|
Elias_Maluco posted:Is the same perception most of people have in Brazil Oh well if Brazil says so, maybe Americans are oversensitive 
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh well if Brazil says so, maybe Americans are oversensitive I remember this picture. This man is a Cuban medic and he is being screamed at for that, not for being black. EDIT: vvvvv sorry, I called him "it" because my english is bad Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I remember this picture. This man is a Cuban medic and it's being screamed at for that, not for being black. "it" That's the pronoun you used for a person. Are you calling him a "it" because he's Cuban, or because he's a medic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I remember this picture. This man is a Cuban medic and he is being screamed at for that, not for being black. From what I read, the protesters were yelling "escravos!" at the black doctors. Is that the Portuguese word for "Cuban"? Or is it Portuguese for "medic"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:From what I read, the protesters were yelling "escravos!" at the black doctors. Is that the Portuguese word for "Cuban"? Or is it Portuguese for "medic"? He (and others doctors, most of then not black) were being called "slaves" for working "for free" like slaves for the Cuban government (actually not true, of course. But they do get very small salaries and limited rights when working here): http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2013/08/1333042-vamos-para-onde-os-brasileiros-nao-vao-diz-cubano-vaiado-por-medicos.shtml EDIT: for those who cant read portuguese: our government made a deal with Cuba where they would provide us with medics to work on difficult, far away country regions where our medics dont usually want to go. Our government payed for each doctor to the Cuban government, only a small part of it actually going to the medics thenselves. Also, they have a lot of restrictions on what they can do here, even on their free time. Brazilian medical class wanst happy about the whole thing, and called the government for importing cheap "slave medics" (that's why the man is being called a slave) instead of improving the conditions of our national ones. Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
Brazil is incredibly racist, and the fact that racial divisions correspond so well with class divisions doesn't mean that there is no racism. For a long time, there was a myth of a Brazilian racial democracy. That was based on the fact that Brazil never had US style Jim Crow laws, and that miscegenation was (and is) very common in Brazil. But the reality is that there was never any Jim Crow style laws because the white upper classes never needed them. In Brazil, there was no systematic effort to include and educate former slaves when slavery ended, and as such there was never a need to create a ""whites"" only restaurant or neighborhood, because there was virtually no chance that a former slave would be able to afford going to any of these places (and the Brazilian government was set up in a way to exacerbate inequality for most of its history). Of course, this also meant that there was never a "one drop of blood" rule in Brazil, which also led to the relativization of racial classifications with regards to class. And of course Brazilians would think Americans are oversensitive. Because taking any action to address racism would be seen as overly sensitive in Brazil. This is, after all, the place that has a popular supermarket chain named after slave ships.There was a good Lilia Moritz Schwarcz book where she talks about a survey where despite over 80% of respondents claiming not to be racist, almost 90% agreed with racist statements. Finally, it is important to point out that racism in Brazil has also its unique local flavors, like prejudice against people of Northeastern origin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Latin@ What well meaning idiocy is this? Why would you not use a term that isn't hilariously exclusionary to non-binary people through inadvertent apophasis, like, oh I dunno, 'hispanic'?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:What well meaning idiocy is this? Why would you not use a term that isn't hilariously exclusionary to non-binary people through inadvertent apophasis, like, oh I dunno, 'hispanic'? Because Hispanic is a different word with a different meaning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
I don't doubt that there was no attempts to educate the slave community after slavery because most of these south american states were set up way differently from the USA and public education developed far later than in north america. Most south american countries freed the slaves far before north american countries did and for the most part left them to their own devices. There was never a vision to bring them into the fold of the national society. Their historic towns like the palenque communities of Colombia were treated a bit like Indian reservations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
This whole LatinX thing entirely misses the point. I think it's a good way to make any discussion of people facing real immigration/economic/racist issues become a discussion about non-binary genders which seems to be the pursuit of the middle class and educated, if not mostly white. Like People of Colour, it is a way for well-meaning college students to speak on the behalf of minorities, while also making whatever conversation is at hand partly about themselves. Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:21
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:This whole LatinX thing entirely misses the point. I think it's a good way to make any discussion of people facing real immigration/economic/racist issues become a discussion about non-binary genders which seems to be the pursuit of the middle class and educated, if not mostly white. Clearly, these couldn't possibly have been generated by minorities themselves, and must have been the invention of the white man.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Clearly, these couldn't possibly have been generated by minorities themselves, and must have been the invention of the white man. The treacherous and perfidious white man writes think pieces on XOJane, Jezebel and Everydayfeminism to promote these semantic games. Economic changes would help the Hispanic community far more than made up words to correct a perceived shortcoming in their own language.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Do you think that the severe economic and social impact of being called a racist, justified or not, doesn't apply to minority individuals? I honestly have no clue what you're talking about with this "being accused of racism can ruin a person's life" stuff (much less it being compared with being accused of being a child molester, lol). I can't think of a single example of this ever happening, much less in a situation where the person was saying something that wasn't actually racist. Imagine that you're sitting at a dinner table with a bunch of people. Someone says something and they are then accused of being racist. If what they said was not actually racist, it's extremely unlikely that the rest of the people at the table would take the racism accusation seriously. If they do take it seriously, what the person said probably is, in fact, racist. I can't really think of many people who just think "_____ was called a racist? He must be a racist!" instead of wanting to know the context. And if they know the context, the accusation itself isn't even really factoring into the picture (since they're going to be considering what was actually said instead).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:48
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The treacherous and perfidious white man writes think pieces on XOJane, Jezebel and Everydayfeminism to promote these semantic games. Economic changes would help the Hispanic community far more than made up words to correct a perceived shortcoming in their own language. Shut up, whitey. So with that out of the way, I, personally, as a minority, don't think that people should be forced to make a tradeoff between economic justice and semantical self-determination. It's downright insane, to me, to say that I should have to make a choice between getting called a fudgepacking human being all the time and perpetuating the penury so many LGB people are forced into.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Shut up, whitey. I'm Black. That's why white people getting agitated on my behalf and basically calling Blacks 'Coloured' rubs me entirely the wrong way. They don't know anything about The Struggle, and are trying to make it about them so they get a bigger piece of the pie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:This whole LatinX thing entirely misses the point. I think it's a good way to make any discussion of people facing real immigration/economic/racist issues become a discussion about non-binary genders which seems to be the pursuit of the middle class and educated, if not mostly white. Minorities actually spend a lot of time on stuff like semantics and language and see it as important, as is loving obvious. If you don't, that's up to you, but language is a pretty important thing to humans in general. Racist language and coding also leads to bad economic outcomes, so they're not even serepable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Shut up, whitey. I think we're talking about the difference between "latino/chicano" and "latin@/chican@," not between "latino" and "wetback." Ytlaya posted:I honestly have no clue what you're talking about with this "being accused of racism can ruin a person's life" stuff (much less it being compared with being accused of being a child molester, lol). I can't think of a single example of this ever happening, much less in a situation where the person was saying something that wasn't actually racist. Ytlaya posted:I can't really think of many people who just think "_____ was called a racist? He must be a racist!" instead of wanting to know the context. And if they know the context, the accusation itself isn't even really factoring into the picture (since they're going to be considering what was actually said instead). I have a Facebook friend with whom I was talking about that Yale professor who said it's not her place to tell the students what costumes to wear, and the way he was talking about her, you'd think she had actually used racial slurs in her e-mail, or openly called anyone of color who thought racist costumes were inappropriate, crybabies. I believe that there are quite a lot of people who will see something conflated as bigotry and take great pains to view it through that lens. It appears, sometimes, as if the "you're either with us or you're with the bad guys" mentality we saw during the Bush years has found new life among a certain class of socially conscious neophytes, which treats any form of dissent as full-on support for the evil-doers they aim to defeat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Minorities actually spend a lot of time on stuff like semantics and language and see it as important, as is loving obvious. If you don't, that's up to you, but language is a pretty important thing to humans in general. Racist language and coding also leads to bad economic outcomes, so they're not even serepable. I agree that was important to get from friend of the family > Darkie > Coloured > Negro > Black/African-American. If you think that being called "People of Colour" improves out situation one iota I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I agree that was important to get from friend of the family > Darkie > Coloured > Negro > Black/African-American. If you think that being called "People of Colour" improves out situation one iota I don't know what to tell you. It's not like "people of color" could be a useful term to discuss race and racialization in a way that doesn't define people of color by their lack of whiteness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Naked Lincoln posted:It's not like "people of color" could be a useful term to discuss race and racialization in a way that doesn't define people of color by their lack of whiteness. This, but unironically
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I think we're talking about the difference between "latino/chicano" and "latin@/chican@," latino: masculine latina: feminin @: a sort of a inside an o, so it's kinda both an a and an o? latin@: a gender-inclusive internetism for latino/latina. It was either that of latinao, or latinoa, or...
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:
I can't wait for the loving language wars when people try to hoist this on the 99% of languages that have gendered nouns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
I thought the Spanish language had neuter nouns act like masculine for the most part and that's why Latino has been used for the general case. And like, gendered nouns don't exist in English so it's not like 'o' has semantic meaning. And if we try for longer than 2 seconds to think of a middle ground, wouldn't "Latine" be more natural than saying "Latinat"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I can't wait for the loving language wars when people try to hoist this on the 99% of languages that have gendered nouns. You're not being very clear with your language here  . Do you mean that 99% of all languages have gendered nouns (which isn't true, it's more along the lines of 25%, or thereabouts) or that people will attempt to apply this to 99% of all languages that happen to feature grammatical gender? Because most of those also don't have strict semantic links in either direction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:And like, gendered nouns don't exist in English so it's not like 'o' has semantic meaning. Actor/actress, prince/princess, son/daughter...
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I can't wait for the loving language wars when people try to hoist this on the 99% of languages that have gendered nouns. English-centric privilege rears its ugly head again. Cat Mattress posted:Actor/actress, prince/princess, son/daughter... You may wish to understand what noun gender means before offering up your take on the subject. Here's a hint: Your quote is not an example of it. Obdicut posted:Minorities actually spend a lot of time on stuff like semantics and language and see it as important
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I agree that was important to get from friend of the family > Darkie > Coloured > Negro > Black/African-American. If you think that being called "People of Colour" improves out situation one iota I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should talk to the many minority scholars and activists who feel it's important, then, or read what they've written, and not random people on the internet. Very simply, the point of PoC is to note that people of color share some elements of oppression from the white supremacist cultural, political, and economic structure and should be in some solidarity with each other, something which the other designations above can't communicate. This is pretty obvious, and there's more to it, but did that concept never strike you? The Insect Court posted:...said the white man. Here's a black woman to explain the phrase and why you're confused about it and think that white people invented it to you: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/03/26/loreta-ross-on-the-phrase-women-of-color/
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
The only commonality is being "Not-White". In Toronto the Black, Caribbean, African, Ethiopian Jewish and Somali communities are all distinct. Members of those groups can even be racist against the others. I can understand how to outsiders these groups all seem "black" or "African-Canadian" but we have more differences than similarities in culture, economic status, and so on. Saying "People of Colour" reinforces the idea that there are White people and everyone else. Korean Shop owners and the residents of poor Black neighbourhoods sure don't see themselves as belonging to the same group.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The only commonality is being "Not-White". In Toronto the Black, Caribbean, African, Ethiopian Jewish and Somali communities are all distinct. Members of those groups can even be racist against the others. I can understand how to outsiders these groups all seem "black" or "African-Canadian" but we have more differences than similarities in culture, economic status, and so on. Saying "People of Colour" reinforces the idea that there are White people and everyone else. Korean Shop owners and the residents of poor Black neighbourhoods sure don't see themselves as belonging to the same group. Again, the point is that in some ways they are part of the same group. They are also not part of the same group. That is fine. This is not a difficult concept. There is more than one group. The idea that there are white folk and there are everyone else is just a taxonomic truism, and I'm not sure why you think it's somehow taboo. It is not The One Right Thing, but it's a useful framing in some circumstances, and objecting to it is silly. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Reminder that it was originally introduced into the conversation because a black guy was being told by non-colored people that he should refer to himself as a person of color. Do you really think objecting to it in those circumstances is "silly?" Like, try asking Portuguese people if they consider themselves Hispanic sometime (I'm sure some don't care, but a lot consider this offensive or just plain stupid). Per that link the term originated in a very specific situation where a bunch of minority people wanted a way to refer to themselves together and it was basically used in lieu of the word minority by the group themselves, to designate themselves. In general what's objectionable is the overuse and prescriptive usage of the term, which is akin to other academic groupspeak words that are endlessly abused ("problematic") to the point of detracting from the conversation rather than adding to it. You can cry "taxononomic truism" all you want but you're really sticking your head in the sand to say that in the face of actual minority people telling you that the term, as it's often used outside of academic papers, makes them uncomfortable. And to the point that it is a useful term: looking over just the past 2 pages I'd wager more clarity is lost by people using PoC to over-generalize experiences than is gained in whatever academic paper you're reading that claims to draw meaningful conclusions across all non-white experiences TheresNoThyme fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
TheresNoThyme posted:Reminder that it was originally introduced into the conversation because a black guy was being told by non-colored people that he should refer to himself as a person of color. Do you really think objecting to it in those circumstances is "silly?" Like, try asking Portuguese people if they consider themselves Hispanic sometime (I'm sure some don't care, but a lot consider this offensive or just plain stupid). This didn't happen. Not even Effectronica, who just trolls, did this. No clue what you're getting at with the Portuguese thing. quote:Per that link the term originated in a very specific situation where a bunch of minority people wanted a way to refer to themselves together and it was basically used in lieu of the word minority by the group themselves, to designate themselves. In general what's objectionable is the overuse and prescriptive usage of the term, which is akin to other academic groupspeak words that are endlessly abused ("problematic") to the point of detracting from the conversation rather than adding to it. You can cry "taxononomic truism" all you want but you're really sticking your head in the sand to say that in the face of actual minority people telling you that the term, as it's often used outside of academic papers, makes them uncomfortable. It wasn't used in lieu of the term minority; there's lots of minorities who aren't people of color. Not every minority person has the same opinion; for example, I showed a minority person who likes the term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I only just met activists through a group of my friends from the Army days, and I find their attitude really condescending. People with no Black friends saying I should call myself a Person of Colour instead of a Black man, or Black Canadian, and telling me how I should feel about race drove me nuts. My brother joined the US Air Force recently and got stationed at Whiteman air force base, named after some Lieutenant Whiteman. My mom calls me up about it and says "He's stationed at White Man's Air Force Base....isn't that name a little racist?" That's my contribution to this excellent and very informative thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This didn't happen. Not even Effectronica, who just trolls, did this. No clue what you're getting at with the Portuguese thing. quote:I only just met activists through a group of my friends from the Army days, and I find their attitude really condescending. People with no Black friends saying I should call myself a Person of Colour instead of a Black man, or Black Canadian, and telling me how I should feel about race drove me nuts. Are you just ignoring things at this point? Do you really not see the comparison between the terms Hispanic and PoC? quote:It wasn't used in lieu of the term minority; there's lots of minorities who aren't people of color. Not every minority person has the same opinion; for example, I showed a minority person who likes the term. i just meant that the document they were challenging was called the "Minority Women’s Plank." The fact that not every minority has the same opinion is exactly why these blanket terms should be approached with scrutiny, only used in well-defined contexts and probably never used prescriptively at all. In that case where a group of people use it to describe themselves then it makes perfect sense. That's not what people are talking about here and actually not what you're talking about when you defend it as a taxonomic truism. TheresNoThyme fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
It didn't happen in this thread. Nobody is taking that position. The position is that you can, if you want, call yourself a person of color, and that it is a useful term. quote:i just meant that the document they were challenging was called the "Minority Women’s Plank." The fact that not every minority has the same opinion is exactly why these blanket terms should be approached with scrutiny, only used in well-defined contexts and probably never used prescriptively at all. In that case where a group of people use it to describe themselves then it makes perfect sense. That's not what people are talking about here and actually not what you're talking about when you defend it as a taxonomic truism. No clue what you're talking about here. It seems like almost no terms referring to groups would pass your strict scrutiny; the end result is complete atomization.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I can't wait for the loving language wars when people try to hoist this on the 99% of languages that have gendered nouns. It's just clever. Don't worry, your place in the hierarchy is safe and the noun police will not detain you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 18:51
|
|
Obdicut posted:It didn't happen in this thread. Nobody is taking that position. The position is that you can, if you want, call yourself a person of color, and that it is a useful term. I did like it when Effectronica called a black man "whitey."
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I did like it when Effectronica called a black man "whitey." Paying attention to Effectronica is an exercise in masochism and troll-feeding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Korean Shop owners and the residents of poor Black neighbourhoods sure don't see themselves as belonging to the same group.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The only commonality is being "Not-White". In Toronto the Black, Caribbean, African, Ethiopian Jewish and Somali communities are all distinct. Members of those groups can even be racist against the others. I can understand how to outsiders these groups all seem "black" or "African-Canadian" but we have more differences than similarities in culture, economic status, and so on. Saying "People of Colour" reinforces the idea that there are White people and everyone else. Korean Shop owners and the residents of poor Black neighbourhoods sure don't see themselves as belonging to the same group. Now do one about how "LGBT" is obviously liberal bigotry because gay and trans people aren't the same thing at all, but those ivory-tower eggheads force the term on us because they can't tell us apart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Here's a black woman to explain the phrase and why you're confused about it and think that white people invented it to you: Gee, it's almost like you could have done that all along instead of assuming that it would be more authoritative to hear the opinion of some white guy on the internet telling us all what black people believe. Eulogistics posted:My brother joined the US Air Force recently and got stationed at Whiteman air force base, named after some Lieutenant Whiteman. My mom calls me up about it and says "He's stationed at White Man's Air Force Base....isn't that name a little racist?" Sounds like your mom just checked your privilege. Hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 05:13
|
|