Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Cathy,
    
    It's a matter of identity.  They are no longer African, but ARE of 
    Afriacan heritage... 
    
    Just as the Texacan and Mex-Tex of Texas tend to prefer being called
    such they are of Mexican heritage and do not like the term "Chicano"
    or any other of the various Mexican-American heritage names applied 
    to them.  
    
    The terms "Black" "Colored" and "Negro" all have there place in
    history.
    When I was a small boy of about 5 I knew a man who wanted to be called 
    Colored, his son felt that this was a derogitory term and prefered to
    be called "Negro" and HIS son felt both terms were dated suggested
    racial sluring and wanted to be called "Black".
    
    Further... the term Negro IS inappropriated being a derivative of the 
    name of a specific race of man (Such as the Caucasion or Whites... most 
    Whites prefer to be called by the country of heritage... (You yourself 
    stated you were European do you prefer being called Cauc? White? or
    European?  I'm of Indian heritage (American Indian) and as such I think 
    All of the other races here in the U.S. that use the term "American"
    are a bunch of nuts anyhow... :-).  
    
    Better will be the day when you look to someone and ask them "What
    nationality are you?" and they say "Human" without being ridiculed for
    it or having it matter.  
    
    But to your question... it's a matter of pride to speak of where one
    comes from.... a link to the past, and something to be proud of.  
    It's no worse then someone else claiming to be Chinese-American,
    Amer-In or Chicano.  It tells something of us.  We are AWARE of our
    ROOTS and heritage and although we now live in a different culture
    (American) we have not forgotten where we came from.  
    
    From where I stand however, It doesn't matter much about what a person
    is called, or what there heritage is, so much as who they are and what
    they can do for themselves.
    
    But then that's just my own opinions and a bit of the history that I
    know of about terminiology.
    
    Skip

    I just use their first name. 8^)
    
    -j
    

    re-1
    
    That makes more sense then anything I said.
    
    8^)
    skip
    

    "Human" is not a nationality...
    A nation is a piece of our world and there are many, many "pieces" in it.
    "ALL" of them, habitated by humans and animals.

    Ah and it's because of the distinction of these pieces that we have so 
    many different problems
    
    
    "Imagine there's no countries" are words from a song written about
    world peace.  What I'm saying is that the only thing that SHOULD 
    matter, is that each of us are HUMAN and should be treated that way.
    
    Skin color, nationality, religious beliefs, and such should NOT be 
    the excuses we use for the way we treat each other.
    
    Human isn't a nationality, but it IS a species and of more significance
    then "Negroid, Caucasion, Mongoloid... etc, etc, etc"  These are
    distinctions that have no real value if we stripped away the surface
    layer of skin on people.  
    
    SKip

    I think that Euro-American is probably more appropriate for most U.S.
    whites than Afro-American is for most U.S. blacks, if cultural identity
    is the criterion. Our schools and our media are more Euro-centric than
    anything else; English literature, French history, Italian food :). The
    typical American's exposure to "African culture" is minimal. I put
    "African culture" in quotes NOT because the term is inapplicable,
    rather because "African culture" is an incredibly diverse melange.
    Africa is huge! Africa never had the underlying cultural structure lent
    by the Romans and the Catholic Church. Even if black Americans make a
    study of Africa, they necessarily pick a corner to learn about.
    
    On the other hand, I think anyone should have the right to choose how
    they are named, and I'm loathe to offend anyone if they happen to
    prefer "Afro-American."
    
    I believe that I saw the results of a recent poll in which a bare
    majority (51%0 of U.S. citizens of African descent preferred to be called
    "black", with "Afro-American" being the not-so-distant second choice.

    Actually, 
    
    Since there are more then just the Afro-American heritage to the black
    "culture" I think it's a matter of the the black race being tired of
    getting lumped into the one group... 
    
    Very much like the American Indian... there are few who use the term 
    "AMer-In" most prefer to be called by the tribal name "Lakotas"
    "Black-Foot" "Cherokee"  etc.  For many years they were all lumped
    under the headings of "American Indian" and or "Red-Skin"   
    
    The reason you hear more of the "Afro-American" is that there IS a
    larger population of African hertiaged people in the States then of 
    the other so called "black" cultures.  
    
    Yes, there are a lot of various lands in Africa but few records were 
    kept as to where those of slave origins came from.  They simply came 
    from "Africa" 
    
    So they can't make the distinction of being Zulu or Watusi or Massi
    (sp?) or any other tribal distinction because they just don't know.  
    
    Okay so I admit, some of this is conjecture and some of it is theory
    and some of it is based on various relationships with "Home-Boys" and 
    such... 
    
    Skip
    
    

    
    so what is derogatory(sp) about Negro? or even Black (since I am not
    offended by being called White)?
    
    cathy

        Hello Cathy,

        I prefer being referred to as an individual - by my first
        name, yes!  I like that.  But if for some reason the media
        must designate my race, European-American would be my
        choice.  

        Regarding African-Americans; I do not know if they prefer
        to be referred to as such or not.  But to be referred to
        by one's skin color is odd to me.  Most "blacks" appear 
        several shades of brown or tan to me.  I have also met 
        African-Americans whose skin color is lighter than mine,
	and I'm of primarily German descent, with pinkish/tannish
        skin color!

        Since we all have different levels of sensitivity, it's
        difficult to determine what "label" may offend someone.
        When in conversation, perhaps it would be appropriate to
        ask an individual directly what his/her preference is.
        Also, the tone in which a label is stated can make all the
        difference.  I have had the experience of feeling "put down"
        when referred to as a "white girl".  I guess all we can do
        is be thoughtful in our statements, ask questions, and 
        GENTLY let someone know if we are not comfortable with a 
        label they have given us.

        Dora

    Actually, records were kept of where ships went to pick up
    slaves (if not which villages slaves came from).  European
    powers controlled the area, and charged the trade for their
    anti-pirate and customs services.  The slavers themselves 
    kept records during the period the trade was legal.
    
    Historical records, blood-group studies, language studies
    and other evidence all imply that almost all (more than 
    90 percent) came from the southern coast of West Africa,
    an area which used to be called the Slave Coast.  The area
    is now the nations of Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire), Ghana,
    Togo, Dahomey and Nigeria.  Major ethnic groups in that
    area are the Yoruba, Ashanti and Ibo (there are sure to be
    others, but my reference doesn't list them).
    
    East Africa (Masai and Watutsi, etc.) was the source of slaves
    for the Arab Middle East.  Few if any Masai would have been
    taken to the US.
    
    Source: The Penguin Atlas of African History.
    
    As for why the term keeps changing, it's a common feature of
    euphemisms that a term tends to acquire connotations and need
    to be replaced.  Consider the sequence "crippled" to "handicapped"
    to "disabled" to "differently abled".  Each one in turn is
    seen as a neutral or even positive replacement for a term
    laden with negative implications.  Each one in turn picks up
    negative implications due to the real nature of the condition
    it names.  "Black" was unusual in that it marked an acceptance
    (even a celebration) of reality--before it was championed as
    the correct term to use, it was felt to be rude (and polite
    people used "Negro").
    
    		-John Bishop

    
    maybe I'm not as hung up on 'roots' as alot of other people. I know
    where *I* was born, so that's what I am. 
    In my case, it's Canadian. Not even English Canadian or French Canadian
    or White Canadian or White Female Canadian.
    Just Canadian.
    
    Seems to me that the only way to true 'racial' harmony, is for people
    to stop being so stuck on their 'roots' and think about what they are
    a part of today. 
    
    cathy

    I think the objection is to having an "outsider" decide how to refer to
    "insiders".  When any person is referred to as member of some group,
    there is an implicit suppression of personal identity, as if it were
    less important than the group.  If "insiders" are able to choose their
    own designation, there is at least a tacit recognition of some power.
    
    To me, it seems unfortunate that the walls have gotten so high, but
    that is the legacy of many years of ugly behavior.
    
    Dick

    I agree with Cathy.    True racial harmony can only be acheived by
    looking forward. Not in the past. I was born in the USA, that makes
    me American.  My grandfather, born in Ireland, came here when he was
    young, and faced lots of "NO IRISH NEED APPLY".  He, and others like
    him worked hard to overcome the obstacles. They looked forward, called
    themselves Americans not victims.
    
    Jack
    
    

    RE:        <<< Note 1182.14 by 2CRAZY::FLATHERS "Summer Forever" >>>
                            -< Americans are we ! >-

    >My grandfather, born in Ireland, came here when he was
    >young, and faced lots of "NO IRISH NEED APPLY".  He, and others like
    >him worked hard to overcome the obstacles. They looked forward, called
    >themselves Americans not victims.
    
         ...and all those irishmen in chains on those plantations.  Don't
    forget the irishmen who were burned alive during the Irish Rights
    years.  And, what about the Irishmen who are beaten by policemen today,
    just because they are Irish?
    
         What a self-righteous lot of hypocrisy you write.
    
                                     Greg  

    
    re last:
    Greg...sounds to me like you have a terrible burden to bear with that
    huge chip on your shoulder. 
    
    I don't think that your 'slam' was at all called for....
    
    Hypocrisy? please explain how you feel that .14 was in any way
    hypocrisy.  Are you saying that the Irish were NOT mistreated when they
    came to this country? 
    
    cathy
    
    

    
    	If we could go back in time,  we could all find ancestors who have
    been mistreated.  We could also find some of our ancestors were the 
    mistreators (if I can make up a word).  So what are we supposed to do?  
    Should we carry a chip on our shoulder for all the past injustice done
    to our ancestors?  Should we carry a guilty conscience for all the past
    injustice done by our ancestors?  Should we do both?  And how should we 
    feel if we're adopted?   
    
    	I enjoyed knowing my grandparents and,  even now that they have all 
    been gone for some years,  I still miss them alot.  I could feel angry 
    about the bad things done to them or guilty about the bad things done
    by them.  But that doesn't make sense to me.  I live now.  I can't
    really feel any of their suffering or their guilt,  I can only imagine
    it.  And,  while it's easier to feel anger or guilt,  I think I should 
    just feel responsible,  responsible for me and for what I do today.  
    
    	It's tough enough to just live in the present.
    
    	As far as identifying myself with my ancestors by putting something 
    in front of "-American",  it's difficult because I'm somewhat of a mix
    so I don't think this would mean much in my case.   But mostly I'm 
    happy to be here so I'll just identify myself by:
    
    	Glad-my-ancestors-got-together-American
    
    						John
                                                    

    RE:                   <<< Note 1182.16 by CSC32::PITT >>>
    
>    re last:
>    Greg...sounds to me like you have a terrible burden to bear with that
>    huge chip on your shoulder. 
    
         It is surely no greater a burden than you bear by being hostile to
    such minor things about African-Americans.  Considering that it
    irritated you enough to start this conversation, I'd say you have a
    much larger chip on your shoulder.
    
                                     Greg  

    
    
    wait a minute.
    this is NOT meant as racist..I WANTED TO KNOW/...
    
    I think that this is a valid node that took a rasicst tone with Gregs 
    input.
    
    cathy

Hmm - seems there's a battle being carried into H_R from somewhere else.
I do find myself wishing people would just respond to the questions and not
accuse the questioner of hidden motives.  


The whole thing about "what is the currently acceptable name for a given
group of people" leads to endless confusion and frustration.  Just when one
name is heralded as "this is what we want to be called", they change it.
Sometimes the changes make sense, other times I'm left scratching my head.
I never did figure out the reasoning behind "people of color", a group
name which seems to have been missed by previous noters, though it was
the "in" name just last year.

I note now that "differently abled" has transformed yet again to
"temporarily able", at least when referring to those who are not currently
"challenged", or whatever.

It's a dilemma.  Groups of people, who would perhaps LIKE to be considered
"just like everyone else", find that they are separated out by others
for particular ill treatment.  In order to find strength and unity, they
gather together under a name which identifies them as a group, sometimes
gaining a stronger voice, but this very act also works against them by
reinforcing the notion that they OUGHT to be treated differently.  What makes
it even more confusing is that the groups overlap, and that within one
group there are often smaller factions which are struggling for an identity
of their own.

There are several cultural labels I could apply to myself, such as
German-Jewish, and I could match Greg Bruno's slavery horror stories with
tales of mass extermination of "my people", but I don't see the point
in doing so.  Perhaps that's because I haven't found my heritage to be
a drawback in American society, whereas others have to battle it every
day.

Each time a new name is chosen for a group, often on behalf of the group
by a few, and rarely with universal consent of those so named, there is
an image which is intended to accompany that name.  As times and sensibilities
change, so do the necessary images.

Names are powerful words.  A name can be both an insult and a source of pride,
depending on who is saying it and who is hearing it.  There's no making
any sense of it, other to understand that the sense of "belonging" is
a very powerful human emotion, and names are the biggest part of that.

As to the base note question, my response is "wait a year or two - it will
change." 

				Steve

    re .18
    
    
    Greg,
    
    Please point our WHERE the H*** I was hostile (exclude this note).
    
    I am NOT hostile.
    I am not irratated by the term African-American.
    I am not irratated at all. Until now.
    
    I don't understand how you took this note and turned it into a racist
    argument.
    
    I WAS CURIOUS.
    
    sorry if you choose to take it otherwise.
    
    cathy
    

    Hmmmmmm, well ... Let's see....
    
    I'm of Italian/Portuguese/Scottish/English decent.  So, I prefer to 
    be called:
    			Mongrel-American

    Roots are very important to me.  My grandchildren call me Memere as I
    am of French-Canadian descent.  Someone made fun of this name and told
    me that I really didn't have any right to use this name as I didn't
    speak French and my Mother was not French.  It is important to me what
    I am called and how I am identified, if it is not to someone else that
    is fine but I never expected that anyone would care that I chose that
    name.
    
    People do a variety of things to express their difference, their
    uniqueness or to identify who they are.  America is a sum of many parts
    and would not be the place it is without the stamp of a lot of
    cultures.  I know if we looked into history we would be able to
    identify some similarities in the black experience with the Irish
    experience for instance, maybe even in the way they identified
    themselves during the years that they suffered and recovered from
    oppression.

    RE:                       <<< Note 1182.20 by CSC32::PITT >>>
    
         Well, I can't give you the response I intended, but I can
    reiterate the other noter's advice for you to post a duplicate topic
    in OXNARD::BLACKNOTES.  In the basenote, you queried "Why do Black
    people...".  Logically, the only way you're going to get a real answer
    is to ask the people involved.
    
                                      Greg

    
    
    re last.
    
    Sorry. I expected that I would hit a large audience of African-
    Americans in this conference.
    
    And you're welcome to send me vms mail if there's something that you're
    holding back in notes. 
    
    cathy
     

    
    This note HAS been posted in OXNARD::BLACKNOTES.
    
    Cathy
    

    Greg,  Self-righteous hypocrisy???  Wow!  Has this topic been reduced
    to a game of "My hurt is bigger than your hurt"?   
    
    Yes, some groups have suffered much worse than others. And it all is
    extremely regretable, and is a very dark side to human nature. Some
    of our country's history is very very shameful. 
    
    Please re-read my note....my intention is to state that we should
    move forward as a united people called Americans!
    
    Jack
    

A coworker had tacked up outside of his office wall the following piece from
the July 22 issue of US News and World Report, a magazine known to be somewhat
on the conservative side.  I thought it made interesting and, at times,
amusing reading, and thought I'd share it with people here.  (Please don't
assume that I necessaarily agree with the author's views.)

					Steve

The New Verbal Order, by John Leo

Wishing to employ the correct modern term for "disabled", the Philadephia
Federation of Teachers set up a "Committee for Members with Special Needs."
That didn't work.  A homeless person came by, announcing a special need
for housing.  Then it became the "Committee for Members who are Physically
Challenged", but a frightened fifth-grade teacher showed up, thinking it
was a support group for instructors intimidated by their students.  So now it
is known as the "Committee for Disabled Members."  "Everybody understand the
words and nobody protested," said James Gallgher of the committee, satisfied
at last.

The descent into accurate English as a last resort is ever more arduous.  In
the disability-rights movement, one must grope through a fierce blizzard of
euphemisms; the uniquely abled, the differently abled, the exceptional, the
handicapable, injury survivors and people with differing abilities.  A recent
bulletin from the movement lets us know that Porky Pig, formerly a stutterer,
should be listed as speech-imparied, whereas Mr. Magoo is visually
handicapped and Captain Hook is orthopedically impaired.

From the Pentagon to feel-good self-esteemers, everyone seems to be
contributing mightily to the steady debasement of the Mother Tongue.
Entrenched euphemisms include senior (old), differently sized (obese),
meaningful downturn (recession), work stoppage (strike), quarantine (blockade),
make sexual dysfunction (impotence), educational equity (quotas),
undocumented workers (illegal aliens) and substance abusers (winos and
junkies.)

Mindbenders.  On the PC front, we have dominant culture (the mainstream),
underrepresented groups (blacks, Indians and Latinos), survivor (victim,
as in incest survivor), monocultural (white), Third World (non-white) and
"racist!" ("I disagree with you on that").  Diversity means racial 
representation, as the office of "diversity manager" on so many campuses
makes clear.  (A group composed of St. Francis, Vivaldi, Falstaff, Jackie
Onassis, Hitler and Mick Jagger would not be diverse, since all are
mono-pigmented.)  "Colored People", as in NAACP, is racist, but the
backwards construction "people of color" is progressive.  Terms keep sliding;
Indians became Native Americans or Amerinds, but since both terms include
the dread name of a Eurocentric cartographer, the preferred term is now
indigenous peoples.  "Oriental" has been declared a racist word, so all
college departments of oriental studies that do not wish to be burned to
the ground in the name of tolerance should rename themselves rather quickly.

PC-oriented newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times, employ this remote
campus tongue as if it were real English.  The Times, which uses physically
challenged without irony, once referred to a rap star's Eurocentric suit.
This meant ordinary Western clothes and not a suit that believes Europe to
be the focal point of all world history.

Pentagonese has come up with a new euphemism for friendly fire, or shelling
your own troops; incontinent ordinance, which sounds like something June
Allyson warns us about in TV commercials.  The definition of peace ("the
temporary cessation of hostilities") does its bit to attrit, maul and
collaterally damage the language.

Animal-rights activists insist that the word "pet" is demeaning and should
be replaced by "animal companion."  But that term is itself under fire because
it implies that humans are somehow distinct from the rest of the animal
world, an idea that reeks of speciesism.  While a new and improved term is
being dreamed up, pets can be called "friends" and "protectors".  Animals
are never "wild", they are "free-roaming" or "free".  And expensive vinyl
pants are now known as "vegetarian leather."

Campuses are particularly vulnerable now to the spread of oddbal feminese.
Two of these terms - herstory and womyn (the latter circulated by the same
segment of the population that spelled America "Amerika" during the '70s) -
actually made it into the new and outstandingly softheaded Random House
college dictionary.  My brother Peter, the distinguished Pittsburgh 
columnist, says that if female history is "herstory", then a history of
humanity should be his'n'herstory, and a man with herpes should be listed
as a hispes survivor.  Word comes that a feminist professor now calls her
seminar an "ovular".  Let's hope that no one tells her the etymology of
"testimony" or she might have womyn ovarifying in courts across Amerika.

Finally, as a public service, here is how a few familiar books and movies
might be translated into modspeak:

  - "Beauty and the Beast" - A Lookism Survivor and a Free-Roaming
    Fellow Mammal

  - "War and Peace" - Violence Processing and the Temporary Cessation of
    Hostilities

  - "Les Miserables" - Persons with Special Needs

  - "Three Blind Mice" - A Triad of Visually Impaired, Wall-dwelling Protectors

  - "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" - One of the Monocultural Oppressed
    Womyn Confronts the Vertically Challenged

  - "Men at Arms" - The Myn Are at It Again

    On the broader philosophical issue of euphemism or no euphemism, I
    remain a throwback to an earlier era.  
    
    Written and spoken language is to communicate ideas, body language is
    for emotions and attitudes.  
    
    The only test I apply to my prose is whether I have written clearly
    what I think.  
    
    Any interpretations about my current or past emotional states are and
    always will remain the responsibility of my readers (if any).  
    
    I vote for using words in ways that do not leave anyone scratching
    their heads.  

Since it would appear that there are no black readers of this conference
who wish to discuss the question posed in the base note, perhaps we could
broaden it to a more general discussion of "hyphenated-American" group
names.  Why do some people identify themselves as Italian-American,
French-American, Spanish-American, etc?  What are the advantages of doing
so?  What are the disadvantages?  Do such people use whatever label is
most advantageous at the time?

For a country that has been often called a "melting pot", what we seem
to have instead is a stew....

				Steve

    Along that note...
    
    My parents immigrated from Italy some 30 years ago.  The Italian
    culture has always been important to my family, evidenced by our
    speaking Italian at home and visiting our family in Italy every so
    often.  I don't use the title Italian-American, but whenever I'm asked
    what nationality I am, I say "I'm Italian".  It's understood that I'm
    American and I don't feel any less patriotic by not stating the
    obvious.  In this country, saying "I'm from New York" or "My family is
    from Italy" is more indicative of who I am and where I'm from than "I'm
    American".
    
       - Larry

    
    re last.
    
    Steve,
    I think that it's a good idea. Lets talk about the anything-American
    thing.
    Why is it? 
    
    I was thinking how much this need to 'identify with your own group of
    people' reminds me so much of a gang.  "We wear THIS color and THESE
    shoes and have our OWN name, so we are 'our own group'. Everyone within
    MY group is just like me, and everyone outside of mY group is NOT
    like me"
    I am not saying that this is what folks who prefer to be called
    xxx-Americans are doing, but I think that the results are the same. 
    What we fail to realize,(and this applies to 'gangs' as well) is that
    just because someone meets all of the criteria to be "one of US",
    doesn't mean that they are anything LIKE us. It doesn't make them good
    or bad or better. 
    
    There was an interesting show on TV about HATRED. They spoke to two
    youths (impressivly intelligent in the way they presented themselves),
    who were members of they Bloods and the Cryps (??) respectively. 
    They were the same age, the same race, both from the same type of
    family and upbringing, similar education and, as I said, both very
    intelligent. 
    But they would kill each other if they met on the street wearing their
    'colors'. Why?? Because they are in the WE-THEY game. "YOU are not US,
    so you're differant; differant is bad."  It's a kids 'game' but
    adults play it everyday without even knowing it. 
    
    Anyhow, I didn't want to get into the philosophies of gangs, but I do
    think that until we can drop the we-they, us-them mentality, we will 
    always be seperate. We-they implies differances. Colors or religions
    or history doesn't make us so differant as who we are NOW.  
    
    ....off the soapbox!
    
    Cathy
    

    reply to .33
    
    You might want to read a book called "Between the Devil and the
    Dragon" by Eric Hoffer.  He has some pretty interesting ideas regarding
    the things that motivate people to identify with groups/organizations.

    I tend to disagree with the concept of we and they in the need for
    people to identify their uniqueness in terms they have selected.  That
    is what we are really talking about.  Specific groups of people with
    similar characteristics and/or differences choose to be identified with
    a name.
    
    The base author said it clearly in the original note that origins and
    roots were not important to her.  It seems to me that names identify
    and those of us that find enjoyment/pleasure or a need to identify
    their uniqueness feel differently.
    

    Along a similar vein, I have always been aware that I do not identify
    with groups as others seem to.  My association with any group of people
    is always temporary, at my convenience, and with no expectations of any
    group loyalty towards me.  Similarly, I reserve the right to pass
    judgement on any action or activity of any group I belong to.  There
    are only a few groups that are willing to have me on those terms.
    
    Dick