![[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: 2002-12-12 02:31 pm (UTC)