Affirmative Action

I've known many people who are not aware of the stigma attached to the term "colored". To many of them, for some reason, it had a "respectful" connotation.

Yes, CdK, and that is precisely why I added 'ignorant' to Snood's 'stupid' and 'bigoted' categories.

sweet - You'll have to take my word for it that I don't need a lecture about showing people respect or anticipating areas where a given person might take offense. I have family who are black, and take personal offense when confronted with real bigotry. As such, I tend to think that efforts to make an issue of trivialities do an injustice to efforts to stand up to real bigotry. McG's comments were not bigoted and did not deserve the reproach they received. That reproach was of no value in the greater cause of inter-ethnic harmony, and I wrote as much.

That you think I was changing the subject by writing about inter-gender relations merely suggests that you would rather argue than see the parallel I wished to draw.

Lastly, you posit a real gem of circular logic as justification for your insult:

We can't get past these issues because we aren't past them yet. Why aren't we past them yet? Because we can't get past them. My point, (feel free to insult me for it again) is that we will never make any real headway--nor accurately gauge the progress we have made--while people are still getting hot under the collar about terms like "colored".

You are certainly right that we can't get over it until we are beyond it, but it is equally true that we can't get over it until we are willing to get over it.

Me:
I am a militant anti-PC type.

I agree with alot of what McG said--that words have been given way too much power, and its not fair to categorize people out of hand when they use some of these words.

I got that ookey feeling, when I saw the comment.

I stopped the judgement that was going on in my head, and hoped for an explanation.

I try hard to ask a person what they meant, and I also try hard to give them the benefit of the doubt, when there are still doubts after their answer.

I don't think 'colored' is always an intentional slur.

I cut it out of my volcabulary, because I know it is offensive--but moreso, because I think it doesn't correctly identify blacks people. But, he meant 'people of color'. Look at the words. "Colored people"--"people of color". Seems to mean exactly the same thing. Let's discuss the difference...

(And, I love the way this discussion has calmed, but is on-going.)

Well, I refreshed, and see I spoke too soon.

I don't feel that I need to defend my position any more than I have, but this is the message I was replying to. Read this and then read my message.

Hey, my question stands (with the addition of SC's "ignorant" to the qualifiers).

I have no need to try to teach anyone common courtesy, and it is equally unnecessary for anyone to try to school me about what is "reasonable" offense.

snood--
I'm not sure if you were responding to my post, or someone else's.

Just in case it was mine--I wouldn't try to school anyone about this. I thought it was a great opportunity to discuss feelings about that term.

You had asked the question about what people thought, and I was answering, and was interested in further analysis. But, I'm happy to go along where ever the conversation drifts.

You certainly don't need to defend your position.

What I meant by active was and is still lynchings, DWB and others and they are all still going on. That's all.

nope- wasn't referring to you. Someone said they didn't need to be taught manners (something about having best friends or family members that are black, or something), so I was saying I wasn't attempting to.

Glad to see that this forum is now unlocked, but for the life of me, I can no longer remember what I wanted to post. Later.

I don't mind all y'all; hell, some of my best friends are human beings . . . not sure i'd want my daughter to marry one, though.

I didn't realize this thread had been locked and have been reading through the past few pages trying to figure out why. Anyone know? Would it be helpful if a moderator were specific about the cause when there's a lockdown? My perception is that y'all were getting close to some really important issues -- about politically correct terminology being used to batter and kill discussion.

Ive been regularly checking into this thread and I don't believe it was locked. There was some problems with the server over the weekend where it slowed down to a snails pace and I lost access to it several times. Moderators will post a warning before they would lock down a forum.

I thought so, and wondered, Wizard. I think we need a really good discussion about the language of the racial divide -- or perhaps an exorcism of that language. It's a difficult area of discussion, but that shouldn't stop us from looking at it freshly.

When I tried to access this forum, it was 'locked.' c.i.

Well, at least there was the symbol for "locked" on my screen.

It was locked. It was unlocked sometime last evening. Sumac started a thread asking about it. One of craven's posts there reads to me as if the thread was indeed locked.

The language of the racial divide - I think that's close. I know this is a discussion about affirmative action, and is generaly perceived to get to the problem of school and job admissions. And right now it's people of a certain classification of colors being discussed (and I am always sensitive to phrases like "some people in my family," because it's a first cousin to "some of my best friends."

But we do use language as a weapon, as a code for other language, and the connotations change. Not too long ago, micks were not allowed in certain places in Boston; dagos were always the prototypes for the dumb gangster; kikes were chased down the street and beaten and robbed. Except for the WASP types, I don't think there's a group of people who can't point to some derogatory term for themselves. Colored people (no matter how dark or light) always meant servants or low-class labor, which brought it close to the slave picture.

So I guess one of the major problems is to start defining ourselves in other ways. And I don't know what or how. But it's apparent that the defining language is one of the keys. One of my grandsons has a friend - Armand. For six months I only knew him on the phone and by description. I knew he was big and strong, that he was funny, that he was one of the smartest kids in the fifth grade, that he was, at that time, my grandson's best friend. What I didn't know was that he was black, because it never came up. Not part of grandson's descriptive language to me. What does this say? I don't know, except I felt better about it than if the first word to describe the kid had been about color, or religion. Now that I know him, he is smart, he is funny, and he out-eats my grandson, standing in front of the fridge and yelling to me that I never have any food worth eating.

mamaj, A child's language is learned from the parents as is bigotry. If as parents we don't make a big deal about a person's race, culture, or origin, most children accept it as the norm. When our children were young, we invited 'everybody' to our home. I believe that acceptance from us formed our children's idea of equality. c.i.

When I was here last, we were seemingly about to discuss the difference in referring to 'people of color' and 'colored people'.

Why is one reference OK, and the other is not?

You have the same basic words--people, color. The acceptable one turns the words around and sticks an 'of' between them.

Reading mamaj--Why is it taboo to say "Some of my best friends are..." If, indeed some of your best friends are...

There was another VERY interesting exchange on one of LW's movie threads. Antwone Fisher. I'll bring back the link. I think, if we can all keep our heads and respond without personal accusations--we might learn alot here. (I am in the 'we', who stand to learn a lot....as always.)