https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/02/people-of-color-phrase-history-racism.html
Discuss please, particularly if you are a language expert, or if you are not. What is your responsibility to respond to this and other related discussions? (Wow, it's a year old already!)
Interesting, in looking up something else on the old forum, this board appeared:
https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php/board,43.0.html
and within it, this thread...
https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,28983.0.html
from 2006.
Just as a bit of historic interest, perhaps...
M.
When did POC ask to be called by that name?
What is there to say, really? We should refer to and call groups of people by the names they wish us to use for them, and we should be reflective in our use of those names. Language isn't static, and the terms we use change as our usage drifts, and some cease to be useful for the purposes to which we previously put them.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 15, 2020, 11:04:48 PM
What is there to say, really? We should refer to and call groups of people by the names they wish us to use for them, and we should be reflective in our use of those names. Language isn't static, and the terms we use change as our usage drifts, and some cease to be useful for the purposes to which we previously put them.
Yes. This seems like a straightforward example of the euphemism treadmill, where euphemisms are used to refer to unpleasant subjects, but simply by association with those subjects they become themselves taboo, and so new euphemisms must be found. For example: water closet -> toilet -> (in N. America) bathroom/washroom -> restroom. We're constantly looking for more delicate ways to refer to pooping.
In this case it's not the topic itself that is taboo, but the unpleasant emotional load that keeps being associated with it by a subset of the population. Terms for minority groups are either corrupted or simply used with racist intents, so the groups ask to be referred to by other terms that do not carry the unpleasant emotional load of the previous terms. Then racists start using the new terms racistly, and so the new terms are now contaminated, and must be changed again.
This is not an instance of minority groups being perpetually dissatisfied, but rather an instance of racists polluting what they touch. And, as with all pollution, there are two solutions: avoid it or clean it up. An individual cannot solve racism, but they can at least not use racist terms when explicitly asked not to.
Quote from: ergative on February 16, 2020, 03:57:12 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 15, 2020, 11:04:48 PM
What is there to say, really? We should refer to and call groups of people by the names they wish us to use for them, and we should be reflective in our use of those names. Language isn't static, and the terms we use change as our usage drifts, and some cease to be useful for the purposes to which we previously put them.
Yes. This seems like a straightforward example of the euphemism treadmill, where euphemisms are used to refer to unpleasant subjects, but simply by association with those subjects they become themselves taboo, and so new euphemisms must be found. For example: water closet -> toilet -> (in N. America) bathroom/washroom -> restroom. We're constantly looking for more delicate ways to refer to pooping.
In this case it's not the topic itself that is taboo, but the unpleasant emotional load that keeps being associated with it by a subset of the population. Terms for minority groups are either corrupted or simply used with racist intents, so the groups ask to be referred to by other terms that do not carry the unpleasant emotional load of the previous terms. Then racists start using the new terms racistly, and so the new terms are now contaminated, and must be changed again.
This is not an instance of minority groups being perpetually dissatisfied, but rather an instance of racists polluting what they touch. And, as with all pollution, there are two solutions: avoid it or clean it up. An individual cannot solve racism, but they can at least not use racist terms when explicitly asked not to.
The author does not seem to think the mess can be cleaned up this easily. I think I agree with her in spots. People who look black are black. That part's easy. Why did that need changing? Also I don't know what I am being asked to call people. People at work use POC when referring to themselves in my presence. But it only recently dawned on me that 'POC' is not just another term for 'black' it's more like an umbrella. (I should get out more.) And are these settled questions among the non-Caucasian people involved? I wonder.
Spell correct wants to write 'rakishly' in place of 'racistly.' There's another problem. But thanks for the new word. I bet I'm safe using it until I visit friends in North Dakota.
BTW I have a friend who's a billionaire or close to it. But instead of 'person of means' which might sound pejorative maybe I should call him 'giver to charity.'
Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2020, 09:57:16 AM
The author does not seem to think the mess can be cleaned up this easily. I think I agree with her in spots. People who look black are black. That part's easy. Why did that need changing? Also I don't know what I am being asked to call people. People at work use POC when referring to themselves in my presence. But it only recently dawned on me that 'POC' is not just another term for 'black' it's more like an umbrella. (I should get out more.) And are these settled questions among the non-Caucasian people involved? I wonder.
I mean... there's no Central Committee that decides. These kinds of changes in naming conventions percolate from the ground up, not from the top down.
Quote
BTW I have a friend who's a billionaire or close to it. But instead of 'person of means' which might sound pejorative maybe I should call him 'giver to charity.'
Whatever. Your billionaire friend is not very vulnerable to discrimination. If you want to ease their conscience by soft-pedalling their wealth and power, and conflating it with ordinary wealth and power, you can do that. If that's how they want to be referred to, then you can use that to refer to them.
Given the givens, it just seems awfully disingenuous, and more like a parody of attempts to be respectful to vulnerable groups of people.
Anyone is vulnerable to being disliked by an individual or a mob.
I might be ready to make fun of people who call others racist whenever the whim strikes them though. They annoy me. Partly because they helped Trump get elected. But they were up to this bullshit years before Trump's ascendancy.
One African American friend refers to herself as "African American" in written work and group discussions; I take my cue from that when speaking and writing with, for, or about her.
Others might use other locutions; I try to be guided by the speech choices people make and reflect them back.
M.
Quote from: Anselm on February 15, 2020, 09:27:52 PM
When did POC ask to be called by that name?
In the 80's I recall the term "Third World" being used to describe ethnic groups from parts of the globe that were less developed.
I'm sad to have missed that Slate piece, as it verifies what I've been saying for years. The only problem with "people of color" is that too many people caught onto it and it stopped signaling the user's progressive bonafides. So what's next? My guess is "Black" and "Brown," ostentatiously capitalized. But that, too, will become problematic in time.
(Look for "Latinx" to become verboten, too, if that hasn't happened already.)
Yes, there has also been a good deal of criticism of "Latinx" in recent months.
Quote from: mamselle on February 16, 2020, 11:53:07 AM
One African American friend refers to herself as "African American" in written work and group discussions; I take my cue from that when speaking and writing with, for, or about her.
Others might use other locutions; I try to be guided by the speech choices people make and reflect them back.
M.
I really doubt that most black people are that particular. If they see that you are acting like a regular guy, a courteous human being, things are cool. I'm not going to be able to remember which coworkers like 'POC', which like 'African-American' or which like 'black' if I see them once every semester at a seminar. Whereas with others whom I know well, the subject doesn't really come up and if it does there's already trust in the relationship. The problem comes in when people are writing or holding seminars. As for deciding what any particular minority should be called, that minority is likely not sure among themselves what gives them the fairest deal. And I wouldn't blame them for that.
apropos of this too:
Quote from: Anselm on February 15, 2020, 09:27:52 PM
When did POC ask to be called by that name?
Quote from: mahagonny on February 18, 2020, 05:28:57 AM
Quote from: mamselle on February 16, 2020, 11:53:07 AM
One African American friend refers to herself as "African American" in written work and group discussions; I take my cue from that when speaking and writing with, for, or about her.
Others might use other locutions; I try to be guided by the speech choices people make and reflect them back.
M.
I really doubt that most black people are that particular. If they see that you are acting like a regular guy, a courteous human being, things are cool. I'm not going to be able to remember which coworkers like 'POC', which like 'African-American' or which like 'black' if I see them once every semester at a seminar. Whereas with others whom I know well, the subject doesn't really come up and if it does there's already trust in the relationship. The problem comes in when people are writing or holding seminars. As for deciding what any particular minority should be called, that minority is likely not sure among themselves what gives them the fairest deal. And I wouldn't blame them for that.
apropos of this too:
Quote from: Anselm on February 15, 2020, 09:27:52 PM
When did POC ask to be called by that name?
Yes, exactly, because nobody really thinks that any of these terms are offensive. So much of this discussion seems to be based around the idea that you're going to be in trouble for using the wrong term, but it just isn't true. Minority is actually a weird term in various ways, so you can see why people have looked for an alternative, but people of color comes with problems too. But you can use either term and nobody is going to think you're being a racist just because they think a different term would be better. Ditto for black and African American.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2020, 09:57:16 AM
People who look black are black. That part's easy.
For what it is worth, that isn't actually exactly true. There are, in fact, people who identify as black, who most people wouldn't classify that way if they saw them out of any context. Walter White, the longtime head of the NAACP is one of the more famous examples. http://blackhistorynow.com/walter-francis-white/
White grew up in a family that always identified as black within a black community, but he was able to interview white people about lynchings in Southern towns. Race isn't just about appearance.
Quote from: Caracal on February 18, 2020, 06:51:08 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2020, 09:57:16 AM
People who look black are black. That part's easy.
For what it is worth, that isn't actually exactly true. There are, in fact, people who identify as black, who most people wouldn't classify that way if they saw them out of any context. Walter White, the longtime head of the NAACP is one of the more famous examples. http://blackhistorynow.com/walter-francis-white/
White grew up in a family that always identified as black within a black community, but he was able to interview white people about lynchings in Southern towns. Race isn't just about appearance.
So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 07:00:59 AM
So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?
Within the social construct of race in the US, we identify race by lineage. "One drop rule" and all that. In Brazil, it's more by color of the individuals skin, regardless of their parent's appearance or ethnicity. So she may have better luck getting away with her blackface down there.
Quote from: Caracal on February 18, 2020, 06:43:13 AM
Yes, exactly, because nobody really thinks that any of these terms are offensive. So much of this discussion seems to be based around the idea that you're going to be in trouble for using the wrong term, but it just isn't true. Minority is actually a weird term in various ways, so you can see why people have looked for an alternative, but people of color comes with problems too. But you can use either term and nobody is going to think you're being a racist just because they think a different term would be better. Ditto for black and African American.
Ideally, yes. But I would nitpick with your using the term 'nobody.' There are people around who call people racist for all sorts of made up reasons, and a lot of them are white.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 07:00:59 AM
Quote from: Caracal on February 18, 2020, 06:51:08 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2020, 09:57:16 AM
People who look black are black. That part's easy.
For what it is worth, that isn't actually exactly true. There are, in fact, people who identify as black, who most people wouldn't classify that way if they saw them out of any context. Walter White, the longtime head of the NAACP is one of the more famous examples. http://blackhistorynow.com/walter-francis-white/
White grew up in a family that always identified as black within a black community, but he was able to interview white people about lynchings in Southern towns. Race isn't just about appearance.
So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?
Well both of his parents were born into slavery. He grew up in a black world. Because of his appearance, he almost certainly could have chosen to pass as white if he had wanted to, but that would have entailed a series of very deliberate decisions. He would have needed to move away, and essentially obscure and renounce his past. Whatever, you think of Dolezal, what she did was almost exactly the opposite. She chose to take on an identity that was very much not the one she was born into.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 07:00:59 AM
So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?
She can. What she can't get is the appropriate uptake, because she's missing a causal history that's deemed necessary. It was the same with Michael Jackson, but in reverse.
Quote from: Diogenes on February 18, 2020, 07:08:44 AM
Within the social construct of race in the US, we identify race by lineage. "One drop rule" and all that. In Brazil, it's more by color of the individuals skin, regardless of their parent's appearance or ethnicity. So she may have better luck getting away with her blackface down there.
Not all races, though. The one drop rule never really applied to indigenous peoples. Even when blood quanta were introduced for indigenous peoples in 1934, it was messy and unevenly applied, and lineal descent was and continues to be a more important component, along with community membership.
For marshy's purposes, it's worth pointing out that the blood quantum thing is even less applicable to indigenous peoples in Canada, where until a couple years ago what you needed by law was a direct
male ancestor. An indigenous father would pass on his status, but an indigenous mother couldn't. Over the last several hundred years, this has led to the systematic bureaucratic erasure of entire generations of indigenous people, which has proven awfully convenient for governments which are constantly embroiled in unresolved land claims.
But yeah. The trouble is that 'race' is not a concept that picks out robust clusters of genetic properties. It just picks out phenotypical properties, and groups people together based on those, even when the genetic differences between those people are really quite significant.
Linguistic groups are somewhat more genetically homogenous than racial groupings.
I'm recalling some very well-worded engagements between anthroid and acrimone on this topic about a dozen years ago.
Some of the same points came up then.
M.
Quote from: Diogenes on February 18, 2020, 07:08:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 07:00:59 AM
So why can't Rachel Dolezal "identify as black"?
Within the social construct of race in the US, we identify race by lineage. "One drop rule" and all that. In Brazil, it's more by color of the individuals skin, regardless of their parent's appearance or ethnicity. So she may have better luck getting away with her blackface down there.
This is actually an early 20th century development. Throughout most of the 19th century, courts and legislators avoided defining race solely by ancestry. Mostly, they argued that to do so could undermine white supremacy. The problem as was sometimes openly acknowledged, was that lots of people who were considered white actually had black or Native American ancestry if you went back far enough. The standard was the community view of someone's race, not ancestry. Even when one drop rules were adopted in the early 20th century, it was more of a racial fiction than a reality.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 08:54:40 AM
For marshy's purposes, it's worth pointing out that the blood quantum thing is even less applicable to indigenous peoples in Canada, where until a couple years ago what you needed by law was a direct male ancestor. An indigenous father would pass on his status, but an indigenous mother couldn't. Over the last several hundred years, this has led to the systematic bureaucratic erasure of entire generations of indigenous people, which has proven awfully convenient for governments which are constantly embroiled in unresolved land claims.
Except when it comes to adoption. For anyone who missed this CBC article (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/black-status-indian-barred-from-event-over-bloodlines-1.3442490) from 2016:
Short intro:
Quote
Organizers of an all First Nations sports event in B.C. are being accused of racism and discrimination for benching a status Indian player who is black.
Organizers of the All Native Basketball Tournament say Josiah Wilson can't compete because he doesn't have First Nations ancestry or "bloodlines."
Wilson, a point guard with the Heiltsuk Wolf Pack team, is of Haitian descent. He was adopted as an infant in Haiti and raised by a Heiltsuk First Nation family in Canada.
So who is (are) the racist(s) here?
I remember the case, although I don't know enough about the Indian Act and other relevant laws to have any kind of informed opinion about it. I seem to recall that the kid had a status card, however, and that he'd been allowed to live on a reserve where only status-holders are allowed to live. If that's right, then yes, it seems prima facie right that he should have been allowed to play. But what looks right at first glance can turn out to be wrong upon reflection.
For national minorities on the brink of extinction (especially those which have been deliberately erased by the state), worries about dilution of culture seem entirely genuine to me. And I do think it's appropriate for them to take steps to preserve that culture, even when those steps involve a certain amount of discrimination (see, e.g., efforts to preserve French in Québec).
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 09:29:04 AM
I remember the case, although I don't know enough about the Indian Act and other relevant laws to have any kind of informed opinion about it. I seem to recall that the kid had a status card, however, and that he'd been allowed to live on a reserve where only status-holders are allowed to live. If that's right, then yes, it seems prima facie right that he should have been allowed to play. But what looks right at first glance can turn out to be wrong upon reflection.
For national minorities on the brink of extinction (especially those which have been deliberately erased by the state), worries about dilution of culture seem entirely genuine to me. And I do think it's appropriate for them to take steps to preserve that culture, even when those steps involve a certain amount of discrimination (see, e.g., efforts to preserve French in Québec).
Yes, because an
orphan adopted
as an infant represents represents such a monumental threat to the culture.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:32:19 AM
Yes, because an orphan adopted as an infant represents represents such a monumental threat to the culture.
Individual cases never do. But the precedent they set
can.
As I said, however: as it happens, I agree that what happened in the case in question seemed wrong to me. But that's my naïve opinion, not an especially informed one. And, as I said, I accept that preserving
national minority cultures might require some discriminatory policies.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:13:38 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 08:54:40 AM
For marshy's purposes, it's worth pointing out that the blood quantum thing is even less applicable to indigenous peoples in Canada, where until a couple years ago what you needed by law was a direct male ancestor. An indigenous father would pass on his status, but an indigenous mother couldn't. Over the last several hundred years, this has led to the systematic bureaucratic erasure of entire generations of indigenous people, which has proven awfully convenient for governments which are constantly embroiled in unresolved land claims.
Except when it comes to adoption. For anyone who missed this CBC article (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/black-status-indian-barred-from-event-over-bloodlines-1.3442490) from 2016:
Short intro:
Quote
Organizers of an all First Nations sports event in B.C. are being accused of racism and discrimination for benching a status Indian player who is black.
Organizers of the All Native Basketball Tournament say Josiah Wilson can't compete because he doesn't have First Nations ancestry or "bloodlines."
Wilson, a point guard with the Heiltsuk Wolf Pack team, is of Haitian descent. He was adopted as an infant in Haiti and raised by a Heiltsuk First Nation family in Canada.
So who is (are) the racist(s) here?
I'm not really sure what your point is here. There's a whole complicated history in the US about race and Native Americans. I don't know enough about it to say much, but my understanding is that it has a lot to do with government designations of native Americans by race and bloodline and because ancestry was key to recognition of tribes and certain rights, Native Americans adopted various racial ideas. There's a whole controversy over black Seminole and Cherokee for example. I'm sure its more complicated, and I don't pretend to know much about Canada. Is it really particularly shocking that non white people can also have problematic relationships with race though?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 09:40:56 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:32:19 AM
Yes, because an orphan adopted as an infant represents represents such a monumental threat to the culture.
Individual cases never do. But the precedent they set can.
Seriously, it's not like people can scheme to get
themselves adopted
as infants into some other culture or community. Are white nationalist groups going to heavily subsidize adoptions for indiginous families to undermine the bloodlines over time????
Given that people
choose to adopt, how can this possibly be a threat to the community where a child is adopted? (I understand the historic question about children getting adopted
from indiginous communities, especially in the situation where people
outside the communities had the children put up for adoption if parents were deemed "unfit". But getting adopted
into those communities doesn't pose the same problem.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:56:32 AM
Seriously, it's not like people can scheme to get themselves adopted as infants into some other culture or community. Are white nationalist groups going to heavily subsidize adoptions for indiginous families to undermine the bloodlines over time????
Given that people choose to adopt, how can this possibly be a threat to the community where a child is adopted? (I understand the historic question about children getting adopted from indiginous communities, especially in the situation where people outside the communities had the children put up for adoption if parents were deemed "unfit". But getting adopted into those communities doesn't pose the same problem.)
I think the worry concerns retroactively recognizing people adopted into communities, along with their descendants. Especially since, back in 2016, indigenous women still couldn't pass on their indigenous status. If anyone's going to have their status recognized, let it be indigenous people first. Others can come later.
But again, I agree about this particular case, especially since the relevant Heiltsuk community had already decided to accept the kid and grant him status. It doesn't seem especially threatening to me. What I'm saying is (1) I'm not an expert, and may well be missing important elements, and (2) I accept the general principle (which is that prioritizing the preservation of a national minority culture--especially one that's been systematically erased--may require some discrimination), and can accept this particular instance as a consequence of accepting the general principle.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 10:07:00 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 09:56:32 AM
Seriously, it's not like people can scheme to get themselves adopted as infants into some other culture or community. Are white nationalist groups going to heavily subsidize adoptions for indiginous families to undermine the bloodlines over time????
Given that people choose to adopt, how can this possibly be a threat to the community where a child is adopted? (I understand the historic question about children getting adopted from indiginous communities, especially in the situation where people outside the communities had the children put up for adoption if parents were deemed "unfit". But getting adopted into those communities doesn't pose the same problem.)
I think the worry concerns retroactively recognizing people adopted into communities, along with their descendants. Especially since, back in 2016, indigenous women still couldn't pass on their indigenous status. If anyone's going to have their status recognized, let it be indigenous people first. Others can come later.
But again, I agree about this particular case, especially since the relevant Heiltsuk community had already decided to accept the kid and grant him status. It doesn't seem especially threatening to me. What I'm saying is (1) I'm not an expert, and may well be missing important elements, and (2) I accept the general principle (which is that prioritizing the preservation of a national minority culture--especially one that's been systematically erased--may require some discrimination), and can accept this particular instance as a consequence of accepting the general principle.
But if an indigenous woman adopts a non-indigenous child,
she still can't pass on her status. so the historical injustice is actually
perpetuated in a slightly modified context. (Adoption can hardly be considered an unusual circumstance. And since indigenous communities are generally small, adoptions from outside should not be surprising.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 10:12:17 AM
But if an indigenous woman adopts a non-indigenous child, she still can't pass on her status. so the historical injustice is actually perpetuated in a slightly modified context. (Adoption can hardly be considered an unusual circumstance. And since indigenous communities are generally small, adoptions from outside should not be surprising.)
Right: the problem that I'm seeing is a situation in which non-indigenous adoptees count as indigenous, and the men are then eligible to pass that status on to their own descendants, while at the same time status is denied to the children of indigenous mothers (with a non-indigenous father). Multiplied across time, you could conceivably wind up with a significant number of people who count as indigenous despite having no direct causal tie to indigenous ancestry, while a signicant number of people who do have that tie lack status.
Personally, I'm not especially worried about that kind of situation, since it seems fairly far removed, and fairly distant from the particulars of this case. But I can understand why a national minority might worry about that kind of thing, especially given a history of government policies (including the 'Indian status' components of the Indian Act) aimed at precisely that kind of dilution and erasure of their people and culture. There's a reason the government has resisted allowing women to pass on their status for so long, after all.
But, for the record, indigenous women can now pass on their status.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2020, 10:22:25 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 18, 2020, 10:12:17 AM
But if an indigenous woman adopts a non-indigenous child, she still can't pass on her status. so the historical injustice is actually perpetuated in a slightly modified context. (Adoption can hardly be considered an unusual circumstance. And since indigenous communities are generally small, adoptions from outside should not be surprising.)
Right: the problem that I'm seeing is a situation in which non-indigenous adoptees count as indigenous, and the men are then eligible to pass that status on to their own descendants, while at the same time status is denied to the children of indigenous mothers (with a non-indigenous father). Multiplied across time, you could conceivably wind up with a significant number of people who count as indigenous despite having no direct causal tie to indigenous ancestry, while a signicant number of people who do have that tie lack status.
Personally, I'm not especially worried about that kind of situation, since it seems fairly far removed, and fairly distant from the particulars of this case. But I can understand why a national minority might worry about that kind of thing, especially given a history of government policies (including the 'Indian status' components of the Indian Act) aimed at precisely that kind of dilution and erasure of their people and culture. There's a reason the government has resisted allowing women to pass on their status for so long, after all.
But, for the record, indigenous women can now pass on their status.
Except, apparently, in the case of adoption. (Yes, I was aware of the legislation you mentioned. And while it was discriminatory, I think it was at least partly related to who was likely to live on a reservation. Women (indigenous or not) would tend to live in their husbands' communities, whether that was on- or off-reservation. If services on reservations were to be restricted to people living on those reservations, then "status" was basically just an indicator of who could access services. As a side question does anyone know if people who have indigenous status can claim that status within an indigenous community of a
different ethnic group?)