A question for 'Black', 'Negro', or 'persons-of-color' ONLY PLEASE.

Giraffes aren't human. You know that, right?

 

Becuz I write POSTS here, in this Forum, not in my 'neighborhood'.

So, "black" people don't post in this Forum? Then, unless several people (at least) have been lying about themselves for years, that can't be true....

 

why do you assume no Republicans here are black?

that said, you would never know anyone's gender, race or even party, as people are anonymous and can say what ever they want

 

I am not saying none, I am saying the percentage is probably small. The demographics of this forum is not representative of the population. For example what percentage of posters on this forums are under the age of 30? What percentage are boomers?

If I want to ask young people their experiences in school I would not post here.

My guess if you post here you will probably get a whole bunch of posters white-splaining the answer for you. Sometimes If you want answers you need to leave your comfort zone and go to the source.

 

But, again, I'm asking so that I can know what's least offensive to them in POSTS, in THIS Forum. I don't wander around town spray painting posts on walls....

 

My premise is that black people on this forum are probably offended by the same racial terminology as your friends, neighbors, co-workers. If you cannot get a response from those here it is probably easier to initiate a discussion with them and you would probably get a more insightful answer. Your goal is respectful communication so no one would oppose that. When I look through the post on this thread so far I see no serious engagement in a discussion from the group you are asking for a reply. Only the same old tribal partisan quips. The only reason I responded was because you seem to be frustrated from the results. I am simply offering you what I think is a better alternative to achieve your goal.

 

And what difference does that make? Substitute in any descriptor you want, since the actual basis of my post went right by you.

 

“Black” refers to American blacks.
“Negro” is the word for black in several languages and it sufficed to be a designation.
In the ‘70’s, Negroes chose to be called black.
Afro-American, and hyphens in general were used by academia to identify DNA origin and location.
Hyphens IMO, are destructive to a nations cohesion as it says “Not completely American”.
“Person of Color” was designed to further cleave other darker groups of people away from “white”, but object to be called black.

 

The point has been missed. The OP wants to know if they're okay with being referred to as 'negro'.

JTR, I did my own off-piste survey and the answer was a very firm NO.

 

I know... on some level it's like. What would the gingers and blondes prefer to be called? Blondie, red-head, firecracker if they're white? Probably wouldn't want to be identified according to something as superficial as their hair color, frankly. So I'd go with that. Overemphasizing it seems to be more offensive than whether you go with black or african american. I've seen preference go back and forth on that one, but as long as you don't overemphasize race or use more clearly offensive ones (negro is borderline, sort of makes you seem like you're from another time period, the other N word is the one that will get you in trouble). Marginalized groups seem to find it necessary to assert their pride to counter negative narratives, but let that be their own thing with their own words. I'd emphasize more what you like about their character and common humanity while also being unique individuals.

 

did the people you asked say if it depended on the skin color of the person using the word or not?

 

Well, I thank everyone for your comments and ideas. Let's give it a few more days for SOMEBODY to at least vote, and then if nobody even bothers to vote a preference, I'll just say, "Screw it!" and use "Black" and, "the Blacks" here in the Forum.

BTW, I'm am an old guy, who is from another time period... one in which perhaps the greatest "Black" American philosopher in our history, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., lived, wrote, and spoke. Dr. King used the proper, scholarly word, "Negro" to refer to those of his own race extensively! But, today, if "the Blacks" want to be called "Black", then, so be it.... We'll see.

 

If you're asking that question about a specifically defined group though, you must know how that group is being defined. I'd suggest that the focus on simple labelling distracts from actually understanding what classes of people you're actually talking about, which is a vital part of the question in the first place. Once you actually understand that, the label (or, significantly, labels) that would apply are likely to become clear anyway.

Well there you have three relatively neutral labels I can't see anyone rationally having any issue with in principle. The problems are more often the motives behind how labels are used (which is why there is a moral distinction between technically similar phrases like "black people" compared to "the blacks").

Obviously groups of people need to be referred to on all sorts of bases with all sorts of labels. The core point I was making there was that even when you're talking about groups, you ned to recognise that those groups are still made up of individuals who are all different from each other and that a lot of things that are legitimately applied to large groups will have edge-cases, exceptions and complications.

Just focusing on grouping and labels risks brushing over that vital aspect. You seen to want to come up with a term that would apply to all "black people" in all contexts but that approach creates the impression that those people don't need to be considered individually. I think a better approach would be to start from the recognition of individuality and only establish groups when they're specifically needed, defined and labelled in that context rather than in any kind of general way. And note that is far from limited to race.

 

Why talk race at all? The beauty of the forum is I do not know the skin colour of the person I am talking to so it takes race out of the equation and I can talk as I should - person to person

 

You and I are frequent posters in this Forum, Bower, so it's amazing that, now, all of a sudden, you would even ask a question like, "Why talk race at all?" You can see as easily as I do that Forum threads that deal explicitly with a constellation of topics orbiting around RACE make up a very large percentage of the total content here....

Focus on individuals only? Then how can we even discuss events that surround and amplify topics like George Floyd (an INDIVIDUAL) and the subsequent hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, theft, and other violence that occurred throughout Minneapolis and other cities by ___________________ (Fill in the blank)...? In order to discuss the tragedy that followed Floyd's death, do we have to refer to damage cause by INDIVIDUALS only, or, do we use GROUP descriptions...? Hell, we don't have any idea exactly who those masses of rioters were by their INDIVIDUAL names. Am I getting through...?

I'll try one other tack -- Nazi Germany! We can examine the European War through the lens of Adolf Hitler (an INDIVIDUAL), but the subsequent destruction of so much of Europe, the deaths of millions of people, etc., was caused by ____________ (Fill in the blank"). Can we 'fill in that blank' with the name of each and every German soldier in the Wehrmacht, or, do we use a GROUP descriptor, like "Germans", or, "Nazis", or something else?

In examples like that, the possibilities for error multiply, because if we simply attributed all the carnage to "Nazis" we would stupidly be forgetting the fact that, at its height, less than 20% of the German population were members of the Nazi Party. Thus, yes, it would be great to be able to focus discussions on INDIVIDUALS only, but not practical, or useful....

 

I am wide open to the possibility that I have been Black in a past life or two or three over the past one thousand years.....
(but that is not a good enough excuse for me to take a guess at the poll is it)?

What is that white guy doin in my head? (Past life regression under hypnosis).


?
If you were hypnotized and saw yourself as white....would this affect your views?

1. 
   No... the Bible says it is appointed to men to die once.
   1 vote(s)
   14.3%
2. *
   Yes... that would be a rather moving experience.
   1 vote(s)
   14.3%
3. 
   No.... Helen Wambach Ph. D. was a nutcase.
   5 vote(s)
   71.4%
4. *
   Yes.... my belief in past lives has helped me to be less angry.
   1 vote(s)
   14.3%
   

 

Here it is, Saturday morning, and still NOT ONE SINGLE VOTE. Amazing!

One could imagine that "black" persons don't have a preference -- until some "white" guy uses the word, "Negro" as I have in posts -- and then he gets told that doing that is as bad as using the "N"-word.

. "I used the word, "Negro" a lot... so, that's 'MY BAD'...?"

 

I agree. Now if only we could get the media to stop talking about it.

 

Around here, I prefer to be called "10A". Last time I was in elementary school, white was a color. Now, its a racial pejorative and a Democrat joke, as was "colored" in the 1860's. Black is ok. Negro is not, too close to "******" (forum censors might ding that) and I don't allow my friends and family to use that term with 2 g's. Although its not your list, African American is fine.

 

Yeah, about that ...





The artists in ancient Egypt thought enough about assigning racial characteristics to their Nubian slaves. Try again.

 

So, you think giraffes are human . . .

 

I think that I'm just going to 'go with the contemporary flow' (even though it's every bit as galling, and insulting to Negro people, when you THINK about it) and just call them "the Blacks" after all. That's the descriptor that's been 'in-fashion' for the past thirty years or so, I suppose, so, give them what they want. I still think it's about as demeaning as referring to them as wild animals, but -- hey -- I'm just a Caucasian....

 

Brilliant. Apparently you don't understand the point.

 

How did people walk in ancient Egypt? What with their bodies twisted half about like that all the time?

 

deleted