This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I was talking to my 12 and 5 year old daughters the other day after one had a lesson in schools about different nationalities.
I have to admit I was stumped when my eldest asked the question "why is it not politically incorrect or racist to call a black person 'black' when in fact their skin is more brown than black yet it is not seen as OK to say that they are brown"
Does anyone know how we arrived at this?
I have to admit I was stumped when my eldest asked the question "why is it not politically incorrect or racist to call a black person 'black' when in fact their skin is more brown than black yet it is not seen as OK to say that they are brown"
Does anyone know how we arrived at this?
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
You could argue that PC or racism aren't really the issue here: it's just factually inaccurate. It's more a cultural/ethnic label than a physical description. Bear in mind that "white" people aren't really white, either. And "yellow" as a way of referring to the Chinese is pretty much unacceptable unless one is deliberately trying to cause offence. So perhaps accuracy is regarded as more offensive than a more metaphorical term?
Then again, some African races are extremely dark-skinned.
Whether the associations of "black" with "evil" and "white" with "good" have any relevance might bring PC/racism in to the discussion - but then don't a lot of "people of colour" (I think that's the current ultra-PC terminology) happily use the term "black" for their cultural/ethic identity?
(In Enterprise the Andorians called Humans "pinkskins" - not usually in a friendly way. I don't recall whether they used a different term for Ensign Mayweather.)
You could argue that PC or racism aren't really the issue here: it's just factually inaccurate. It's more a cultural/ethnic label than a physical description. Bear in mind that "white" people aren't really white, either. And "yellow" as a way of referring to the Chinese is pretty much unacceptable unless one is deliberately trying to cause offence. So perhaps accuracy is regarded as more offensive than a more metaphorical term?
Then again, some African races are extremely dark-skinned.
Whether the associations of "black" with "evil" and "white" with "good" have any relevance might bring PC/racism in to the discussion - but then don't a lot of "people of colour" (I think that's the current ultra-PC terminology) happily use the term "black" for their cultural/ethic identity?
(In Enterprise the Andorians called Humans "pinkskins" - not usually in a friendly way. I don't recall whether they used a different term for Ensign Mayweather.)
Post edited at 08:55
In reply to Enty:
Not really a satisfactory answer whilst trying to educate a curious and receptive young mind.
> Black and White sounds much better than pink and brown
> E
Not really a satisfactory answer whilst trying to educate a curious and receptive young mind.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
There's a lot of info on this Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people
It also looks at the term black people in a variety of different cultures.
There's a lot of info on this Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people
It also looks at the term black people in a variety of different cultures.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
This is a highly complex area of course. My first cut answer to 5-12 year olds would be that we now call 'black' people black because that is the word that many of them decided they wanted to call themselves whereas they don't want to be called 'brown' (a term more strongly associated with racism now than black). It's not a description of actual skin colour. In short, these days we think people have a right to choose what they are called rather than have it imposed upon them by people who see them as not as good as they are.
This is a highly complex area of course. My first cut answer to 5-12 year olds would be that we now call 'black' people black because that is the word that many of them decided they wanted to call themselves whereas they don't want to be called 'brown' (a term more strongly associated with racism now than black). It's not a description of actual skin colour. In short, these days we think people have a right to choose what they are called rather than have it imposed upon them by people who see them as not as good as they are.
Post edited at 09:13
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Because 'Black' is the name of a race of people. There's a difference between the name of a race and trying to accurately describe someone's skin colour... for example my Italian girlfriend's skin is probably closer to brown than white, but just because she's Mediterranean.
Because 'Black' is the name of a race of people. There's a difference between the name of a race and trying to accurately describe someone's skin colour... for example my Italian girlfriend's skin is probably closer to brown than white, but just because she's Mediterranean.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
It has just become the norm in societies where people don't want to be prejudiced that the people being labelled get to decide what they are called, rather than having a label foisted on them (normally by majority populations who have the power in that society). Hence most British black people seem relatively happy being described as black - its a political or cultural statement, not an aesthetic one! Go to other countries and they have their own differences ("African-American" for example in the US) or their own problems with words - in Finland the simple descriptive word for black in Finnish had already morphed centuries ago into the what most people see as a racist term for Finnish roma gypsies. Hence when Africans first moved to the country in noticeable numbers 25 years ago the argument began over how to describe or how they describe themselves in Finnish. There is a Finnish word for a black person, but it derived from negro/nigger so although many white Finns have no problem using it, for very obvious reasons many black Finns don't want to be called that!
So basically I'd say its a political term and political terms demonstrate power. When a white American 50 years called a black man of the same age "boy" or referred to him as a "nigger", they showed who had the power. Now if he calls him "sir" or refers to him as African American it shows that there is not so much inequality of power.
It has just become the norm in societies where people don't want to be prejudiced that the people being labelled get to decide what they are called, rather than having a label foisted on them (normally by majority populations who have the power in that society). Hence most British black people seem relatively happy being described as black - its a political or cultural statement, not an aesthetic one! Go to other countries and they have their own differences ("African-American" for example in the US) or their own problems with words - in Finland the simple descriptive word for black in Finnish had already morphed centuries ago into the what most people see as a racist term for Finnish roma gypsies. Hence when Africans first moved to the country in noticeable numbers 25 years ago the argument began over how to describe or how they describe themselves in Finnish. There is a Finnish word for a black person, but it derived from negro/nigger so although many white Finns have no problem using it, for very obvious reasons many black Finns don't want to be called that!
So basically I'd say its a political term and political terms demonstrate power. When a white American 50 years called a black man of the same age "boy" or referred to him as a "nigger", they showed who had the power. Now if he calls him "sir" or refers to him as African American it shows that there is not so much inequality of power.
Post edited at 09:22
In reply to TobyA:
Anyway I learned some very interesting things from your reply, so thanks for that.
Anyway I learned some very interesting things from your reply, so thanks for that.
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Surely "olive skinned" if Mediterranean
I never really got that one....
http://www.newworldoo.com/images/olives.jpg
> my Italian girlfriend's skin is probably closer to brown than white
Surely "olive skinned" if Mediterranean
I never really got that one....
http://www.newworldoo.com/images/olives.jpg
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Because racism is socially subjective. The biological evidence for the existence of different races is dubious. Still less that, if there were different races, that the colour of their skin - and nothing else - would be a good way to delineate them. There is at least as much difference between an east and a west african as there is between an east african and a european.
So biological or chromatic accuracy is not the point; the point is people's attitudes to other people who are different - in some way or other - from them.
Labels - like black or white - are inherently inaccurate; if you were really interested in being accurate "white" doesn't really describe the colour of anyone's skin. So using the "right" one (i.e. the socially accepted label) is a way of indicating that you are sensitive to the topic; not a way of indicating that you can accurately detect the colour of someone's skin.
Because racism is socially subjective. The biological evidence for the existence of different races is dubious. Still less that, if there were different races, that the colour of their skin - and nothing else - would be a good way to delineate them. There is at least as much difference between an east and a west african as there is between an east african and a european.
So biological or chromatic accuracy is not the point; the point is people's attitudes to other people who are different - in some way or other - from them.
Labels - like black or white - are inherently inaccurate; if you were really interested in being accurate "white" doesn't really describe the colour of anyone's skin. So using the "right" one (i.e. the socially accepted label) is a way of indicating that you are sensitive to the topic; not a way of indicating that you can accurately detect the colour of someone's skin.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
It also comes down to, IMO, what the people want to be called. It used to be acceptable to use the term 'coloured' which is now deemed to be racist. But Afro-Caribbeans are ok with the word 'black'.
It also comes down to, IMO, what the people want to be called. It used to be acceptable to use the term 'coloured' which is now deemed to be racist. But Afro-Caribbeans are ok with the word 'black'.
In reply to RyanOsborne:
and comes from the old colonial times when there was the paternalistic belief and view of African nations
and comes from the old colonial times when there was the paternalistic belief and view of African nations
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Maybe we should start referring to each other in terms of roman numerals...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale
Although that throws up the issue that my arms, face and neck are probably a IV, but the rest of my body is more like a II.
Maybe we should start referring to each other in terms of roman numerals...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale
Although that throws up the issue that my arms, face and neck are probably a IV, but the rest of my body is more like a II.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Social scientists can't define the terms they use like 'family' or 'race' so they resort to saying everything is 'socially constructed' and using self-referential definitions like 'a family is a group of people who identify themselves as a family' or in this case 'black people' are a group that identify themselves as 'black people'. In this world view 'racism' is anything some self-defined group considers to be racism and you are never going to find a hard criterion for whether some statement is racist.
Social scientists can't define the terms they use like 'family' or 'race' so they resort to saying everything is 'socially constructed' and using self-referential definitions like 'a family is a group of people who identify themselves as a family' or in this case 'black people' are a group that identify themselves as 'black people'. In this world view 'racism' is anything some self-defined group considers to be racism and you are never going to find a hard criterion for whether some statement is racist.
In reply to RyanOsborne:
On the Dulux Colour Chart (http://www.dulux.co.uk/colours/golds) I am Golden Rambler 4...so much nicer!
On the Dulux Colour Chart (http://www.dulux.co.uk/colours/golds) I am Golden Rambler 4...so much nicer!
In reply to RyanOsborne:
but it is a socially acceptable way of describing people of mixed european and african heritage in south africa.
> 'Coloured' implies that black people are a coloured-in version of ourselves.
but it is a socially acceptable way of describing people of mixed european and african heritage in south africa.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
you imply that this is a failing on the part of social scientists but I think it is probably out of necessity, especially in the case of racism. There is no hard criterion to define "race" and if there were, it would be unlikely to accurately describe the differences which we understand to be highlighted by "racism": A white supremacist feels equally racist about jews, west africans and east africans.
> Social scientists can't define the terms they use like 'family' or 'race' so they resort to saying everything is 'socially constructed' and using self-referential definitions like 'a family is a group of people who identify themselves as a family' or in this case 'black people' are a group that identify themselves as 'black people'. In this world view 'racism' is anything some self-defined group considers to be racism and you are never going to find a hard criterion for whether some statement is racist.
you imply that this is a failing on the part of social scientists but I think it is probably out of necessity, especially in the case of racism. There is no hard criterion to define "race" and if there were, it would be unlikely to accurately describe the differences which we understand to be highlighted by "racism": A white supremacist feels equally racist about jews, west africans and east africans.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
I agree it is out of necessity. But it also limits the practical usefulness of the definitions and any theories or laws built on top of them.
> you imply that this is a failing on the part of social scientists but I think it is probably out of necessity,
I agree it is out of necessity. But it also limits the practical usefulness of the definitions and any theories or laws built on top of them.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
interesting responses, thanks, i shall re-read later, distill and try explain to my ever curious daughters when they get back from school today*
*However, this is their last day before summer holidays so i suspect they might not want to listen to such a topic today. probably be jumping into the paddling pool if its as warm as it is now.
interesting responses, thanks, i shall re-read later, distill and try explain to my ever curious daughters when they get back from school today*
*However, this is their last day before summer holidays so i suspect they might not want to listen to such a topic today. probably be jumping into the paddling pool if its as warm as it is now.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
It's no more racist that "white" or "black". It is descriptive, perhaps less inaccuratly so than "black" or "white" which much of the time refer to pink-skinned or dark brown-skinned people.
As a word it is not offensive in itself although people may choose to be offended by it regardless of the context it is used in. Certaintly most of the ways you are likely to find it used are offensive; perhaps because it is given as a label, not chosen.
If the school is teaching that a descriptive word is racist, that is a shame. They should be teaching that it is wrong to use words to segregate people, or to denigrate them, or to create a perception of inequality.
Just telling children something, that is obvious to the mind of a child, is "racist" is not going to make the world a better place.
It's no more racist that "white" or "black". It is descriptive, perhaps less inaccuratly so than "black" or "white" which much of the time refer to pink-skinned or dark brown-skinned people.
As a word it is not offensive in itself although people may choose to be offended by it regardless of the context it is used in. Certaintly most of the ways you are likely to find it used are offensive; perhaps because it is given as a label, not chosen.
If the school is teaching that a descriptive word is racist, that is a shame. They should be teaching that it is wrong to use words to segregate people, or to denigrate them, or to create a perception of inequality.
Just telling children something, that is obvious to the mind of a child, is "racist" is not going to make the world a better place.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
well... I knew a Pakistani kid at school who hated "coloured" and would rather be called "black"
and a lad at college who (you guessed it) was about as dark as possible and would rather be called "coloured"
whatever generalisation you use, you will offend someone
well... I knew a Pakistani kid at school who hated "coloured" and would rather be called "black"
and a lad at college who (you guessed it) was about as dark as possible and would rather be called "coloured"
whatever generalisation you use, you will offend someone
In reply to wintertree:
It wasnt doing this, it was more the peripheral discussion both during the lesson and afterwards which prompted the question.
> If the school is teaching that a descriptive word is racist, that is a shame.
It wasnt doing this, it was more the peripheral discussion both during the lesson and afterwards which prompted the question.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I think little kids are just very literal and they're not going to understand the identity politics of Race.
As long as they're not covering themselves in white sheets and setting fire to crosses on the lawn, I'd leave them to it.
I think little kids are just very literal and they're not going to understand the identity politics of Race.
As long as they're not covering themselves in white sheets and setting fire to crosses on the lawn, I'd leave them to it.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Social scientists don't present a Unified Theory of Race, there's a wide range of output, so it's best to find fault with them individually, especially if they think they're describing something real about the world.
> you imply that this is a failing on the part of social scientists but I think it is probably out of necessity, especially in the case of racism.
Social scientists don't present a Unified Theory of Race, there's a wide range of output, so it's best to find fault with them individually, especially if they think they're describing something real about the world.
In reply to winhill:
I once heard of someone whose 3-yr old child referred to another child as 'the chocolate girl'. And that caused all sorts of trouble. When, of course, the first child probably liked chocolate a lot, so didn't mean any slur; it was just an accurate description of the other child's skin colour. This, of course, then had to lead to a discussion of why it wasn't okay to say such things, bringing in concepts totally alien to an innocent child's mind, since, IME, children of all colours get on together quite happily, until someone tells them they shouldn't...
> I think little kids are just very literal and they're not going to understand the identity politics of Race.
I once heard of someone whose 3-yr old child referred to another child as 'the chocolate girl'. And that caused all sorts of trouble. When, of course, the first child probably liked chocolate a lot, so didn't mean any slur; it was just an accurate description of the other child's skin colour. This, of course, then had to lead to a discussion of why it wasn't okay to say such things, bringing in concepts totally alien to an innocent child's mind, since, IME, children of all colours get on together quite happily, until someone tells them they shouldn't...
> but then don't a lot of "people of colour" (I think that's the current ultra-PC terminology) happily use the term "black" for their cultural/ethic identity?
I hope that's not acceptable or mums going to go nuts.
While describing her assailant to an officer; she was once cautioned, many years ago in a backwards town, for using the phrase "black man", apparently Coloured was acceptable.
Then 10 years after in a city this also wasn't acceptable for describing the bugler of the neighbours house as "coloured" she was informed if she continued she would be cautioned, and she must use the term black.... My mum lost it at this point!!!
The Police Constables in both situations were trying to be PC.
If persons of colour is now the right way she's going to go postal.
I tried to get her to just describe other features. Nose size, eye colour weight etc
In reply to Lukem6:
I think person of colour is an American term maybe? I don't think its acceptable in the UK.
I think person of colour is an American term maybe? I don't think its acceptable in the UK.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...