african american whaaaaa??????

[GePap]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Actually most South African whites consider themselves African. Especially the Afrikaaners.

Oh, yes, hence the apartheid system...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lorizael
GePap, you're just further showing that the whole shindig with labels is pretty stupid.

Actually, the reality is that your position is based on wonderful but misguided idealism.

Human beings are social beings, part of our identity is labelling. And given the nature of language, and the realities of mankind as a political beast, all labels have political connotations. One of the greatest powers of nationalism has been to have people label themselves more closely with say a distant political construct like the State with defined land boundaries that may include you but that in general have nothing to do with you above say, your identity as a resident of X community, which is a change from most of human history.

So of course people will label themselves. As for the valididty of labels, African-American makes far more sense than Black, since it seeks to be a cultural label, NOT racial. Decendents of slaves do have a common shared history that say, a Black right of the boat from Lagos does not. It has alreayd been said that Recent africans don't like being labelled African -Americans.

The important part of African-American most certainly is the American part, for it is a claim to a shared experience and culture (hwich includes the birth of Jazz, and Soul for example) for the decendents of the African slaves brought to these shores (most who came from west africa only and not other sections)-so what created this common culture was their experiences on the Americas.


A more valid question would be if the term African American extends to all decendents of Slaves from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, or if only those of the 13 English colonies can claim it.

[Az]

Originally posted by MrFun
hi whitey -- what's up?

Actually, it's only half joking. Because, since in the middle east, race is not an issue, really, suprisingly enough.

Jordanian Royal family men: are they white?




Dead Egyptian Prez Nasser: is he white?



another one, Sadat, is he?



Mubarak, is he?



or here's a pic of the Syrian MFA surrounded by a bunch of people... who of them are white?




and Israelis.... I mean...








so, basically, caling a person's race is weird. esp. here.

Btw, have you noticed the complete lack of women in these pics?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, the reality is that your position is based on wonderful but misguided idealism.

Human beings

Stop. Remember, I don't even call myself human, despite a very obvious phsyical and psychological resemblance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Stop. Remember, I don't even call myself human, despite a very obvious phsyical and psychological resemblance.

Well, then, that is just foolishness.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, then, that is just foolishness.

Eh. Probably. I think definitions limit.

[GePap]

Azazel: 'white' as a construct is a reaction to Negro (or black)- you see, it was a way for Catholic groups such as the Irish and Italians to define themselves with the protestants in the US as opposed to goodness me the blacks. I mean, what did an Italian share with an Englishman? Not much, but here in America, both were not black-hence, they were both white. This happened as well to the Jews and is now happening with Slavs- mainly Russians. They can all share in "whiteness". Which is why you, if you came to the US would be firmly in whiteness.

Hispanics define themselves culturally, and hence they haven't taken 'advantage' of this label.

I assume Arabs and Turks and others are stuck, like the East Asians and South Asians, unable to take on the label white due to the cultural difference and some race aspects being too "outside the white mainstream"

[Az]

How so? Many arabs and turks are "white enough", if I am.

[GePap]

Because white is not just a "race thing"-again, not the timeline- the Irish and Italians faced discrimination for being catholics, not good old protestants, so they sought a label to change the discussion, from religion to race, where they were on the same side. NOw, this did not stop some, like the KKK , from still hating N*ggers, Papists and Jews.

Now, including Jews into "white" took some time, but note all the references today to the Judeo-Christian tradition-this happened after WW2. Noticibly absent is Islam in this monotheistic community. NOte as well that most jews in the US are Azkhenazi, not sephardic. Yes, there have been old sephardic communities but the paler Azkhenazi were always the mayority, so it was easier then in that regard to include them in "whiteness".

Arabs aren't as pale as the Azkhenazi and are mostly muslims (though of course, not Arabs in the US who are mostly Christian, go figure), so they are a bit too foreign to get included into the "whiteness club". Ditto for northern Indians (the whole hindu thing, you know)

[Az]

Judeo-Christian tradition-this happened after WW2. Noticibly absent is Islam in this monotheistic community.

Well, in most contexts, when I read about the Judeo-Christian values, I read them in negative contexts. Maybe I don't fully understand this. I guess this is an american thing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Then you are a hypocrite. It's not about choice for you. It's about what you feel is appropriate and right. In the end, if you don't want to call someone African-American, you won't. Consistency, che. It's all about consistency.

Well, you got me there. Of course, since history, culture, and ancestry aren't consistent, it's also completely irrelevent that you got me. Your point is irrelevent. It is about decency and respect, which are never consistent. Consistency has absolutely nothing to do with this.

[MrFun]

Lorizael -- you take deconstructionism to an extreme level.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Azazel: 'white' as a construct is a reaction to Negro (or black)- you see, it was a way for Catholic groups such as the Irish and Italians to define themselves with the protestants in the US as opposed to goodness me the blacks. I mean, what did an Italian share with an Englishman? Not much, but here in America, both were not black-hence, they were both white. This happened as well to the Jews and is now happening with Slavs- mainly Russians. They can all share in "whiteness". Which is why you, if you came to the US would be firmly in whiteness.

Hispanics define themselves culturally, and hence they haven't taken 'advantage' of this label.

I assume Arabs and Turks and others are stuck, like the East Asians and South Asians, unable to take on the label white due to the cultural difference and some race aspects being too "outside the white mainstream"

agree white is a construction, but im not sure about your chronology. White as a category was defined by the dominant old stock protestants, NOT by the immigrant groups - its part of northern and southern mainstream discourse pre-1860, when Irish are still marginalized. Certainly the Irish took advantage of it to enter the 'white' category, but they didnt invent the labels. And Italians were not "white" till much later - in particular i recall a reference in Faulkner, I think it was in "the sound and the fury" to Italians as not white - that would be as late as 1910 or so (the time the story is set, not when it was written). IIUC the notion of eastern Jews and Slavs as 'white' occurred about the same time as the Italians - 1920 to 1940 or so ( I do recall a line contrasting Jews and 'whites' in "the apprenticeship of Dudy Kravitz" set in the '40s, but thats Canadian)

WRT Hispanics, ISTR a study at least 25 years ago indicating that darker skinned hispanics were slower to learn English than lighter skinned ones, presumably out of reluctance to assimilate to "black". Not sure if thats still true - the makeup of the US hispanic community has changed in the last few decades, anyway - then it was almost entirely Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel

Judeo-Christian tradition-this happened after WW2. Noticibly absent is Islam in this monotheistic community.

Well, in most contexts, when I read about the Judeo-Christian values, I read them in negative contexts. Maybe I don't fully understand this. I guess this is an american thing.

yeah, between the Islamists and the euro leftists you get a jaundiced view

Judeo -christian was in fashion at one point among SOME reform jews who wanted to make judaism look more western and less alien - since their judaism emphasized "ethical monotheism" and not halacha, this was not hard to do - although a famous progressive Rabbi, Leo Baeck wrote a major book contrasting jewish and Christian approaches to ethics. The term judeo-christian was then also used by liberal christians.

In more recent years the terms judeo-christian values is more often used by conservative christians, who want to make their own support for religious values in the public sphere look less parochial, and more tolerant.

Obviously this usage has an additional edge since September 11.

Those events, and the events in Israel since January 2001, have obscured the considerable civilizational interpenetration between Islam and traditional Judaism.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by MrFun
Lorizael -- you take deconstructionism to an extreme level.

Correct. Point?