More Politically Correct Lunacy

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Samdari

They endorsed a candidate for an award (appropriate or not). There is no rule against that.

True.

Democrats do it all the time

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

For many minorities, I don't think they feel like they're afforded all the protections that an American should be afforded.

Yes and no. I strongly believe that these three things are equally true in America:

1. There still exist pockets of unfairness (justice system is the most obvious one).
2. As a whole, blacks in the public eye over-exploit race in a demagogic manner to acquire/maintain political power.
3. As a whole, whites cry "reverse racism" too quickly.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Yes and no. I strongly believe that these three things are equally true in America:

1. There still exist pockets of unfairness (justice system is the most obvious one).
2. As a whole, blacks in the public eye over-exploit race in a demagogic manner to acquire/maintain political power.
3. As a whole, whites cry "reverse racism" too quickly.

I'd agree that all those things are true... not sure about equally, but I'd agree with each of them.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'd agree that all those things are true... not sure about equally, but I'd agree with each of them.

Good point. I probably should have left off "equally".

[Sun Tzu]

What would happen if the same school had an award called "The David Duke Award", and a bunch of black kids attempted to win the award.

The MLK award is the biggest sham I have ever heard of in a public school. It's blatant reverse racism towards non-blacks, and is no different then having a "lets drink from seperate water fountains" day. What would happen if an Asian person who was born in Africa attempted to win the award?

We have become so obsessed with being PC that if somebody were to even bring up the idea of creating a "whites only" award they would be fired on the spot, branded a racist, and shunned from ever working in the school system again. It truly is amazing how sick this country is becomming.

Keep in mind while reading this that I am not white, I am Jewish.

[Easy Mac]

Well, since the originalaward in question is not named for a radical black supremacist, I think people would rightly have a problem with a David Duke award... since its a completely different concept.

I don't think its being PC to say I don't want an award named after a racist... I think its called common sense.

If you're going to make an argument at least use the same concept, like an Anglo-saxon achievement award.

We had that at my school, its called graduating... see, now thats not being PC.

[Sun Tzu]

Thank you for taking my post completely out of text Mac.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

We had that at my school, its called graduating... see, now thats not being PC.

Oh that was good. Very good, at least an eight-pointer.

[MJ4H]

This board needs a "zing" sound effect for those one-liners. Or how about a "badoom-ching" drum set tag? Sorry, just thinking "out loud" here.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

This board needs a "zing" sound effect for those one-liners. Or how about a "badoom-ching" drum set tag? Sorry, just thinking "out loud" here.

I'd rather have a Fox-style studio audience going "Ooohhhh...."

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Been pretty busy today. Nice read in this thread. Some thoughts...

Quik, I understand where you're coming from on the inexact terminology, but I offer my own ethnic ancestry as another example of why this bothers me.

Father--Robert Lewis

His parents--Benjamin and Mary Lewis--Benjamin's parents were a black woman (We assume of West African slave lineage. The British brought over a number of slaves to Barbados in the 1600's.) and a man of pretty much 100% Carribean/South American lineage. As far as we can tell, Mary was of purely Carribbean/South American descent.

So, my father's ancestry is basically 25% African, and 75% Latino/Hispanic/Carribean native. He was born in Havana, Cuba, but raised in New Orleans, LA. Being raised stateside, he spoke with no accent, and furthermore he was very dark-skinned. He looked definitely looked Negro/black/African-American, and was therefore classified as such by the government. (Actually I think the law in Louisiana is that if you have 12.5% "black blood" you were considered "Negro", "Black", "African-American", or whatever the term du jour is.)

Mother--Esther Allen Lewis

Her mother--Ruby Carter Allen--Ruby's mother was pretty much of full Cherokee Indian descent, and her father was 3/4 African descent, 1/4 European descent--makes Ruby's lineage 1/2 Cherokee, 3/8 African, 1/8
European

Her father--Harold Allen--His father was white (slave owner/slave copulation) and his mother was of mainly African descent (although her lineage is part Cherokee as well). For argument's sake, we'll call him 50% European, 50% African

So....that means that my mom's lineage is 1/4 Cherokee, 7/16 African, 5/16 European


Doing all the cypherin', that in reality means my heritage is approximately:

37.5% South American/Carribbean/Latino
34.4% African
15.6% European
12.5% Cherokee

Maybe understanding my true heritage will help folks understand why calling me "African-American" is just flat-out offensive to me. One reason I don't like that term is that it completely discounts over 60% of my heritage. My brothers and I happen to look "black" (at least by American standards). However, nearly all of our first cousins on our mother's side look at least somewhat ethnically ambiguous. I have two first cousins with green eyes, and all but one of my mother's six brothers have straight hair. We don't mind being called "black", mainly because for me the term connotates the cultural experience/history of those of us with partial/full African ancestry, but it also doesn't leave out the reality that a LARGE number of us have a good bit of non-African lineage. All of my extended family members grew up in black neighborhoods, were victims of Jim Crow laws in the South, etc. etc. etc., so we definitely consider ourselves "black"--but "African American" is a real stretch.

This "mixed" cultural heritage isn't uncommon in American "blacks." In fact, I'd venture to say that it is more the norm than "pure" African ancestry. There's a reason that American "blacks" look quite different from African "blacks," and it isn't just the way we dress.

(Sorry this is being posted now and maybe sort of off-topic with where the thread has gone. I started this post yesterday, but things got even busier than expected getting ready for camp. I looked at my computer this morning and realized that I was 2/3 done with this post, so I figured I'd finish it. )

--Ben

These are good points, but I still don't think they answer all the claims made. Maybe I depart from some of the others here, but I'm a strong believer that race is entirely a social construction. Yes, there are biological and pigmentation differences, but the values ascribed to race are entirely cultural. Blood quantum tests really don't get at the issue because race is determined by society, not by a math test.

I believe when it comes to calling people by certain labels (like "African-American"), the key issue is one of self determination. And I mean the self determination of you as an individual and the group with whom you want to be identified. If you don't want to be called "African-American" I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know the "proper" label for you and so long as the name you want to be identified as isn't objectionable to others using that name, I'll call you that.

The problem with lots of those arguing here is that they lack manners (as QS pointed out) and they are arrogant. They believe they know better than those at Omaha Westside what is best for them and what they should be called. Believe it or not, some people don't think being called "American" is enough and want to recognize their roots. Just as I don't call Skydog "Hornsmaniac" because I'm arrogant enough to believe I know his "proper" name, you should respect others who wish to be called something else. Is that really too much to ask?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Yes and no. I strongly believe that these three things are equally true in America:

1. There still exist pockets of unfairness (justice system is the most obvious one).
2. As a whole, blacks in the public eye over-exploit race in a demagogic manner to acquire/maintain political power.
3. As a whole, whites cry "reverse racism" too quickly.

I agree with all of these. I guess the "reverse racism" gets on my nerves more than it should.

[Butter]

Dola - although I tend to think that unfairness is more widespread than just existing in "pockets".

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Dola - although I tend to think that unfairness is more widespread than just existing in "pockets".

I agree and would also add that although I agree with SD's 2), I don't have a problem with it.

[clintl]

As I see it, for the most part, all PC really amounts to is a desire by groups who have historically been crapped on by the majority to be treated according to the Golden Rule. Sometimes, the application is overzealous and produces silly results, but in its basic essence, that's all there is to PC.

And while I appreciate and understand Skydog's objections to using the term "African-American" in reference to him, as far as anyone else is concerned, I'm not sure why this particular term stirs up so much resentment when other similar terms identifying original ethnicity (such as Italian-American, Polish-American, Irish-American, etc) don't. There are lots of white people of European ancestry who maintain a cultural connection with their ancestral roots, without being vilified for it. And as imperfect as it IS a more accurate description than "black", and it does seem to have become the preferred term by much of the segment of the population it refers to.

[WSUCougar]

A few general comments and overall blather. Let me state up front that my comments are merely meant for discussion’s sake and are not intended to be preachy or offensive. Sorry for the long post.

I think this incident is both a conspicuous and also quite subtle blending of issues, interpretations, and resultant reactions.

As has been discussed throughout this thread, the term “African-American” is an unsuccessful euphemism for a segment of our nation’s society that has, throughout various stages of American history, been an enslaved, despised, repressed, terrorized, segregated, de-segregated and then subsequently (and still not yet fully) unfettered minority. To deny any of these stages of black history in the United States is to reject documented fact.

In recent years Americans have, in either the form of laws, institutions, governmental agencies, or individual efforts, made substantial efforts to alleviate some of the social wrongs that continue to plague our society with regard to minorities, and specifically in this instance to black Americans. Many embrace these efforts; a significant number of people do not. Human history is replete with countless examples of groups (be they racial, religious, national, or other) not liking one another. It is one of the unfortunate human conditions.

Anyway, one such thread of this pattern is the use of encompassing terms that capture this segment of society. Up through the 20th century, the n-word was standard parlance, frequently used as a casual term of identification by whites rather than in a strictly derogatory sense (although that was certainly a dominant use, too). Other terms (such as “darkies”) were also commonly used. Then came the term “colored” – a distinction obviously based on differentiating physical traits. “Negroes” was more of a racial specification, but again a clear distinction from whites. Yet “African-American” brought with it a sense of inclusion; supposedly, we are all something-Americans based upon our heritage. Indians are “Native Americans,” there are Asian-Americans, Italian-Americans, and so on. But, as SkyDog’s example indicates, the silliness comes from lumping people of any color or background into one slot of society with a convenient tag. Me, I’m a German/English-American. SkyDog’s a European/African/Caribbean/Native-American. My skin is white (very much so in the winter!), his is black. He’s a native Georgian, I’m a displaced Washingtonian living in Missouri. What are we? Well, society has labeled him an African-American and me a white.

Today, we have a generation of kids who don’t have many obvious national examples of racial hatred and disharmony. The cultural lines are blurred, through sports, music, entertainment, education, whatever. Martin Luther King happened 40 years ago; Jim Crow, race riots, de-segregation, bussing, David Duke, even Rodney King and O.J. Simpson are stuff in a history book. Certainly racial hatred remains, evident every day in some form or fashion. But the difference, IMO, is that the attempts to counter it are significantly institutionalized now. In the field of history, slavery, Civil Rights, and other aspects of black history are mainstream now. Depending upon what part of the country you’re in (I’m sure), such topics are just another blip in a student’s studies. There is no obvious urgency or inherent tension to them. Sure, there are parents who pass along the hatred and ignorance, and it shows up all the time throughout the country. But as an item on the national agenda, race relations are back-page news.

But layered on that you have things like the “Distinguished African-American Student Award.” Rather than including all students in something like a “MLK Distinguished Student Award,” something which celebrates inclusion, you throw a wrench into the works by excluding a majority of students. Toss the minority a bone so that we look tolerant. The reaction? A group of students rebel (as students are wont to do) and say “How stupid is that?” Perhaps their anger is mistakenly transposed onto black students, when it should be aimed at the administrators who, in their desperate attempt to do the socially-correct thing, flub it up. I can’t know what the kids were truly thinking, but my bet would be a simple attempt to say “this is a stupid thing” that didn’t take full account of the consequences.

Then, layered on that, you have the knee-jerk response; fearful of looking insensitive to something racially charged, the powers that be label the action as insensitive and inappropriate. The various segments of society respond; oh! How callous! Oh! It’s racial tension! Oh! How PC!

Eventually, a generation of American children will need to carve their own rendering of race relations without it being done for them. Kids are smarter than they are often given credit for.

Note: I’ve been tinkering with this post for a couple days now. Apologies if it is redundant with any of the thoughts already stated by others.

[Fritz]

nice post WSUcougar

[QuikSand]

10/10.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Eventually, a generation of American children will need to carve their own rendering of race relations without it being done for them.

I agree in full with this. However It saddens me to say that I don't think we're anywhere near being able to accomplish this.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

I can’t know what the kids were truly thinking, but my bet would be a simple attempt to say “this is a stupid thing” that didn’t take full account of the consequences.[/i]

Excellent post. And I agree, they clearly weren't thinking much about the consequences.

I guess my problem is that I'm just not especially interested in what some white kids in oerwhelmingly white school think is an appopriate activity for MLK day. I don't think it's their call to make.

[Fritz]

because they get the rest of the year to make that call.....

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by clintl

...I'm not sure why this particular term stirs up so much resentment when other similar terms identifying original ethnicity (such as Italian-American, Polish-American, Irish-American, etc) don't.

Actually I think most of the people speaking up about the term African-American, are also talking about all of the hyphenated descriptors. In my mind those terms are intrinsically devisive. There are times when they are used innoculously as descriptors, and others when they are not so innocent in my mind. The award in this article smacks of ill conceived pandering. I think if I were black I might find the award offensive, as it seems to imply black might never win the award if it were to go simply to the outstanding student. If a school had an award for the outstanding Irish American student, I would be similarly offended. Now if an Irish American Club wanted to do so, that is different. The school, however, should not take part in any sort of discrimination or racial separatism.

Mckerney's post with the King quote sums up how I feel about that award more than I can probably put into words. Nice post Mckerney.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The award in this article smacks of ill conceived pandering. I think if I were black I might find the award offensive, as it seems to imply black might never win the award if it were to go simply to the outstanding student.

But you're not. And that is why I say it is arrogant to presume your belief in what "African-Americans" should be called should be determined by what you say. As long as the minority students are happy with the label, I don't see how your opinion should matter.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

But you're not. And that is why I say it is arrogant to presume your belief in what "African-Americans" should be called should be determined by what you say. As long as the minority students are happy with the label, I don't see how your opinion should matter.

To first address the notion that I can't say "if I were black I would be offended". I call BULLSHIT this case. No matter what race, color, or creed I am, I can imagine being embarrased and or offended that someone would think I need to be considered for some "second-rate" award that excludes a number of my peers .


Just in case you aren't buying that. I do know, and I did state, that if the school had a special award for the "outstanding Irish American Student", I would be offended by the apparent motivation behind the award. I am Irish(well Scottish actually, but the family had to flee after supporting the wrong side in the civil war...Damn parliament), so I can own THAT.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

To first address the notion that I can't say "if I were black I would be offended". I call BULLSHIT this case. No matter what race, color, or creed I am, I can imagine being embarrased and or offended that someone would think I need to be considered for some "second-rate" award that excludes a number of my peers .


Just in case you aren't buying that. I do know, and I did state, that if the school had a special award for the "outstanding Irish American Student", I would be offended by the apparent motivation behind the award. I am Irish(well Scottish actually, but the family had to flee after supporting the wrong side in the civil war...Damn parliament), so I can own THAT.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

No matter what race, color, or creed I am, I can imagine being embarrased and or offended that someone would think I need to be considered for some "second-rate" award that excludes a number of my peers .

And from what perspective are you considering this award "second-rate"?

Perhaps the school does have an outstanding student award, for which black students would be eligible. But I view this somewhat as having an MVP award and then several sub-awards in major sports. Sure, everyone would like to win the MVP, but recognizing sub-groups within each sport is also prestigious, maybe just as prestigious or even moreso within that sub-group.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Thank you for taking my post completely out of text Mac.

No problem, and yeah, sorry.

[yabanci]

Very good post, WScougar, and a lot of intelligent discussion from all perspectives in this thread.

The problem I've had with even forming a real opinion on this results from poor reporting. What the article does not tell us is what the hell is a "distinguished African American Student Award."

First, what is the criteria for giving this award? Is it for doing well academically in school? Is it for being involved in school projects? Is it for the quarterback of the football team if he leads them to a good season? Is it doing something that's considered fighting against racism? Is it for following and promoting MLK's teachings?

Second, how did this award come about? Did the school administrators sit around one day wondering what they should do for MLK day and decide, let's make a special awrd for black kids? Are there other awards in the school? Was there something they were trying to remedy, such as blacks being excluded from the "regular" awards, if any? What motivated them to create such an award?

I think the award in general could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the intent and history behind the award, which we are not given in the article.

The fact is that MLK was not fighting for separate awards for black kids, so if the school administrators are trying to honor MLK by making this separate award, they have missed his point. If they want to give an award to someone who promotes MLK's teachings, it shouldn't be limited to blacks -- after all, MLK simply took Gandhi's teachings in South Africa and India and applied them to the civil rights movement in the US. So would we say MLK wouldn't be eligible for an award honoring Gandhi because MLK was black and not Indian? Absurd. If they want to give an award honoring MLK, the award should be open to anyone who promotes his ideals.

That being said, I think what the white kid did was wrong. He might have a legitimate complaint, depending on background information that is not included in the article, but in my opinion he didn't go about registering that complaint in an honorable or effective way. The way I read the article, he did it in a mocking, meanspirited way. Rather than making a point of racial inclusiveness, he increased racial tensions.

Based on the facts we are given, however, I do not agree that he should be severely punished for what he did. It sounds to me like the school administrators are scapegoating the white kid for questionable decisions that they have made in their zeal to "honor" MLK.

.

[BishopMVP]

This is going to be a somewhat jumbled post just trying to respond to some different points.

First of all, nice posts by WSUCougar and Skydog.

To Skydog's list of three "1. There still exist pockets of unfairness (justice system is the most obvious one).
2. As a whole, blacks in the public eye over-exploit race in a demagogic manner to acquire/maintain political power.
3. As a whole, whites cry "reverse racism" too quickly." I would add 4. For the vast, vast majority of Americans growing up/entering the workforce these days, the main determinant of their success in life will be merit and the choices they make, not race.

John Galt - I don't see how you can say that you don't mind #2 at all. The prominent black leaders, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are not helping race relations at all. Certain people take some of their views and things like the OJ Simpson case and link it to an ugly stereotype about people and a belief that there is a divide in American culture between black and white people that can't be overcome. As SD and HFP have pointed out in other threads, when celebrities play this card in questionable circumstances it detracts from the power of the argument when there are occurences of real racism, which still do happen occasionally in America.

Also, you seem to have inconsistencies in your posts about this case. While you say "The problem with lots of those arguing here is that they......believe they know better than those at Omaha Westside what is best for them and what they should be called." Yet elsewhere you say "In this case, you have a group of minority students who preferred to call themselves African-American" and "As long as the minority students are happy with the label." I'm not sure if the second one was dealing entirely with the Omaha students, but neither you nor I know the views or beliefs of any of these kids, except for maybe a couple quotes in newspaper articles. As Skydog has pointed out, there are black people that find the term African-American offensive on some label, so I think it is wrong of you to continue saying that the kids chose and prefer this label.

Clintl - "And while I appreciate and understand Skydog's objections to using the term "African-American" in reference to him, as far as anyone else is concerned, I'm not sure why this particular term stirs up so much resentment when other similar terms identifying original ethnicity (such as Italian-American, Polish-American, Irish-American, etc) don't." The reason why African-American is different from any of the three you have listed is because while Italian, Polish and Irish-American denote fairly direct ancestry from a specific other geographic area, African-American has evolved into a quite different meaning based mainly on skin color. So, not only is it undefinable, it also looks stupid in many contexts because of this. This is a part of why I reject the term African-American in general. If I bother to include skin color when talking to or about a person, what should I refer to him/her as? African-American and Black, along with other harsher words, are all going to have their supporters and people who are offended by them. QS's suggestion that you be sensitive even if you don't agree with the term is a good one, but it is impractical when meeting new people.

Maple Leafs - "I'm just not especially interested in what some white kids in (an) overwhelmingly white school think is an appropriate activity for MLK day." For one, that was the day it was awarded, and second, I don't think awarding something based upon racial seperatism is an appropriate activity for MLK day either.

Butter_of_69 - "from what perspective are you considering this award "second-rate"?

Perhaps the school does have an outstanding student award, for which black students would be eligible. But I view this somewhat as having an MVP award and then several sub-awards in major sports. Sure, everyone would like to win the MVP, but recognizing sub-groups within each sport is also prestigious, maybe just as prestigious or even moreso within that sub-group." An award that is selectively given for which only a portion of students are eligible is by nature second-rate. The other 2 flaws with your argument is that in a sport like baseball, people are divided into sub-groups by classifications such as what position they play or what team they play for and also that every sub-group is recognized. This school is classifying students by skin color and almost certainly not recognizing the 'white' students at the school. This is segregation in practice, and if the races were reversed, there would be a national outcry and the administrators would almost certainly be fired.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

And from what perspective are you considering this award "second-rate"?

It is second rate because it is qualified by race. Who wants to win an award that says "I am the most outstanding student in this school, well the most outstanding student that happens to be black. I think I am the most outstanding student in the whole school, but the award just says I am more outstanding than the rest of my fellow black students."

If the award was for the "best" student, it could not be in any way considered second rate. The winner could be black, white, asian, or latino. The award is "second rate" because it excludes viable candidates on superficial terms.

I certainly am not saying that the black students as a group are second rate compared to any other ethnic group.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Noop

What word didn't you understand Noop? Just let me know, and I'll help you with it.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

What word didn't you understand Noop? Just let me know, and I'll help you with it.

[BishopMVP]

I've been guilty of doing the roll-eyes thing before and was called on it. Unless what someone says is clearly beyond the pale, and IMO it wasn't in this case, they at least deserve a response to what you have a problem with. I too am curious what you found so bad in his post.

EDIT - Apparently it was towards the poster more than the post, so I'll back out of that argument.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I've been guilty of doing the roll-eyes thing before and was called on it. Unless what someone says is clearly beyond the pale, and IMO it wasn't in this case, they at least deserve a response to what you have a problem with. I too am curious what you found so bad in his post.

Doh! hehe when I first replied, I thought Noop had used the confused smiley. If I would have paid more attention I would have had a more appropriate reply. In any case I thought you had to say something to actually employ sarcasm.

[BishopMVP]

On a completely unrelated to the thread note, I wish the smilies actually rolled eyes and stuff still. They look silly just sitting there like that.

[Noop]

I roll my eyes at him because of his past actions toward me. So fuck him

[The Afoci]

Glengoyne and Noop need to Paper, Rock, Scissors to the death.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Clintl - "And while I appreciate and understand Skydog's objections to using the term "African-American" in reference to him, as far as anyone else is concerned, I'm not sure why this particular term stirs up so much resentment when other similar terms identifying original ethnicity (such as Italian-American, Polish-American, Irish-American, etc) don't." The reason why African-American is different from any of the three you have listed is because while Italian, Polish and Irish-American denote fairly direct ancestry from a specific other geographic area, African-American has evolved into a quite different meaning based mainly on skin color. So, not only is it undefinable, it also looks stupid in many contexts because of this. This is a part of why I reject the term African-American in general. If I bother to include skin color when talking to or about a person, what should I refer to him/her as? African-American and Black, along with other harsher words, are all going to have their supporters and people who are offended by them. QS's suggestion that you be sensitive even if you don't agree with the term is a good one, but it is impractical when meeting new people.

"African-American" did evolve at all. It was specifically created as new alternative to "black." Furthermore, nobody objects to Asian-American, which is EXACTLY the same kind of term as "African-American," and is very commonly used to describe Americans of Asian descent. I stand by my assertion, that for the most part, the objections to "African-American" as a description of Americans of African descent seem to be an irrational objection that is not applied to any other group.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

Glengoyne and Noop need to Paper, Rock, Scissors to the death.

Glengoyne:"Allright Rock beats paper!"
Noop:"I thought paper covers rock?"
Glengoyne:"Nah rock flies right through paper."
Noop:"Well what beats Rock then?"
Glengoyne:"Nothing beats Rock!"
Noop:
Noop and Glengoyne:"Rock, Paper, Scissors Match... Rock!"
Noop and Glengoyne:"Rock, Paper, Scissors Match... Rock!"
Noop and Glengoyne:"Rock, Paper, Scissors Match... Rock!"
Noop and Glengoyne:"Rock, Paper, Scissors Match... Rock!"


credits to Kramer and Mickey on Seinfeld

[clintl]

Dola...

By the way, I agree with most of what WSUCougar said, and I think the school did a stupid thing by having that award in the first place, and for suspending the kids.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

37.5% South American/Carribbean/Latino
34.4% African
15.6% European
12.5% Cherokee

Allow me to be the 1st to nominate Ol' Skydog for "European-American of the Year"

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Noop

I roll my eyes at him because of his past actions toward me. ...

It is true that I haven't always been nice to Noop.
That all changes now though. I intend to turn over a new leaf, and treat Noop with kid-gloves. I mean if I don't change my ways, I might literally(<-note the proper usage) be accused of child abuse.

[JW]

Originally Posted by wig

When did we amend the Constitution to afford people "The right not to be offended"?

Excellent point. The key point in much of the political correctness movement. We have in America today a class of people who might be called "the perpetually offended." They actively seek offense at anything that does not agree with their worldview, and usually they throw in the words "tolerance" and "diversity" while attacking some view or word or position they disagree with. The perpetually offended members of the PC left actually act like the Puritans, seeking to create a society which accepts only their views. The offense by some at anything associated with (excuse me if I offend anyone) a deity (sorry) in the public square is case in point. We have now become a nation where, for example, a Pennsylvania teacher's aide was fired for wearing a crucifix to work and had to go to federal court to get her job back. (I might add that the far right has its own brand of political correctness.)

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by clintl

"African-American" did evolve at all. It was specifically created as new alternative to "black."

Exactly. Italian, Irish and Polish-American are not euphemisms for 'white', so comparing the two is like apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by clintl

Furthermore, nobody objects to Asian-American, which is EXACTLY the same kind of term as "African-American," and is very commonly used to describe Americans of Asian descent.

I object to it just as much as African-American, but I don't see the term nearly as much. And it is used to describe Asians of Near-Eastern descent (China, Japan, Korea, SE Asia) not places like India, the Middle East or Russia.

Originally Posted by clintl

I stand by my assertion, that for the most part, the objections to "African-American" as a description of Americans of African descent seem to be an irrational objection that is not applied to any other group.

My objection is to any term that is based on skin color and then covered up by a euphemism that implies something different and 'culturally sensitive' because some people don't want to acknowledge that they actually look at skin color. Should I refer to the kid fro South Africa as a 'black' person because he doesn't fall under the African-American category now?

I think race in this country would be better off is people stopped looking at it as literally a black and white issue. One size fits all groupings, like Asian- and African-American only serve to perpetuate that 'races' of people are different. If you want to argue cultures, then use the individual country instead of the vast continent the person's ancestors originated from.

[Chubby]

why couldn't my school have had an award like this? i would have done the same thing.

soooo...
italian-american = from italy
african-american = someone whose skin color is black, not nescessarily FROM africa

calling someone "black" = bad
calling someone "african-american" = good (even tho it's just another word for black)

1st off, to have that award in the 1st place leads to a separation of the school. there's no need, they're all STUDENTS, CLASSMATES, PEOPLE. who gives a fuck what color they are?

all white frat = bad
all african-american frat = good

a lot of people say "we think everyone is equal" then they turn around and create an award they only want to give to one racial class. well, you're saying THEY'RE NOT if you have that award.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

It is true that I haven't always been nice to Noop.
That all changes now though. I intend to turn over a new leaf, and treat Noop with kid-gloves. I mean if I don't change my ways, I might literally(<-note the proper usage) be accused of child abuse.

Why don't you fucking peel the fuck away.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Chubby

all white frat = bad
all african-american frat = good

shortening fraternity just irks the shit out of me.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Fritz

shortening fraternity just irks the shit out of me.

fine...

all white fr = bad
all african american fr = good

[Dutch]

So the white kid from South African is not an African-American. Is that what I have learned in today's class?

And thanks Skydog for quoting Jesse Jackson from when he used to actually be cool. Was it really that long ago???

[illinifan999]

So if a school were to start an award for white people only, how soon would he/she be fired and lynched?

We're all people, who gives a fuck what your skin color is?