What Should We Call the Descendants of Southern-States Slaves? etc.
- Thread starter kdt26417
- Start date
Re (from LovingRadiance):
Ironically worsening the situation since then you're then using up more time by searching for more time.
Re: https://medium.com/the-nib/35aa5abf79da ... heheheheheh.
Kevin.
Ironically worsening the situation since then you're then using up more time by searching for more time.
Re: https://medium.com/the-nib/35aa5abf79da ... heheheheheh.
Kevin.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Here's another great one for you!
Found in my social psych book!
James Jones-University of Delaware
"As a Yale graduate student, I was invited to write a book on prejudice. Wanting to take readers past the individual blame aspect of prejudice, I entitled the volume Prejudice and Racism and explained how race problems are embedded in society. Prejudice is ultimately not a race problem but a cultural problem. European-and African heritage cultures differ, and their differences are the soil from which springs cultural racism-the intolerance of those whose culture differs. In today's world of ethnic mixing, we must learn to accept our cultural diversity even as we seek unifying ideals."
Sounds like anything he wrote would be an interesting read.
Found in my social psych book!
James Jones-University of Delaware
"As a Yale graduate student, I was invited to write a book on prejudice. Wanting to take readers past the individual blame aspect of prejudice, I entitled the volume Prejudice and Racism and explained how race problems are embedded in society. Prejudice is ultimately not a race problem but a cultural problem. European-and African heritage cultures differ, and their differences are the soil from which springs cultural racism-the intolerance of those whose culture differs. In today's world of ethnic mixing, we must learn to accept our cultural diversity even as we seek unifying ideals."
Sounds like anything he wrote would be an interesting read.
Actually, you need to be careful if you start poking into your heritage / race. I recently discovered that every single one of the women in my father's lineage (straight back) were unwed mothers.
This is going back at least 300 years. They must have had a terrible time of it is my guess given the strict Lutheran mores of Scandinavia.
Of course my mother also had to get married because she was pregnant with me.
Do you think poly is a genetic variation?
This is going back at least 300 years. They must have had a terrible time of it is my guess given the strict Lutheran mores of Scandinavia.
Of course my mother also had to get married because she was pregnant with me.
Do you think poly is a genetic variation?
LovingRadiance
Active member
Oh my "upline" is wacko.
My grandmother married, had two kids, then divorced and married the guys older brother. It only gets more bizarre the further upline you go.
On my dads side-got a string of 15 year old moms.
My grandmother married, had two kids, then divorced and married the guys older brother. It only gets more bizarre the further upline you go.
On my dads side-got a string of 15 year old moms.
Re (from northhome):
Well, some people do seem to have it "in their genes." Others just choose it because their mind thinks its way through the matter and decides that polyamory makes sense.
But I can't really prove anything to you. It's all speculation and circumstantial evidence until we can really de-code DNA down to each individual atom.
Maybe young romance is a genetic variation too! Who knows ...
Well, some people do seem to have it "in their genes." Others just choose it because their mind thinks its way through the matter and decides that polyamory makes sense.
But I can't really prove anything to you. It's all speculation and circumstantial evidence until we can really de-code DNA down to each individual atom.
Maybe young romance is a genetic variation too!
Who knows ...
Since the Polyamory and Racial Minorities thread (of which this thread is but a branch) is rather recovering from a "hijack nightmare" (thanks in no small part to the enabling of yours truly), I deemed this thread as a good place to mention two interesting links. They were PM'd to me by Loving Radiance and I think she said it was okay if I shared them, so here they are:
The second link deals with the difficulties of being poly and black in America, outlines lessons to be learned from BDSM folks trying to attract more minority races/cultures into their midst, and suggests a general fram of mind that would help poly folks have better luck in connecting with their minority brothers and sisters. Admittedly that second link would fit the "Race/Poly" thread well, I still want to give that newly-owied thread a bit more natural [read: uninterrupted by Kevin] time to heal and gain its balance and proper topic atmosphere.
In the meantime, I like how the second link (in the above list) rounds out the topic of this thread. If you'll read my Post #6, you'll notice that I "added" (to the thread topic) the question, "How would you like your own race/color/culture to be treated, especially if you're of a minority race/color/culture, and the person/s 'treating' you are of the majority race/color/culture?" This question was open to majority opinion on how to treat minorities, though not too strongly ...
Anyway, the point is, the second link in the above list talks about why some black polyamorists
My favorite quote of that second article was at the end:
From the first article, a couple of quotes perked up this logomaniac's ears:
Re:
Yes! This. A newcomer to the company of a race, culture, or ideal doesn't always know what terminology is safe and which will offend. I've had recent occasion to be shocked by how some words I took for granted as innocuous, turned out to be inimicable to at least part of my audience. It has taught me to be a little more careful, which I guess is a good thing.
It's been said that no one has any right to "pretend to support" or "purport how to treat" any race or culture until one has immersed oneself in (i.e. or e.g.? both studied in literature, and physically lived in the midst of) it. But since we can *never* truly know a race or culture (without *being* that race or culture), it behooves us to show whatever acceptance and support we can for that race or culture with whatever little knowledge and understanding we've got. And sure we should try to learn more about them, but that's what the threads like this are (supposed to be) all about.
Re:
Jeezh man, I think it'd suck if we were all a bunch of clones. Isn't the world a lot more interesting and exciting when every new person you meet is a new experience? Heck even identical twins have slight differences. If nothing else, there's Brother-Husband (of my V polycule) who has a twin brother. You almost can't visually tell them apart, until you look a little closer, notice his brother's slightly fleshier face and one slightly "lazy eye." Then go a step further and inventory their lives. One brother is monogamous, one is polyamorous. One is Catholic, the other is "non-affiliated." One has several kids, the other would be terrified by the prospect of childrearing. So even identical twins aren't necessarily clones! and that's a good thing (in my eyes).
Re:
I like that. Short but sweet and speaks volumes.
Re:
Haha, love it! That is a quotable quote -- on par with George Carlin's "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."
---
And some general commentary aside the quotes (bear with me, it's all at least indirectly related):
As it happens, I don't mind being "called a polyamorist" since that's technically what I am. In the same way you could call me a "Caucasian" and that would be true. Or a "hetero vanilla cisgender male" and that would be true. Or a "native of Utah" and that would be true. Above all you could call me a "mortal" and that would be all too true.
But I'm so much more than what any of those individual labels describe. I'm loaded with hopes and fears, dreams and awakenings, interests lost and interests gained, and much to say to the world as everyone on Polyamory.com knows. Therefore, the one label that covers it all is just to call me "Kevin." I don't mind the other labels as long as people use them with the realization that they don't describe "all of me," by any stretch of the imagination.
Sometimes I think many polyamorists identify so strongly with this "new polyamorous ideal" that they've discovered, that they start thinking of polyamory as if it were the core defining essence of their being. And then of course they start assuming similar poly-centric-identification about other polyamorists. Well, I for one live polyamorously only as one small facet of my life. Just as we don't assume "mongamist" is a label that describes "all you'd ever need to know" about a monogamist, so I view polyamorists in general.
A monogamist has lots of interests, hobbies, frequently kids and grandkids, and a lifetime of unique experiences as well as genetic mystery that makes hir who xe is. Of course xe loves hir partner/spouse too; romantic optimism assumes that. But people seem to naturally understand that a monogamist is so much more than the "monogamist" label. Why then is it so counter-intuitive to view polyamorists that way? Weirdness. It's that "poly hype" that makes me think people (both monogamous and polyamorous) sometimes tend to make too big a deal out of polyamory. All polyamory is, after all is just a style of romance. It isn't like changing into Superman or something.
Re: "my" definition of love ... hahaha, check which way the wind blows, which planets are aligned, and how the entrails line up, and then I'll be able to tell you what my definition is for today. Love is arguably the squishiest word in the English language. "My" definition completely depends on the context in which I'm both speaking/writing and reading/hearing it.
I suppose sometimes we have to agree on a "temporary definition for the sake of argument" before we can (especially in large groups) coherently discuss any word. Especially words as squishy as love and poly for example. Even "race" and "culture" are highly squishy words, as we've seen.
Anyways, the first listed link yields up a good article overall and says much about the strengths and weaknesses of the various ways words and language are examined.
I liked both articles really, just had more to say about the first. Any time words (can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em) come up as a subject, it gets the ol' KDT wheels spinning for some reason. And wow have the semantic battles ever been heating up on Polyamory.com lately ...
Let's try not to let this one become a battle. Let's make it a place where minorities can speak up for themselves of how they should be treated and what they should be called, and where majorities can listen and learn (and submit questions and comments where appropriate).
Hope that all helps to tie some things together.
Regards,
Kevin T.
- http://aafteota.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/descriptors-arent-definers-and-acceptance-is-the-solution/
- http://aafteota.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/poly-and-racepoly-and-black/ thence http://www.modernpoly.com/article/poly-and-race-poly-and-black
The second link deals with the difficulties of being poly and black in America, outlines lessons to be learned from BDSM folks trying to attract more minority races/cultures into their midst, and suggests a general fram of mind that would help poly folks have better luck in connecting with their minority brothers and sisters. Admittedly that second link would fit the "Race/Poly" thread well, I still want to give that newly-owied thread a bit more natural [read: uninterrupted by Kevin] time to heal and gain its balance and proper topic atmosphere.
In the meantime, I like how the second link (in the above list) rounds out the topic of this thread. If you'll read my Post #6, you'll notice that I "added" (to the thread topic) the question, "How would you like your own race/color/culture to be treated, especially if you're of a minority race/color/culture, and the person/s 'treating' you are of the majority race/color/culture?" This question was open to majority opinion on how to treat minorities, though not too strongly ...
Anyway, the point is, the second link in the above list talks about why some black polyamorists
- feel they must stay deep underground,
- feel unwelcome among white polyamorists.
My favorite quote of that second article was at the end:
From the first article, a couple of quotes perked up this logomaniac's ears:
Re:
Yes! This. A newcomer to the company of a race, culture, or ideal doesn't always know what terminology is safe and which will offend. I've had recent occasion to be shocked by how some words I took for granted as innocuous, turned out to be inimicable to at least part of my audience. It has taught me to be a little more careful, which I guess is a good thing.
It's been said that no one has any right to "pretend to support" or "purport how to treat" any race or culture until one has immersed oneself in (i.e. or e.g.? both studied in literature, and physically lived in the midst of) it. But since we can *never* truly know a race or culture (without *being* that race or culture), it behooves us to show whatever acceptance and support we can for that race or culture with whatever little knowledge and understanding we've got. And sure we should try to learn more about them, but that's what the threads like this are (supposed to be) all about.
Re:
Jeezh man, I think it'd suck if we were all a bunch of clones. Isn't the world a lot more interesting and exciting when every new person you meet is a new experience? Heck even identical twins have slight differences. If nothing else, there's Brother-Husband (of my V polycule) who has a twin brother. You almost can't visually tell them apart, until you look a little closer, notice his brother's slightly fleshier face and one slightly "lazy eye." Then go a step further and inventory their lives. One brother is monogamous, one is polyamorous. One is Catholic, the other is "non-affiliated." One has several kids, the other would be terrified by the prospect of childrearing. So even identical twins aren't necessarily clones! and that's a good thing (in my eyes).
Re:
I like that. Short but sweet and speaks volumes.
Re:
Haha, love it! That is a quotable quote -- on par with George Carlin's "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."
---
And some general commentary aside the quotes (bear with me, it's all at least indirectly related):
As it happens, I don't mind being "called a polyamorist" since that's technically what I am. In the same way you could call me a "Caucasian" and that would be true. Or a "hetero vanilla cisgender male" and that would be true. Or a "native of Utah" and that would be true. Above all you could call me a "mortal" and that would be all too true.
But I'm so much more than what any of those individual labels describe. I'm loaded with hopes and fears, dreams and awakenings, interests lost and interests gained, and much to say to the world as everyone on Polyamory.com knows.
Therefore, the one label that covers it all is just to call me "Kevin." I don't mind the other labels as long as people use them with the realization that they don't describe "all of me," by any stretch of the imagination.Sometimes I think many polyamorists identify so strongly with this "new polyamorous ideal" that they've discovered, that they start thinking of polyamory as if it were the core defining essence of their being. And then of course they start assuming similar poly-centric-identification about other polyamorists. Well, I for one live polyamorously only as one small facet of my life. Just as we don't assume "mongamist" is a label that describes "all you'd ever need to know" about a monogamist, so I view polyamorists in general.
A monogamist has lots of interests, hobbies, frequently kids and grandkids, and a lifetime of unique experiences as well as genetic mystery that makes hir who xe is. Of course xe loves hir partner/spouse too; romantic optimism assumes that. But people seem to naturally understand that a monogamist is so much more than the "monogamist" label. Why then is it so counter-intuitive to view polyamorists that way? Weirdness. It's that "poly hype" that makes me think people (both monogamous and polyamorous) sometimes tend to make too big a deal out of polyamory. All polyamory is, after all is just a style of romance. It isn't like changing into Superman or something.
Re: "my" definition of love ... hahaha, check which way the wind blows, which planets are aligned, and how the entrails line up, and then I'll be able to tell you what my definition is for today.
Love is arguably the squishiest word in the English language. "My" definition completely depends on the context in which I'm both speaking/writing and reading/hearing it.I suppose sometimes we have to agree on a "temporary definition for the sake of argument" before we can (especially in large groups) coherently discuss any word. Especially words as squishy as love and poly for example. Even "race" and "culture" are highly squishy words, as we've seen.
Anyways, the first listed link yields up a good article overall and says much about the strengths and weaknesses of the various ways words and language are examined.
I liked both articles really, just had more to say about the first.
Any time words (can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em) come up as a subject, it gets the ol' KDT wheels spinning for some reason. And wow have the semantic battles ever been heating up on Polyamory.com lately ...Let's try not to let this one become a battle. Let's make it a place where minorities can speak up for themselves of how they should be treated and what they should be called, and where majorities can listen and learn (and submit questions and comments where appropriate).
Hope that all helps to tie some things together.
Regards,
Kevin T.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Where's the like button? Oh-wrong venue. LOL
And yes-I did say you can share any link I share with you. I'm pretty easy going about, if I put it online-it's public property to share.
And yes-I did say you can share any link I share with you. I'm pretty easy going about, if I put it online-it's public property to share.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
It can get pretty sticky sometimes.
It doesn't sit well with me to refer to groups of a race by their race. Of course I support them if that's an important part of their identity, but I prefer to think of them as "people" first and "black" or "Chinese" or "Native" last. Occasionally it is relevant, e.g. the Indigenous Peoples are going through a lot of struggles in Canada right now, trying to reclaim their land and their birthrights, so they are acting as a unified group on account of their race. But more frequently, I find that "group labels" are used to generalize about irrelevant aspects of their character. "Blacks are like this" or "Natives are like that." Yech.
Many black people living in the US are not of African descent. I secretly giggle when someone refers to someone who is obviously Jamaican as "African."
Hey, how did Jamaica get full of black people anyway? Geographically, wouldn't it make more sense if they resembled the native populations in Cuba or Columbia?
Many Alaskan Natives only became Alaskan when Canada and the US arbitrarily put up a border. Traditionally, they were nomads, following the herds across barren fields of ice. So genealogically, Alaskan Natives are the same as Canadian Inuits.
We don't have many black people in Canada, and most of them are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants. So if we call them anything, it's Nigerian or Kenyan or Sudanese.
What we do have a lot of is Indigenous Peoples. Colonial genocide was far less effective up here, thankfully. That being said, our government did a real number on their culture.
I'm always surprised that a lot of Natives use the term Indian, and own that label with fierce pride. When I was young, I learned about the misnomer, how the first Europeans thought they'd made it all the way to India. So to me, "Indian" was always the "worst" thing you could call a Native because it was so patently "wrong." But then again, most black people aren't really black, and white people are anything but white.
I also think it's interesting how fiercely Americans guard putting "American" in racial labels. Chinese Americans, African Americans, Native Americans... Rather than "of Chinese descent" etc. But then, Canadians aren't nearly as loud in their patriotism, so I've never been able to relate to that phenomenon.
It doesn't sit well with me to refer to groups of a race by their race. Of course I support them if that's an important part of their identity, but I prefer to think of them as "people" first and "black" or "Chinese" or "Native" last. Occasionally it is relevant, e.g. the Indigenous Peoples are going through a lot of struggles in Canada right now, trying to reclaim their land and their birthrights, so they are acting as a unified group on account of their race. But more frequently, I find that "group labels" are used to generalize about irrelevant aspects of their character. "Blacks are like this" or "Natives are like that." Yech.
Many black people living in the US are not of African descent. I secretly giggle when someone refers to someone who is obviously Jamaican as "African."
Hey, how did Jamaica get full of black people anyway? Geographically, wouldn't it make more sense if they resembled the native populations in Cuba or Columbia?
Many Alaskan Natives only became Alaskan when Canada and the US arbitrarily put up a border. Traditionally, they were nomads, following the herds across barren fields of ice. So genealogically, Alaskan Natives are the same as Canadian Inuits.
We don't have many black people in Canada, and most of them are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants. So if we call them anything, it's Nigerian or Kenyan or Sudanese.
What we do have a lot of is Indigenous Peoples. Colonial genocide was far less effective up here, thankfully. That being said, our government did a real number on their culture.
I'm always surprised that a lot of Natives use the term Indian, and own that label with fierce pride. When I was young, I learned about the misnomer, how the first Europeans thought they'd made it all the way to India. So to me, "Indian" was always the "worst" thing you could call a Native because it was so patently "wrong." But then again, most black people aren't really black, and white people are anything but white.
I also think it's interesting how fiercely Americans guard putting "American" in racial labels. Chinese Americans, African Americans, Native Americans... Rather than "of Chinese descent" etc. But then, Canadians aren't nearly as loud in their patriotism, so I've never been able to relate to that phenomenon.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Hey Schroedinger-
Also a lot of Alaska Natives are actually from Russian descent. There was a LOT of cross over when the ice was still all of the way across.
Also-Big Diomede and Little Diomede islands; one is Russian and one is US/Alaskan. But there are families that are split between the two-because they are right next to each other.
I also laugh over the African American label because in SO MANY CASES they aren't from Africa (as in the case of several of my friends).
But-I get that in many cases they are.
I also very much agree that too often using race as a label results in overgeneralizations about the group as a whole (which doesn't REALLY exist) when in fact it's only about a small portion of people within the group.
In fact, I was explaining that to someone just last night regarding "poly's"> They had quite a few generalizations about "polys" that they believed. Then, coming to the board, got totally different reactions than they expected and were offended by how all poly's could believe xyz but say/do qrs. I reminded them that there is no such a thing as "all poly's" because we are all different individuals and different ones of us have different things in common, but there isn't a lot of commonalities that we ALL share.
Also a lot of Alaska Natives are actually from Russian descent.
There was a LOT of cross over when the ice was still all of the way across. Also-Big Diomede and Little Diomede islands; one is Russian and one is US/Alaskan. But there are families that are split between the two-because they are right next to each other.
I also laugh over the African American label because in SO MANY CASES they aren't from Africa (as in the case of several of my friends).
But-I get that in many cases they are.
I also very much agree that too often using race as a label results in overgeneralizations about the group as a whole (which doesn't REALLY exist) when in fact it's only about a small portion of people within the group.
In fact, I was explaining that to someone just last night regarding "poly's"> They had quite a few generalizations about "polys" that they believed. Then, coming to the board, got totally different reactions than they expected and were offended by how all poly's could believe xyz but say/do qrs. I reminded them that there is no such a thing as "all poly's" because we are all different individuals and different ones of us have different things in common, but there isn't a lot of commonalities that we ALL share.
I should note that I recently encounted "PoC" for any non-Caucasian person. Thoughts?
Labels will always have their advantages and drawbacks. The main advantage being verbal convenience, and the main drawback being the tendency to stereotype (although stereotyping itself has convenience and prejudice as its main advantage and drawback, respectively ...)
I think most of the time racial labels should be avoided, but we can hardly help but use them now and then when talking about racial issues. Just sayin' ...
Labels will always have their advantages and drawbacks. The main advantage being verbal convenience, and the main drawback being the tendency to stereotype (although stereotyping itself has convenience and prejudice as its main advantage and drawback, respectively ...)
I think most of the time racial labels should be avoided, but we can hardly help but use them now and then when talking about racial issues. Just sayin' ...
RichardInTN
Member
When asked for my race on a form of some kind, I always answer "Other" and then if there's a blank beside it, I write "human". When asked for my color, I say "white".
"Race" as a color is a dividing line amongst PEOPLE. There will come a day, one day when the answer to "Race?", from anyone, regardless of skin tone, will be "human". I hope to see it in my lifetime, but I don't think I'll live quite that long.
Kind of like I hope to see people's personal relationships (mono, poly, solo, gay, straight, bi) accepted by EVERYONE, worldwide, without question. It'll happen... eventually.
"Race" as a color is a dividing line amongst PEOPLE. There will come a day, one day when the answer to "Race?", from anyone, regardless of skin tone, will be "human". I hope to see it in my lifetime, but I don't think I'll live quite that long.
Kind of like I hope to see people's personal relationships (mono, poly, solo, gay, straight, bi) accepted by EVERYONE, worldwide, without question. It'll happen... eventually.
SouthernGal
New member
I'm a mutt. At least 2 Native American tribes, Irish, and what the family refers to as Black Dutch. I really wouldn't be surprised at anything that could pop up in my family tree. Predominately, my appearance is Irish. I identify personally as mixed, Irish/American Indian. For simplicity's sake I call myself white, mostly because I look freaking arian and no one believes the Native American. I don't really care, though my hubby does for some reason. He's rather defensive of my heritage. Go figure. What do I call decendents of Southern slaves? Southerners. lol When I'm trying to desribe someone I say Black or White, but believe it or not, I'm prone to forget it. "Minnie won't go there! Too many racist rednecks," will suddenly remind me that she is in fact black and that is in fact a bad bar for her to go to even if they do make the best margaritas on the Gulf Coast. I hate that, too. Why can't I take my friend to have a bomb 'rita just because some jerks are going to behave badly about her skin color?
My youngest child probably has it right. That person is brown, that person is tan, that person is white, I'm pink, and they are my best friends.
My youngest child probably has it right. That person is brown, that person is tan, that person is white, I'm pink, and they are my best friends.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
It would be amusing to answer "skin coloured."
I'm picturing a box of Crayola crayons with 50 different shades all labeled skin color ...
Best margaritas on the Gulf Coast? Sign me up, I can't say no to that even if it is a racist redneck mixing it ...
"His neck is red as Alabama clay ..."
Alrighty then! (This white devil stuff has gone far enough. Nobody messes with "the do!")
Best margaritas on the Gulf Coast? Sign me up, I can't say no to that even if it is a racist redneck mixing it ...
"His neck is red as Alabama clay ..."
Alrighty then! (This white devil stuff has gone far enough. Nobody messes with "the do!")
SouthernGal
New member
I'm telling you, Sarah makes a completely to-die-for margarita. Better than any of the local Mexican restaurants. She's not racist, but there are several good ole boy racists there that are very verbal about it. It's very uncomfortable. They're sexist too, but my hubby is a big, bad biker (insert eye roll here) and they stay respectful to me. He tells me their radar is obviously off if they think he's the more dangerous of the two of us. I hate that I can't take my friend there. She loves a good margarita almost as much as me.
I hate that I can't take my friend there. She loves a good margarita almost as much as me.