It also sounds slightly less terrible than saying "blacks", which a lot of people said before "African-Americans" was in vogue. Now mostly go with the slightly more general "people of color".
One of the naming tropes for sauces at my grocery store is "memories of" so there's "memories of dad's grill" and "memories of alabama" but then there's "memories of korean barbecue" o.0
It also sounds slightly less terrible than saying "blacks", which a lot of people said before "African-Americans" was in vogue. Now mostly go with the slightly more general "people of color".
PoC actually means something different altogether. It's any non-white ethnicity. African-American is not synonymous with it.
It also sounds slightly less terrible than saying "blacks", which a lot of people said before "African-Americans" was in vogue. Now mostly go with the slightly more general "people of color".
I'm pretty sure "black" is both very common and not considered a pejorative.
It also sounds slightly less terrible than saying "blacks", which a lot of people said before "African-Americans" was in vogue. Now mostly go with the slightly more general "people of color".
I'm pretty sure "black" is both very common and not considered a pejorative.
It depends on how it's phrased. "Black people" is fine but if you just say "blacks" or "the blacks" you sound pretty racist. Similarly, "Person of color" is ok but "colored person" not so much (I know they have somewhat different meanings, but still.)
It also sounds slightly less terrible than saying "blacks", which a lot of people said before "African-Americans" was in vogue. Now mostly go with the slightly more general "people of color".
I'm pretty sure "black" is both very common and not considered a pejorative.
It depends on how it's phrased. "Black people" is fine but if you just say "blacks" or "the blacks" you sound pretty racist.
One of the naming tropes for sauces at my grocery store is "memories of" so there's "memories of dad's grill" and "memories of alabama" but then there's "memories of korean barbecue" o.0
How important are these labels for our identity? Aren't they just ever used for discrimination or does it serve a real purpose for identifying someone?
Surely with the amount of world travel and mixed heritage also, these categories are becoming obsolete. My background extends to at least four separate countries, I get mistaken for all sorts if I just don't tell you my families background.
I dislike anyone claiming a hyphenated American unless they or their parents were born as non us citizens. Everyone else your just an American no need for special qualifiers.
We use the labels because the lived experience of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and white Americans is often drastically different. Not just in the sense of the effects of racism and sexism, but also that there are unique subcultures in those groups that we should recognize -- the labels are used to describe some of that heterogeneity.
Those categories won't be obsolete until those subcultures and differences of perspective either disappear or change into something entirely different.
Does the use of labels/naming conventions perpetuate the differences?
I feel any grouping of people into subcultures seems to automatically bring with it blanket stereotyping of those so grouped. I can't say "Asian-Americans" without that bringing up whatever connotations that start to separate people into groups and immediately questions of who belongs.
The problems with categories/ genres/ labels is they become too broad/ vague in their definition as time goes.
They must evolve and change as we do (divergence/ convergence). When trying to identify people this way, it starts to become a no true scotsman situation. Whether you're trying to describe someone's, geographical background/ ethnicity/ culture/ religion.
We're all human, we should self-identify with all human history and culture IMO. Matters of identification isn't solved by labelling in this fashion.
Does the use of labels/naming conventions perpetuate the differences?
Yes it does. From what I've seen and the Americans I've interacted with the levels of separation are crazy. Why would you even be called Italian American? An Italian American would stick out like a sore thumb just as much as any other American if they were to holiday in Italy. Same goes for every other subtype.
My friend is Kevin. versus My Italian American friend is Kevin.
Do you need a qualifier for why you have an Italian American friend? Am I supposed to apply stereotypes and prejudge this Kevin who I've never met before (is it possible not to)?
Genetically you're also messing your species up by making specific breeds (e.g. domesticated dogs and cats are fucked up medically and genetically) versus sub-species who evolve to thrive in a particular environment.
So get out there and fuck someone who looks completely different to your family.
Our resident Unix Santa at work is a cool Irish dude who just quit last week. Before he left, he was showing a few of us some of the things that no one else in the office knows how to do. And he kept saying with his Irish accent, in reference to his various user accounts, "I'm disabled." Thanks to the IT Crowd, I had to fight to keep myself from laughing every time he said it.
Comments
How important are these labels for our identity? Aren't they just ever used for discrimination or does it serve a real purpose for identifying someone?
Surely with the amount of world travel and mixed heritage also, these categories are becoming obsolete. My background extends to at least four separate countries, I get mistaken for all sorts if I just don't tell you my families background.
Those categories won't be obsolete until those subcultures and differences of perspective either disappear or change into something entirely different.
I feel any grouping of people into subcultures seems to automatically bring with it blanket stereotyping of those so grouped. I can't say "Asian-Americans" without that bringing up whatever connotations that start to separate people into groups and immediately questions of who belongs.
They must evolve and change as we do (divergence/ convergence). When trying to identify people this way, it starts to become a no true scotsman situation. Whether you're trying to describe someone's, geographical background/ ethnicity/ culture/ religion.
We're all human, we should self-identify with all human history and culture IMO. Matters of identification isn't solved by labelling in this fashion.
From what I've seen and the Americans I've interacted with the levels of separation are crazy. Why would you even be called Italian American? An Italian American would stick out like a sore thumb just as much as any other American if they were to holiday in Italy. Same goes for every other subtype.
My friend is Kevin.
versus
My Italian American friend is Kevin.
Do you need a qualifier for why you have an Italian American friend? Am I supposed to apply stereotypes and prejudge this Kevin who I've never met before (is it possible not to)?
Genetically you're also messing your species up by making specific breeds (e.g. domesticated dogs and cats are fucked up medically and genetically) versus sub-species who evolve to thrive in a particular environment.
So get out there and fuck someone who looks completely different to your family.
"Didn't you know I was disguised as that bush!?"