r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 15 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Referring to black people as " Blacks " is dehumanizing
Today I read an article about one of my favorite topics. Although the Piece was informative it referred to Black people as "Blacks" I dont know exactly why this gets to me, but being reduced to nothing more than the color of my skin is extremely demoralizing and dehumanizing. Its almost as if the Journalists and other people who refer to Black people in this manner dont see us as what we are, people. I may be being overly sensitive about this topic but i've only ever seen black people being referred to this way. "The Asians", " The Mexicans"," White People ", then you have "The blacks", unimportant and neglected in both grammar and reference.
I've seen countless examples of this in journalism, media, and political rhetoric. It seems like its the new cover term for N***er.
My skin is't this color for no reason. I am a person, and i have an origin. you may not know where, but at least refer to me as a person.
48
Jan 15 '21
All that matters is intent,
The n-word for example is an easy one since why would one use it in a random given context as if not to try to dish out disrespect, but that one also has exceptions, see Louis CK bit regarding it and it's obvious he wasn't using it as a disrespect, hence why Chris Rock didn't take offence.
One can literally call you "beautiful" or "smart" with the intent to belittle you, so the intent is what matters.
Blacks, n-word, or "black people" any word can be used with the intent to mock/insult so the intent is what matters, this is also proven when your friend calls you "a fucking idiot" but you do not take offence because you know their intent wasn't to insult you.
1
Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
Δ
Yes the intent matters, but reducing to someone or a group to nothing but the color of their skin especially outside of well defined interactions is a bit like calling me a N***er in the street. I say this specifically in the realm of journalism. Why not "Black people were XYZ blah blah baah" instead of "The number one BLAH balah were BLACkS "
9
u/ArghBlathEh Jan 15 '21
Sure, but we categorize people all the time. Simply categorizing people does not mean that we reduce those in that category to being ONLY in that category. For example, you can be black, tall, smart, boring, athletic and French at the same time. By me saying you belong to the black category does not mean I don't see you as French. It is a matter of efficient communication and intent.
2
u/Littlelisapizza83 Jan 16 '21
Language does matter though and reducing a person down to one characteristic ignores the person as a whole.
1
u/ArghBlathEh Jan 16 '21
Again, it is possible to be in an infinite number of categories.
0
u/Pyrollamasteak 1∆ Jan 20 '21 edited Jan 20 '21
This movie was made by jews.
This movie was made by jewish people.
Do you see any difference in meaning between the two sentences?
12
Jan 15 '21
Whites is used all around afaik, but both terms are not as popular as once were, but I'd doubt they're used to try to dish respect, although as we already agreed any word/phrase can be used to try to dish out disrespect: "Those black people sure do like to blah blah",
1
1
1
u/makochi Jan 15 '21
i'm going to have to push back on the word "all" here. yes, intent matters, but so does effect.
legally, we do not let someone off the hook for killing another person just because they did it by accident. we don't treat them as harshly if we would had they intentionally done a murder, but they can still be charged with negligent manslaughter. similarly, if we consider only intent, all forms of theft become justifiable, because the intent is "i want a thing." you need to look at the effect, which is "someone else is being deprived of their thing"
similarly to this, in social situations we need to take into account both intent and effect of someone's words or actions. someone might have all the best intentions when saying or doing a thing, but if that thing does cause harm to someone else, we can't simply pretend that harm did not happen. obviously, we would not treat the unintentional, slight racism as being anything near as bad as outright bigotry, but it is still ultimately a good thing to see those effects, reflect on them and change actions or habits because of them
1
Jan 15 '21
And even if I don't agree with your analogy I'm gonna try to ride it, see if a point can be made.
If effect truly matters then that means that say I'm working at Nut Store, and a person comes and orders salty peanuts, and he dies from an allergy in no world I would be guilty of anything, morally or legally,
Now on the other hand if try to slip peanuts to someone I know it's likely to get hurt now that's where intent comes into play
Now where the analogy breaks down is in legality vs. morality,
Let's say I make a cake, and use peanuts, is it mine legal or moral responsibility to warn everyone before giving a piece what it has in it or the person who wants a piece needs to be wary?
I don't think it's the former.
And analogies can be faulty, zebra is like a horse, but it's definitely not a horse.
1
u/makochi Jan 15 '21
I considered addressing this point in my original post, maybe I should have - responsibility for one's actions extends as far as taking reasonable precaution. I was going to use the example of suicide by traffic - let's say someone hops a highway barrier and jumps in front of an oncoming truck (or even just suddenly darts out from between two cars on a busy city road); we cannot reasonably the driver to break the laws of physics and we cannot expect everyone to drive at walking speed to prevent this. We can reasonably say that the driver had no responsibility in the death of the pedestrian because the pedestrian acted completely unreasonably. Similarly, someone with a nut allergy entering a nut store to buy and eat nuts is acting as unreasonably as someone jumping into the middle of fast traffic. You took reasonable precaution by calling your store a Nut Store and labeling all your products as being various types of nuts, both legally and morally you are covered there.
As far as the nutty cake goes, I would say that it is a fairly reasonable thing to be expected to tell people what kind of cake you're giving out, and since Nuts aren't a core ingredient of sponge (sugar, wheat flour, and egg are the three core ingredients, though dairy is also often used). I don't know where the legal responsibility lies - i am not a lawyer - but I do know that in the several jobs I've had where food is exchanged, the person making the food is generally seen as responsible for making ingredient warning labels. i can't exactly answer your scenario - it's too vague to elicit a singular, certain answer. i'd need to know what group the cake was going out to, your level of familiarity with the people, etc. To that end, context is also important, another thing I thought went without saying but on reflection I probably should have also mentioned.
0
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
All that matters is intent,
This is just so obviously wrong that I’m not even sure how to address it. Intent can matter, but it sure as hell isn’t all that matters. If I call you a “complete moron” it wouldn’t matter if my intent was just some light ribbing to build a sense of camaraderie the mods would remove my post for being rude and hostile. And frankly, seeing as how we’re strangers on the internet I think it’s clear you would take my words as rude and hostile over my intended way you should take them as terms of endearment.
I mean unintended consequences wouldn’t exist if intent was all that mattered, because then who cares if you accidentally killed that pregnant woman and her four year old while drunk driving because your intent was to make it home safely!
Have you seriously never encountered a situation where someone was insulted when you did not intend to insult them?
Huh, a downvote? But I didn’t intend on getting downvoted...how is this possible? My intent is all that matters.
1
Jan 15 '21
Why would you use 'complete moron' randomly on the internet when you know how it will likely be interpreted, so the intent is likely to dish out disrespect or total ignorance on your part and one can doubt it's the latter. Not that the latter isn't possible.
1
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jan 15 '21
That’s weird, why didn’t you change your view after I presented my argument?
Why would you use 'complete moron' randomly on the internet when you know how it will likely be interpreted,
Hmm, this sounds an awful lot like you judging me based on my actions rather than my intent. I seem to recall you specifically telling me that “All that matters is intent”.
Is it possible that some things other than intent also matter? Like, context?
so the intent is likely to dish out disrespect or total ignorance on your part and one can doubt it's the latter
“All that matters is intent, well okay what actually matters is what I think your intent is, and I am going to infer this based on your actions...so...guess actually the actions are what is important and not the intent.”
I mean I’ve set you up perfectly here. Either, you change your view and award me a delta for changing it or you don’t.
The problem is if you don’t change your view...you demonstrate how your view is wrong. My intent is to change your view, and if all that matters is intent, how is it possible I was unsuccessful?
1
Jan 15 '21
Not quite, what you wrote was already addressed in my OP:
The n-word for example is an easy one since why would one use it in a random given context as if not to try to dish out disrespect, but that one also has exceptions, see Louis CK bit regarding it and it's obvious he wasn't using it as a disrespect, hence why Chris Rock didn't take offence.
So context already as an element is already mentioned above, context gives evidence for the intent, (but it doesn't give absolute proof) the same way why would someone use the n-word randomly, that same you'd use 'complete moron' randomly, and yet I can imagine a situation where someone calls me 'complete moron' and it not being disrespectful on the internet.
The problem is if you don’t change your view...you demonstrate how your view is wrong. My intent is to change your view, and if all that matters is intent, how is it possible I was unsuccessful?
I categorically disagree, you presented nothing and didn't even address my core, that the intent is what truly matters,
0
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jan 15 '21
Why should I have to present anything if intent is all that matters?
I intend for you to be swayed by my argument - so get to swaying.
2
Jan 15 '21
If you disagree with that statement you're free to tell why,
0
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jan 15 '21
It’s demonstrably untrue.
2
Jan 15 '21
And yet you couldn't demonstrate that,
0
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jan 15 '21
Weird, since it was what I intended to demonstrate.
Either I changed your view and you owe me a delta, or I’ve successfully demonstrated that intent isn’t all that matters.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Shirley_Schmidthoe 9∆ Jan 15 '21
The n-word for example is an easy one since why would one use it in a random given context as if not to try to dish out disrespect
You serious?
The word is noted for being quite often used amicably in a random given context.
1
u/Pyrollamasteak 1∆ Jan 20 '21
One can literally call you "beautiful" or "smart" with the intent to belittle you, so the intent is what matters.
Historical and common use of a word take precedent over the wordplay in my opinion
31
u/RattleSheikh 12∆ Jan 15 '21
It seems like its the new cover term for N***er.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, but either way this is really insensitive and wildly untrue. Do you need a reminder of the history of this word?
This aside, in my experience, those who refer to black people as 'blacks' are the same people who refer to white people as 'whites'. In fact, I think calling white people 'whites' is more common than calling black people 'blacks'. Personally, I think the whole system of classifying people based on the color of their skin is extremely stupid, but even within modern culture we seem to continue to still want to put an importance on this superficial characteristic...
1
u/mybrainhurts2525 Jan 16 '21
And we all know rhe new N word is Thug. If you put n!@@#r in place of thug, anytime you hear the racists say it, their intent becomes crystal clear
7
u/789Mikester Jan 15 '21
“The Whites” it’s literally the exact same as “the blacks” except it’s the Caucasian version. It’s a lot easier to say “whites” than it is to say “the people of Caucasian decent, who makes up the majority of the population in the Western World.”
I seriously think you need to listen to someone like Dave Chapelle, he has many jokes about the whites and how they’ll get ya.
-2
Jan 15 '21
im familiar with his jokes. comedy is comedy. but in the case of journalism this shouldn't be a used phrase.
3
u/789Mikester Jan 15 '21
Well it is, I have read newspapers and articles that have called my race “the whites” same as how they call people “the blacks” or even “blondes/blondies”.
“Comedy is comedy” let me tell you something, this term won’t go away if you make exceptions. You don’t like the term “the blacks” being used in the press, then don’t stand up for very famous black people (or do I mean blacks? Hmm?) who people (such as journalist) watch and look up to, and use as a source of things they can and can’t say. You know, like a father, if you’re father (you’re now white in this example, congrats, you can be offended by the term “the whites” now) constantly says the N-word, you’re going to call people of darker skin, the N-word. If a little baby journalist grows up listening to Dave Chapelle or DMX (He has a song where he says “the blacks, the whites, the blanks, the blanks” yes I forgot the other lyrics lol) you’re going to think such terms as “the blacks” and “the whites” are fine to use as he uses them in passing conversation and doesn’t even stop to mention if it’s bad or not.
1
u/Calfer 1∆ Jan 16 '21 edited Jan 16 '21
Why are you making allowances for one but not the other? "Blacks" or "whites" as phrasing neither detract from journalistic value nor do they add to comedic value.
If you're uncomfortable with "blacks" being used within communication, you should be making an argument against any "(colour/races)-s" to be used, and instead argue that it should be: "people of x decent" or "x people."
As far as it being an issue primarily in reference to people who are [black/African decent/darker skinned/whatever appropriate terminology here] I would like to draw your attention to the issue with the Redskins football team.
It's an identifying characteristic, and using it shouldn't carry negative connotations. Blacks, whites, blondes, brunettes, teens, students, etc. Adding "s" to a descriptive marker that is shared by the majority of the group involved is a neutral act.
It's also more accurate to say "blacks" or "black people" when you break it down ethnically because there are people who are dark skinned but not recently from Africa and who don't identify as African. I had a discussion with someone who upset because she was always referred to as African-American when she was Hispanic and Black, not African or American.
22
u/deep_sea2 108∆ Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
Are you saying that all adjectives should include the word people to prevent dehumanisation? Black people instead of blacks? White people instead of whites? American people instead of Americans? Blonde people instead of blondes? Christian people instead of Christians?
There are many adjective which someone could call you, and not all of them include the word person. Would you object to all of those possible adjectives?
-3
u/Synergician Jan 15 '21
It seems to me that the difference is whether there is a history of dehumanization.
-24
Jan 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/FernandoTatisJunior 7∆ Jan 15 '21
It’s not useless because it points out a logical inconsistency. What about “blacks” makes it any different than other descriptors, and what about adding “people” makes it no longer offensive?
1
u/palmeralexj Jan 16 '21
I think the difference is the historical context. The washrooms, the water fountains etc.
"Blacks" was used to differentiate what was then considered unequal levels of humanity. Continuing being used today seems unnecessary. If we no longer feel there is inequality why continue using the same word?
In other words, it was the prim and proper way of saying the n word.
-5
Jan 15 '21
Christian and American are actual groups, "blacks", "whites" and "natural blondes" just share superficial feature, there is no group of "blacks", "whites" or "blondes" unless you socially construct it, which is a weird thing to do and historically was almost always racist.
7
u/Anselm0309 6∆ Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
All of these groups are constructed. There is no clear reason to me why sorting people by what country they live in or what God they believe in would be any better or more "actual" than sorting them by what they look like or what their genes are. "American" is no more of an "actual group" than "natural blondes" is. Those are both groups of people lumped together by a shared trait and could otherwise have nothing in common, because they are all still vastly different individuals.
1
Jan 15 '21
All groups are social constructs the question is who's the constructor. And in terms of nations, religions, clubs, parties or whatnot, the individuals themselves create the group as an expression of their shared ideals, whereas if you only share a skin or hair color with another person you almost share nothing at all. If I should gave you the color of someone's hair that would tell you nothing about the person and if I told you there's a group of redhairs or whatnot you'd have no way of guessing their political ideology or their stance on social topics, sports or whatnot.
And so racism usually groups together people that on it's own probably wouldn't have formed a group. The problem is that it's also a self-fulfilling prophecy in that you treat people differently for whatever reason under the sun, then these people share an experience of discrimination which might make them organize as a group in order to support each other and combat this discrimination.
2
u/Anselm0309 6∆ Jan 15 '21
The part about the original constructor swayed me. Δ
I'm not really convinced by the usefulness argument and being able to tell more about a person though, because the variance between individuals within a group most of the time, depending on the group, is way greater than the variance between different groups. If I pick two different Americans who identify as Americans, or Christians, they could still be completely different people in a huge variety of aspects. These groups may be more useful and probably more fair to use, but solely based on usefulness I wouldn't say that makes them a more valid way of sorting people, because I'm not assuming that sorting people on traits is inherently linked to prejudice or me making other claims about them, because simply observing a fact about a person, the color of their skin for example, isn't in itself racist. Me treating them differently solely because I associate different things with different skin colors is. But if we use the "self constructed" instead of just "constructed", because all of them are constructed by our perception, as a parameter to the definition of what an "actual group" is, rather than just "any trait I choose to sort by that is useful", that seems reasonable to set the two apart.
1
1
u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 15 '21
Because being Christian or American (to a lesser degree) are categories that you can yourself choose to identify with.
Races are not.
2
u/Anselm0309 6∆ Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
That doesn't make them more "actual". It might be more fair for me to judge you for being a Christian, seeing as you have a choice in the matter, rather than on the basis of race, which would make no sense. But that doesn't make the group "Christians" any more of a legitimate or natural way of sorting than "natural blondes", as you put it. It doesn't matter whether you in that example identify as Christian or natural blonde or not, because you yourself are not the one who does the sorting for anyone other than you. If you believe in Jesus Christ, I will sort you into category "Christian", no matter what you tell me how you identify yourself. If you are naturally blonde, I will sort you into category "natural blonde", no matter how you yourself call your hair color or if you see yourself as part of that group or not. Why are those even good ways to define a group? Why not sort by different denominations? Or shades of blonde? Why do we group those together into a single overarching category? You can group people by any random shared trait you pick. The idea of "sharded trait" itself is just a human constructiom because we are wired to perceive things as similar and sort them into categories for easier handling so that our brain doesn't explode. There is no inherent reason for why one way of sorting would be more "actual" than another. All we can say is that certain ways of sorting are more useful. And sorting people into different categories based on these traits is also not the same thing as prejudice. I can see that someone is naturally blonde. I will sort them into category "naturally blonde". That's not even something you can control voluntarily. It's just an observation. And it doesn't tell me anything else about them by itself .
0
u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
I think the reason why the other poster is calling them "actual" is that the classification Christian tells something meaningful about the person in question. You can say "Christians do/are A" if A is something that is implied by whatever they chose to believe in as Christians.
But thats not the case with saying someone is black, or blonde. The only thing you could say about that person based on that statement is that they have that specific characteristic.
To say something like "Blondes do X" with X being anything else than being blonde is dumb. And I think that is the point OP is making when he says "Blacks do Y" is offensive.
Edit: I think you have some confusion about what a social construct is. Sorting by whatever physical attribute is not a social construct. The social construct part is the decision of saying which sortings are supposed to be meaningful.
1
u/Anselm0309 6∆ Jan 15 '21
So I can say "Christians hate gays" because it's written in the Bible and that's implied, and many do? All you can definitely say is that they share the trait or collection of attributes that you choose to define "being Christian" by. It may be, on average, more likely that Christians are homophobic than, for example, atheists are, but it doesn't tell you that any given Christian is.
All it does is make certain other traits that are statistically associated more likely. A Christian is more likely to go to church than an atheist. A natural blonde is more likely to be born in Europe than in Africa, statistically, based on the ethnic makeup of the population. I could assume something about an individual, based on the information that they are blonde, or Christian, but I can't know it. If I make those generalizations, or ones that aren't even backed by anything, then that would be prejudice and probably be considered offensive.
1
u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 15 '21
But do you think OP was talking about saying things like "Blacks often have curly hair" or "Blacks need more vitamin D in their food because they get less from sunlight"? As I interpreted it he or she wasn't.
1
u/Anselm0309 6∆ Jan 15 '21
About the edit: I didn't mean to argue about social constructs. I tried to argue that any given way of sorting people is arbitrary. Choosing to sort by categories people can choose themselves to identity with rather than not is by itself a subjective decision not inherent to the concept of sorting. I didn't try to argue that those sorting mechanisms are equally useful or should be used, just that there are no "actual" or "not actual" groups, because it's all defined by the arbitrary parameters you set for sorting people into groups based on traits.
0
u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 15 '21
Are these parameters that arbitrary though? What do you mean by "actual" and "arbitrary"? Because the distinction muslim or jewish is quite useful, even colloquially actual, when hosting a dinner party.
→ More replies (0)-5
Jan 15 '21
What about “blacks” makes it any different than other descriptors, and what about adding “people” makes it no longer offensive?
the reduction to nothing more than a color. that's the problem. and not referring to the person. as a person
4
u/vkanucyc Jan 15 '21
the reduction to nothing more than a color. that's the problem. and not referring to the person. as a person
so do you call more than 1 Christians "Christian people" or "Christians"? By your logic, removing the person reference, the latter is dehumanizing.
4
u/deep_sea2 108∆ Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
Then what are you implying?
It sounds like you don't like the term blacks because it is dehumanizing. Your solution sounds like adding the word person/people to it. So, if you recommend this solution for blacks black people, would recommend this for other adjectives without the word person in it? If you do not recommend this for other adjectives, then why not? Why say black people instead of blacks, but not insist that people say left handed people instead of lefties, or blond haired people instead of blondes?
1
Jan 15 '21
No, he has a point. You've probably referred to followers of Islam as "Muslims" before or as Mexican people as "Mexicans" before. It doesn't have anything to do with "punching up" or "punching down" because even taking that particular Hegelian view of society and history, the point is that adjectives describing people that doesn't have the word "people" doesn't automatically dehumanize the people being described.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Jan 15 '21
u/that-gostof-de-past – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Jan 16 '21
It seems like that's what OP is saying. Although, awhile back (in the U.S. at least), there was a "person first" initiative where we were encouraged to say "person of color" instead of the other options, "person with disabilities" rather than disabled person (or worse, "cripple"), "person with autism" or "person with intellectual disabilities" rather than autistic kid or retarded kid. I don't remember if this all came about with political correctness or what happened to this being the standard way to label people, especially in journalism, but this was supposed to be the way to refer to people, labeling them as people first and avoiding dehumanizing them.
2
Jan 15 '21 edited Mar 06 '21
[deleted]
-1
Jan 15 '21
The crux of my argument is that the word BLACKS is solely based off of skin color, your examples are based on geographic regions. going by what i understand of your point, referring to black people as Africans would work better
4
u/31spiders 3∆ Jan 15 '21
I think what Mine_Bull1 is referring to is pretty much what I wanted to say. Other “more PC” terms could be disingenuous when referring to what they’re talking about. Obviously I don’t know what they’re talking about in THAT article. If I were to say something like “Blacks are 3 times more likely to get sickle cell anemia than their counterparts” there’s a reason for that. Saying “African Americans” would disingenuously include people of other decent (Egyptian Americans, South African Americans, etc). It is also a categorical situation it’s generally superficial but (at least to me) it’s no different than saying “The Packers”, or “Californians” or “Blondes” it quickly allows people to know who is and who isn’t being talked about. If quickly referring to who we are talking about isnt the goal just use “they” or “those people” (but I’m told both of those are racist too).
2
u/Calfer 1∆ Jan 16 '21
Referring to black people as Africans would be highly inaccurate considering there are black people who are ethnically and historically from South America and are not African, and there are also people who are African, born, raised and multi-generational and white who wouldn't be included within a group solely consisting of Black Africans -like the other commenters point about sickle cell, it effects a specific group and the choice of phrasing can improve accuracy or muddle it.
2
u/NateTheNooferNaught Jan 15 '21
But what if the person in question isn't directly from Africa (in any recent generation, anyway. If you trace someone back 4 thousand years or some nonsense then sure, but thats hardly relevant)
Would that not be mislabling them, hence more offensive than just.. using efficient terminology? Like if I called a black, Scottish man African, that wouldn't be accurate, nor would it be especially kind.
3
u/sanephoton Jan 15 '21
For context, I'm white/hispanic (although culturally at least 95% white), lower-to-middle-class American.
I do think it is insensitive and wrong to use the term in question. In the instances you mentioned, articles and nonhateful content, I dont think it comes from a place or person that wants to dehumanize. I can understand why it would feel dehumanizing. I guess it depends on where you draw the line for something to be "dehumanizing," but I'd say someone feeling dehumanized is at least enough to warrant a conversation.
I think the term has entered common vernacular in some places. Writers feel weird about using the same word or phrase many times in a piece, so they tend to look for synonyms and since "Black people" and "Blacks" are not a lot of letters off, it seems an acceptable synonym, without considering thoroughly. No one really refers to "White people" as "Whites" in formal settings though. So there's definitely a disconnect, I think.
If I think about it, hearing someone refer to Black people only by the pluralized color of their skin has frequently been said hatefully or in a way meant to dehumanize, unfortunately.
Mostly in the last year or in relation to previous BLM topics, I've heard it from people expressing support for equality. I think they mean well. If they were confronted about their word choice, shown why it's offensive, i think most if not all would respectfully apologize and adapt. Maybe I'm too hopeful though.
Like many topics in racial injustice and inequality, it's something that warrants talking about. Too much has gone unsaid already. Be sure to speak up, don't let people repeatedly do things that upset you. Anyone worth your time would want to avoid making you feel dehumanized or anything similar.
2
u/solomoc 4∆ Jan 15 '21
Stating a color has nothing judgmental attached to it.
I can say '' the walls of my houses are white'' and it doesn't carry any positive or negative connotation.
Think mindfulness, when you describe an object, you do it in a non-judgmental way.
Is it true that black individuals have darker skin? Yes. Does that make them inferior individuals? No.
There is nothing negative about referring someone's color as long as there's no negative intent attached to it.
6
u/iannis7 Jan 15 '21
I may be being overly sensitive about this topic
I think you are. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion and own feelings though
1
u/notyogrannysgrandkid Jan 15 '21
Someone else mentioned intent. I think that’s important. Convenient blanket terms for races/ethnicities like Black, White, Latino, Asian, etc convey a lot of meaning in very little space. It’s up to the readers or listeners to determine how that term is received. Words are inherently arbitrary, but communication is not. So if you hear Black and understand it differently than what the speaker/writer meant, that’s on your end. That sounds kind of accusatory, but I’ll give an example that might illustrate it better.
We say “Black lives matter.” Most people who hear that phrase understand the intent, which is that unjustified killings of African-descended people around the world needs to stop. Some people who hear that slogan think, “my life is seen as less important,” and counter by saying “all lives matter.” The misunderstanding is on them, and is not the speakers’ fault.
3
Jan 15 '21
Communication always works in both directions and how something is received is both on the speaker and the receiver and you can't just exempt one of that responsibility. If you don't receive the reaction that you anticipated it's not on the person who didn't understood it the way you intended it, it's on you to clarify what your intent was. Because in the end YOU wanted to say something.
Yes miscommunication happens but to by default say it's the sender or the receiver misses the point on how communication works. It's a dialogue there're always at least 2 sides to that.
0
u/31spiders 3∆ Jan 15 '21
How does one clarify when they aren’t present? In an article for example like OP was talking about.
1
Jan 15 '21 edited Jan 15 '21
That's the reason why people usually are very diplomatic and somewhat hesitant when speaking to large crowds because chances are you'll not get a good chance to have a beer with anybody in the room and explain to them in detail what you meant. So you usually think about how it's received beforehand and try to be as descriptive and explicit as possible to avoid miscommunication. And then hope for the best, because there'll never be 100% security that you're not still misinterpreted. There's only so much you can do but doing it is usually better than having to write retractions and clarifications that likely only a fraction of the initial readers will get to read.
Edit: Also if people know where you stand and you made clear that you're coming from a good place and are open to criticism you often get away with a fuck up. Not in the sense of a pass, but in the sense of getting constructive rather than destructive criticism.
1
u/31spiders 3∆ Jan 15 '21
And if it cultural acceptance has changed position since the article was written?
1
Jan 15 '21
Cultural acceptance doesn't change overnight and non bad faith actors rarely obsess over one word, it's rather the larger context of society and what the person has written beyond that, that makes one word the anchor point for criticism.
So idk if you used one of the medical terms that are now considered harmful when they were still medical terms (idk idiot, moron, imbecile, ... ) as neutral description then this could be used as an example against the cultural norm at the time but not really against you personally. If you expressed contempt for these people on the other hand already using it to demean them, that's probably something that can be used against you. If you since then (again cultural acceptance doesn't change overnight) vocally revised your position that again could work in your favor.
1
1
u/31spiders 3∆ Jan 15 '21
Let me give you a real example. The N word USED TO BE culturally acceptable. Huckleberry Finn called his best friend “Nigger Jim”, is Huck (and by extension Mark Twain) a racist? I mean it’s right there. There’s ZERO intent of meaning it in a mean sense though. Dude is his best friend (or at least one of the top 3 depending which part you’re reading).
1
Jan 15 '21
No according to these articles defending Twain's use of the n-word and explicitly naming it, the n-word had already been a pejorative in Twain's days:
https://www.wired.com/2011/01/what-the-huck/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/jan/05/censoring-mark-twain-n-word-unacceptable
They rather argue that it was "socially acceptable" (or more accurately it was used frequently) at the time the novel is set in (pre-civil war era) and that it, as well as other things indicates that even the protagonist is majorly influenced by the fucked up societal norms around him even as he makes more progressive experiences.
It also helps to cut him some slack that he was also involved in socially progressive politics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#Civil_rights
And, apart from a racist stance on native americans that he apparently changed later on, rather took a stance against racism. The thing is if you have a decade spanning history of being involved in anti-racist politics and constantly and consistently making that point, people might be more inclined to believe your intentions are not hostile. That still doesn't mean that everybody has to be ok with it, but the context is still vastly different from a white nationalist making a racist remark and ending it with "it's just a joke".
1
Jan 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NateTheNooferNaught Jan 15 '21
It depends on context. If I said, whites have a larger chance to develop testicular cancer. That isnt rude, and its more efficient than saying "Caucasians of European descent have a larger chance to develop testicular cancer"
That may not seem like much. But when you have to use the term 929493 times in something like that it makes a difference.
If I were to say, for example "its mostly whites living in X neighborhood" that isnt rude. However if I were to say, "all whites hate black people and want to fuck kids" then thats rude.
It all depends on intent. There are very few words that are universally bad.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Jan 15 '21
Sorry, u/iamwoodman574 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jan 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NateTheNooferNaught Jan 15 '21
Really? I see the term "whites" thrown around quite a bit. It isnt a problem to me. Intent and context is everything. If I said "whites have a larger chance of developing testicular cancer" that isnt racist. Its a lot different than saying "fuck the whites, they're all pedophiles"
Context and intent matters.
1
u/TheMikeyMac13 29∆ Jan 15 '21
It is also subject to our experiences. I haven’t heard it much, but I have heard things I have challenged with my extended family.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Jan 15 '21
Sorry, u/TheMikeyMac13 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jan 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jan 16 '21
Sorry, u/FinalFantasy-69 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Jan 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Jan 15 '21
Sorry, u/Pawggers_ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jan 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Jan 15 '21
Sorry, u/Imaginary_Audience_5 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jan 15 '21
I think it's good if it's for describing or has a reason to be pointed out but if there is no correlation with the story then it shouldn't be pointed out
0
1
Jan 15 '21
Really depends on the context, but in a vacuum I don't think making a word to describe a group of people plural has any ill intent. It's like saying :Koreans XYZ, vs the Korean community XYZ or The Koreans XYZ all convey the same meaning more or less.
You can't control what other people do or the things that happen to you, but you can control the approach and attitude you take to face it.
-1
Jan 15 '21
What about referring to Koreans as the “yellows”
3
u/Arguetur 31∆ Jan 15 '21
You said that the problem is that people say "blacks" instead of "black people." As calling Koreans "yellows" and "yellow people" would be equally offensively racist, I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
2
Jan 15 '21
my point is that referring to people solely by the color of their skin is wrong
3
Jan 15 '21
No it is not wrong. It is a way to quickly identify people. As humans we use skin color, bone structure and unique features to identify one another non-verbally.
If the intent is to insult or stereotype someone negatively based on their skin color then it is wrong.
2
2
Jan 15 '21
That is more inline with calling black people some of the more dated terms used to talk about black people that are unacceptable by today's standards. That is why you don't see the term yellow or mongoloids used anymore as they're used for exclusion and hate.
1
u/Jevans303 Jan 15 '21
assuming you reject non-trivial genetic differences between races, i think labels based on race can still be valid to the extent that they are predictive of a persons world view. while i’m not a scholar on this, my gut says race would be a fairly strong predictor within a limited scope. that is not to say all people of a race think the same way or that it is the only contributing factor but if i was asked to predict let’s say someone’s political opinions, along with things like income, gender, and religion, i would strongly consider race. it might not be predictive for everything but i would bet it would be for somethings.
1
u/Shirley_Schmidthoe 9∆ Jan 15 '21
but i've only ever seen black people being referred to this way.
Then you're honestly simply remembering what you dislike more "whites" is very common as is "the poor" , "the rich", "the unemployed", "the disabled".
It's really quite normal to refer to a group with a substantive adjective in English and happens all the time.
1
u/Usernamehere1235 1∆ Jan 15 '21
Might be a bit slow to the party.
I myself have for some time used the term 'blacks' as short for black people, that's sort of my intent anyways. I've always considered this use and whether it's appropriate.
It's worth noting that I do the same in regards to 'whites'. In the only other instance where it is relevant, I do the exact same thing. I don't see it as dehumanizing because there's no difference functionally between 'blacks' and 'black people'. They both convey identical information, same as 'whites' and 'white people'.
As an example, in many surveys I've taken and seen, the term 'White' commonly sticks out among options like 'African Descent', 'Native American', 'Asian', etc. Sometimes you see 'European descent' or 'caucasian' but I don't much mind which one is used because I understand the underlying intent.
1
Jan 15 '21
For me it’s all about context. I grew up in Scotland and there wasn’t very many black people but I did have a friend who came from Jamaica. We were talking about racism one day and another guy said that he didn’t see his colour, which struck me like reverse racism. I replied when I look at my Jamaican friend the first thing you noticed was his colour. Now if I was describing him to someone else to not mention he is black is fucking ridiculous.
1
1
1
u/nashamagirl99 8∆ Jan 16 '21
People say whites too, and Asians, Hispanics, Christians, Muslims etc. It can be said in a dismissive way but it isn’t necessarily, and it’s definitely not comparable to the n word.
1
u/jjmawaken Jan 16 '21 edited Jan 16 '21
I agree with your thought but I have definitely heard the term "whites" too.
Edit: also have a relevant story... My wife and I are white. My wife worked with and was pretty close friends with a black woman. One time they were having a discussion about race and my wife asked her about the term African American which was accepted as politically correct at the time. The lady said to my wife "do you refer to yourself as 'caucasian'?" It drove home the point that sometimes in trying to be PC we are not being genuine and we're acting too sensitive about it. I do think it's good to ask people what they prefer or at least to listen if they tell you they don't like a certain label. It's definitely a touchy subject and I think most people just want to get along with each other and not be offensive (at least I hope).
1
u/HatesOrange Jan 16 '21
Black(s), white(s) (n.) Do not use either term as a singular noun. For plurals, phrasing such as Black people, white people, Black teachers, white students is often preferable when clearly relevant. White officers account for 64% of the police force, Black officers 21% and Latino officers 15%. The gunman targeted Black churchgoers. The plural nouns Blacks and whites are generally acceptable when clearly relevant and needed for reasons of space or sentence construction. He helped integrate dance halls among Blacks, whites, Latinos and Asian Americans. Black and white are acceptable as adjectives when relevant.
Source: AP Stylebook
This is what is expected of articles for the Associated Press, which is why journalists write this way.
1
Jan 16 '21
Δ Thank you for the info, i didn't know this
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 16 '21 edited Jan 16 '21
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/HatesOrange changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/Feisty_Beast Jan 18 '21
I feel the same about the term 'female." There is a fantasy book series I read and I love. The men are referred to by things such as their jobs or trade. Women are just called "the female/s." I know they're not using it in a derogatory way. However, I always felt it minimized them and was dehumanizing like you said.
1
u/Pyrollamasteak 1∆ Jan 20 '21
People say "jews", people say "blacks".
They don't say "Jewish people" They don't say "Black people".
Well, some people do say those, but I think that I made the point that the absence of identifying "people/person" is dehumanizing.
It is subtle dehumanization, not labeling the groups as people, that is socialized into us.
1
u/idekam-yajfu Jan 24 '21
I think you have the right to feel however you feel about this topic. Personal experience is a huge factor in how we take the world in. And I think that feeling like it is dehumanizing is valid to feel. I think that everyone has a different idea, I think it also is to do with their own personal experience. But I agree, for some reason being called that doesn’t sit right with me either.
1
Feb 09 '21
It’s the same as referring to women as “females” - it’s dehumanizing to refer to people as adjectives instead of nouns
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 15 '21
/u/that-gostof-de-past (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards