|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 16, 2008 10:21 PM |
|
|
That wasn't the point.
The point was that Barack Obamas father is 100% Afro-American while his mother is 100% WHITE.
That doesn't make him as much WHITE than BLACK.
So. If in Germany you have a person elected to highest office, the father of which is a Jew, while his mother is a Christian, what would you think if the German media, population and so on would get hysterical about "a Jew being elected into highest office"?
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 16, 2008 11:31 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 23:33, 16 Nov 2008.
|
But now in germany, the new leader of the GREEN party is Cem Özdemir. His parents are both turkish, he was born in germany in the 60ies.
Related news to the "fact" there won't be a political leader of an ethnic minority group in any other country than USA. What now? 
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 09:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Translation: It's considered racist, but in everyday life racism is still rabid.
Dude you remind me of those people who are like
someone: I disagree with Obama's policies
them: RACIST!
someone: I didn't cry during Obama's acceptance speech
them: RACIST!
someone: I think Steve Nash is a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant.
them: RACIST!
someone: I actually prefer Michael Jackson's newer work to his early albums.
them: RACIST!
Sure, if you want to make racism out of nothing then fine racism is everywhere.
But it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quote:
If in Germany you have a person elected to highest office, the father of which is a Jew, while his mother is a Christian, what would you think if the German media, population and so on would get hysterical about "a Jew being elected into highest office"?
Uh, religion is a matter of choice.
Race isn't.
And the leader of the green party in Australia is gay... that's a minority.
Not really ethnic though
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 11:38 AM |
|
|
You are all tap-dancing.
You are explaining, that it is correct and not racist at all to call any person BLACK who has any amount of not-white blood in their veins - because a) the one-drop-rule (which has been considered racist) b) because they look so and c) because race is a social construct and people like to categorize people the way they look and d) because they ARE black permanently
Now, a means that you call any not purely white person black (no matter the actual color of the skin). This is akin to calling any Non-Christan either Heathen or Jew, pick what you like better. To make it clearer. This would be akin to being no muslim, for example a Christian, and being called generally either Infidel or Jew.
So the one-drop-rule and every social racial construct evolving round it is RACIST! There CAN be no discussion about it since the US Supreme Court has basically said it as well.
b) is wrong because they DO NOT look so. Obama isn't black, he's brownish; there are very dark-skinned blacks, there are brownish people that have no afro-american heritage at all, but may be latinos and so on, and there are sun-tanned people looking brown as well. So here BLACK is technically wrong and actually means not purely white. Since this point would make a sun-tanned white "black" it is rubbish and amounts to the same racist view than a)
c) Since general social racial distinctions have no other reason than putting up boundaries and borders between groups of people and exclude people from the main or defining, if you accept that race is a social thing you have to accept that race as distinction is always accompanied by racism because there is no other purpose: skin color obviously has the same relevance as eye color or hair color.
d) is trying to justify it by claiming that race is something factual (as opposed to being having a Religion). Quite obviously a lot of people have seen this differently, and eye or hair color is a factual difference as well, as is size and so on. Moreover, if you would acect something like a "factual" race (as opposed to a social construct) in this case a person being 50% black and 50% white wouldn't be black anymore. If you'd insist, it would be like saying that every person below a certain size, let's say 5 ft 3 would be a midget.
So, for me, you don't have any valid point - but are busy discussing away. For what?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 12:35 PM |
|
|
|
Jolly Joker, you are truly a Joker.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 12:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you'd insist, it would be like saying that every person below a certain size, let's say 5 ft 3 would be a midget.
Wrong conclusion. It is more like: A guy with 7 feet height is tall. A guy with 5 feet height is small. But a guy with 6 feet 2' is STILL tall, even though the 7 feet guy is taller..
Quote:
So, for me, you don't have any valid point - but are busy discussing away. For what?
I don't see any valid point in your posts to be honest. If you just go by the look of the skin color, you would have to call Obama "BROWN", but this term only belongs to horses or bears, but not to humans. If you go by color mixture laws, you would have to call him "GREY" (black + white = grey!), but this isn't a correct term refering to humans either. So for the matter of fact he obviously isn't´white, you have to call him black. Your term "mulatto" isn't in the same word family as "black, white, yellow etc..), because then you would have to call all the black people "negrid". Mulatto is a mixture of negrid and caucasian. Mulatto isn't very well accepted either, because the original meaning is something like "Belongs to donkeys" (mule...).
So if you wanna call Obama "mulatto", you have to call Merkel "Caucasian" and not "white".
I wonder how you would call someone who's dad was finnish and the mom south corean? "Fried egg"? (no offense..)
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 01:08 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:16, 17 Nov 2008.
|
Can somebody please HCM me and explain why it matters if he is white, black, plaid, or pink with purple pokadots? Now I am one for celebrating differences instead of ignoring them..but if he does good or terrible job should be all that matters.
Fact: He will be called the first black president regardless of individual opinons if he is black or not.
Fact: He himself identifies himself as black. Regardless if anybody else considers him black or not, it is what he perceives himself to be that is important.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 01:22 PM |
|
|
Hey Mytical the background of your post is white- that's a bit racial.
In fact, the whole of HC is racist, it's too white, although some posts backrounds are grey so I guess we call them mulattos.
I can't be called racist because I'm 1/188th spanish so I'm not even white myself, so HA.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 01:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you'd insist, it would be like saying that every person below a certain size, let's say 5 ft 3 would be a midget.
Wrong conclusion. It is more like: A guy with 7 feet height is tall. A guy with 5 feet height is small. But a guy with 6 feet 2' is STILL tall, even though the 7 feet guy is taller..
Quote:
So, for me, you don't have any valid point - but are busy discussing away. For what?
I don't see any valid point in your posts to be honest. If you just go by the look of the skin color, you would have to call Obama "BROWN", but this term only belongs to horses or bears, but not to humans. If you go by color mixture laws, you would have to call him "GREY" (black + white = grey!), but this isn't a correct term refering to humans either. So for the matter of fact he obviously isn't´white, you have to call him black. Your term "mulatto" isn't in the same word family as "black, white, yellow etc..), because then you would have to call all the black people "negrid". Mulatto is a mixture of negrid and caucasian. Mulatto isn't very well accepted either, because the original meaning is something like "Belongs to donkeys" (mule...).
So if you wanna call Obama "mulatto", you have to call Merkel "Caucasian" and not "white".
I wonder how you would call someone who's dad was finnish and the mom south corean? "Fried egg"? (no offense..)
Answer me two questions, please:
1) why is skin color an important distinction?
2) If it is, why is everything black that isn't purely white - why are there no differences in the "black" spectrum...
Example in other caegories:
a) you'd characetrize people as having either blonde (or fair) hair or black hair, if not purely blonde (or fair).
b) people had either blue eyes or, if not purely blue, dark eyes.
I furthermore note that there are no comments to the actual points.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 02:02 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:04, 17 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
I wonder how you would call someone who's dad was finnish and the mom south corean? "Fried egg"? (no offense..)
LOL 
Quote:
In fact, the whole of HC is racist, it's too white, although some posts backrounds are grey so I guess we call them mulattos.
Doesn't matter what you ARE, it matters what you THINK to be racist. If I am "white" and I like blacks and discriminate whites (yes I even discriminate myself with that) then I am racist towards whites, for example. (this was only an example ofc).
I think if people want to call Obama by his skin color, instead of calling him "black" or "white" or "brown" maybe we should take a picture, decode the image and see the average color of his skin, then take the RGB components and call him from those
Hey Obama is X-Red, Y-Green and Z-Blue (replace X,Y,Z with the values found)
Quote:
1) why is skin color an important distinction?
2) If it is, why is everything black that isn't purely white - why are there no differences in the "black" spectrum...
I think you make a big problem out of nothing. That's how people are used to use the word "black". It doesn't mean they absorb all light to be called "black" or doesn't mean the "black" race biologically either -- do you think they take the time to analyze every person they meet and see their DNA, see if they are of "black" race?
I mean, it's like calling someone's nose "big" because it's bigger than yours. What is "big"? It only arrives upon by COMPARISON. So I think they mean "Black" because he is more black than white, which is the 'usual' norm in America (you can call it tradition).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 02:05 PM |
|
|
Sorry, death, but it is fact that you can discriminate your own race to hell and still won't be called racist. (a black man can say snow, for example) (the master race doesn't even think about that, though )
(last sentence was a joke, I did not mean anything by it.)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 02:38 PM |
|
|
*Sigh* You are missing the point!
Either calling Obama "black" has no further meaning except saying that his skin colour is relatively dark.
In that case it's not noteworthy, though. It's smply of no importance - or of the same importance of whether he's got a healthy tan or not or whether he has blue or green eyes or black or blond hair.
Or it HAS another meaning that makes it noteworthy, noting that he is a member of a certain race - but in this case it's based on the one-drop-rule since technically Obama is in equal parts of MIXED race and would therefore be "black" only if the racist one-drop-rule was still valid and in effect.
That Obama thinks himself as black just means that he has been treated as black and felt black which means that the one-drop-rule is still in effect: his white half doesn't count compared to his black half.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 02:41 PM |
|
|
Yes, and that's because how he appears to look like. I hope you realize citizens don't make DNA tests on him, and it's some kind of "tradition" in America to call anyone darker-skinned "black" (but having at least some black ethnicity). Besides, it's not only about the color of the skin.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 02:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, and that's because how he appears to look like. I hope you realize citizens don't make DNA tests on him, and it's some kind of "tradition" in America to call anyone darker-skinned "black" (but having at least some black ethnicity).
Yeah, I realize there are lots of interesting traditions - in America and elsewhere: calling people witches and burning them at the stake, for example. So, sadly, I don't think that the fact that something might be called "traditional" will justify or excuse it.
Quote:
Besides, it's not only about the color of the skin.
Now you've made me really curious. Go ahead and explain what that is supposed to mean.
Edit: I'm adding something that may help.
If there is no racism involved anymore then obviously everyone has the same rights. If that is so, black people could make the same rules than white: the PURE black is black; the rest is "pale". In this case the 100% blacks would call everyone else "pale". Obama would be a "pale" president then...
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 03:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, I realize there are lots of interesting traditions - in America and elsewhere: calling people witches and burning them at the stake, for example. So, sadly, I don't think that the fact that something might be called "traditional" will justify or excuse it.
No, I am talking about popularity of a word here. You see, let's take an analogy with the internet. There is these words, or "language" called 'leet-speak'. With d00d, n00b, haxxor and all that. Now, what does this mean? It has become some sort of tradition on the internet for SOME people (let's call them 'leeters'). This is how they speak -- it's just a symbol.
Now in America, most white people say Obama is black. It is just a "language" tradition, so to speak, it doesn't mean that he may be biologically the "black race". You see, that's how they got used to speak it -- it's like slang. Just a language... that's the tradition I was talking about.
"burning" witches on stake is an action, not just a language to express something that is popular.
Quote:
If there is no racism involved anymore then obviously everyone has the same rights. If that is so, black people could make the same rules than white: the PURE black is black; the rest is "pale". In this case the 100% blacks would call everyone else "pale". Obama would be a "pale" president then...
Maybe, but I doubt it will get popular. I can make a new "internet" language called "haxxing" myself, but will people use it? I mean, on a mass scale? I dunno, I have no idea. Maybe they will, and then it will become another "slang" or another "tradition" or another "common speak" you know...
I don't know how to explain this better. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 04:01 PM |
|
|
Well then, "snow" has been quite popular as well, right?
Quote:
And to TheDeath I say this: you can make laws against racism and for the equality of different races, but when something has been part of a society for a long time, a certain mindset has rooted so deep that it becomes "natural". That's why a certain racism is there as well as a certain kind of male chauvinism - it's something that takes generations to disappear and isn't necessarily a conscious thing.
A quote of myself from some pages ago. Calling everything with a darker then white skin "black" may be popular, but it's disregarding the many facets that are existing beyond being white. It narrows everything doen to being either white or not - but being Native American is radically different from being Afro-American which are both radically different from being Hispanic, not to mention the many mixes. It's the WHITE view: HERE: white; THERE: the rest - black.
Now, I think you wanted to explain something:
Quote:
Besides, it's not only about the color of the skin.
I'm still listening and waiting for an explanation. What else is involved?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 04:17 PM |
|
|
What exactly does this have to do with President Elect Obama's cabinet picks?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 04:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A quote of myself from some pages ago. Calling everything with a darker then white skin "black" may be popular, but it's disregarding the many facets that are existing beyond being white. It narrows everything doen to being either white or not - but being Native American is radically different from being Afro-American which are both radically different from being Hispanic, not to mention the many mixes. It's the WHITE view: HERE: white; THERE: the rest - black.
If people want to use "black" to actually mean "a bit of African descent/ancestry" then it's fine, I mean it does help them to communicate. Should they use the "Obama is half-black, half-white" when it is easier and much more "common" (like I said, by tradition, it's how people "got used to it". Like people got used to Internet slang or just about any kind of slang. If such slang was universal and used in every conversation it would NOT be considered slang anymore.
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, it's not only about the color of the skin.
I'm still listening and waiting for an explanation. What else is involved?
Like I said, how people are "used" to stuff. If people were extremely used to saying cuss words in any conversation, be it political etc... then those words would NOT be considered cuss anymore, from an American viewpoint. I think it's just all about the language. Language is not something fixed. It varies and people get used to it the way it is, without paying much significance.
Well "political correctness" tries to modify this but I think it fails miserably.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 04:42 PM |
|
|
Even if that was so - which isn't because "black" is used for everyone with any darker-skinned ancestry, African or otherwise:
What would it be good for? I mean, would WHITE then be used for someone with European ancestry? Err, no, can't be, because Obama has that as well. So why have a word "Communicating" a certain kind of partial ancestry? I mean, with the exception of the Natives EVERY US citizen has an ancestry outside the US, so why point out especially African (which it doesn't). Why?
And you are wrong with the cussing as well. The f-word is pretty normal talk but it's still getting the snow deleted in any forum, or beeped over on TV.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 17, 2008 04:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What would it be good for? I mean, would WHITE then be used for someone with European ancestry?
Because that's how people got used to it
I can make a word called "1234" and put there at least some European ancestry (so Obama would be 1234 and "black" at the same time), and if people will "get used to it" (which I doubt) it will become common speech/word.
Quote:
The f-word is pretty normal talk but it's still getting the snow deleted in any forum, or beeped over on TV.
That is because it is still considered cuss. If people didn't consider it anymore, or even more extreme, changed its meaning then it would just get accepted if people "get used to it" first of course.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
