like to say that the blacks who were slaves were African, you can't because ALL peoples of colour including the Haitians, the Cubans, the South Americans, the Mexicans, the Asians, the Indians, and the Inuit were all treated unequally. And although Canada was the destination on the road to freedom for the slaves via Uncle Tom's cabin, the Chinese were hired very cheaply to help construct our railroad from coast to coast. It is said that for every mile of our railroad track that had been lain down, a Chinese had lost his life while volunteering for extra money as danger pay (our railroad goes literally through the Rockies). And to think, we are the second largest country in the world.