Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Fireplace

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-25-2013, 09:04 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

As a half black person, I'll tell you one thing us ethnics get pissed off about and that's white people deciding what is racist and what isn't. You know, the ones who say don't say this or dont say that are usually the ones who make the most derogatory comments out of sheer ignorance.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-25-2013, 11:35 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default There has never been a word itself, that was inherently evil

and so it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the terms are accurate or so off they are opposite, Scientifically speaking or otherwise

it's the hatred behind the intent on the words

and I know it sounds unfair, but honestly two people could use the exact same words, and if one of them was speaking with a dialect of hatred (with coincidentally smells worse than it is distinguished by sounds) and another is speaking a dialect love and understanding.

The two people people may even be usinf, verbatim same words, and one would be right and one would be wrong

I gave you the benefit of the doubt even though I didn't believe your sincerity, so I deleted my tones of anger, frustration, and hatred, and offered you advice if you were serious.

THreadjacket? OI don't call it that
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-25-2013, 08:45 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,416
Default

Re (from london):
Quote:
"As a half-black person, I'll tell you one thing us ethnics get pissed off about and that's white people deciding what is racist and what isn't. You know, the ones who say don't say this or don't say that are usually the ones who make the most derogatory comments out of sheer ignorance."
Off-topic: I just learned a new word! "Ethnic" is a bonafide way to denote "an ethnic minority," word-for-word as proclaimed by Wiktionary. Kewl. Now that's a word I like having on my volcabulary trophy shelf.

But london, you've made a great point, a point that's been strangely lacking in this thread up until now. Who are us Caucasians to be the judges and rulers over "what constitutes kindness to ethnics" anyway? Why don't the ethnics themselves get to tell us what we ought to do? They've certainly earned the right after so many centuries of oppression.

A bit more on my feelings about ethnic nomenclature in a soon-to-be-posted post ...

---

Re (from Dirtclustit):
Quote:
"It's the hatred behind the intent on the words."
Ah: exactly what I've contrived to get at!

Re:
Quote:
"And I know it sounds unfair, but honestly two people could use the exact same words, and if one of them was speaking with a dialect of hatred (with coincidentally smells worse than it is distinguished by sounds) and another is speaking a dialect love and understanding ...
The two people people may even be using, verbatim, the same words, and one would be right and one would be wrong."
Perfect! Perfect! (and I mean that like nobody's business.) Ahhh; I think we're on the same page again my friend.

Re:
Quote:
"I gave you the benefit of the doubt even though I didn't believe your sincerity, so I deleted my tones of anger, frustration, and hatred, and offered you advice if you were serious."
And, I hope you'll believe me when I say thank you for your stately forbearance. I hope I didn't cut and bruise too much in my admittedly self-opinionated riposte. I did mean it respectfully, if not mincingly.

Re: threadjacking ... I admit legit argument could be made that no threadjacking has occurred. After all, this thread points toward poly/culture/color/race issues and thus, by extension, towards culture/color/race issues in general. So as official OP, I'll accept your tangential points, and opine that they need a dedicated space for further expression. Along those lines ... well, see my next post.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-25-2013, 09:01 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,416
Default

Re: pejoratives (especially as regards Southern-States slaves and their descendants) ... While still granting that the N word has certain air of nastiness about it (comparable perhaps to words like fatso, fag, slut which "The Ethical Slut" proposes to "reclaim," etc.), I fancy that what especially bothered/bothers Southern-States slaves and their descendants about being called that word, is, not the structure and make-up of the word itself, but rather, how the word is/was spoken.

One person may use the N word out of plain old ignorance, not realizing it offends the referent. Another person may use the word with a sneering, derisive, hateful tone of voice, and every intention of hurting the person/s he/she refers to by speaking that word.

Furthermore, what probably hurts/hurt and offends/offended Southern-States slaves and their descendants most of all was the way they were/are treated by the race/culture that was responsible for forcefully severing them from their African kin and deporting them to America. The permanent loss of spouse and children. The endless hours of compulsory, sweat-drenched, back-breaking work in the cotton fields. The whippings and beatings. (Gods the whippings! Ever seen the old photo of a shirtless Southern slave, facing away from the camera, his back crisscrossed layer upon layer with thick, poignant whip scars?) The maimings (Think "Roots" and the scene where they chopped off the ends of "Toby's" feet so he couldn't try to run away anymore). The hunger and thirst. And overarching it all, the superiority attitude sported towards them by their slavemasters.

And then ... the segregation. The denial of the right to vote. The cold refusal to give a guy a simple job and let him keep it. The false/unfair prosecutions. Displays of rudeness. More beatings. Cross-burnings, lynchings, and cold-blooded killings of every kind and again, overarching it all, the superiority attitude sported towards them by their oppressors.

No wonder they grew to hate the various pejoratives (which they probably didn't see as pejoratives at first) after said pejoratives were spoken by their European American oppressors with a sneering, derisive, hateful tone of voice, and every intention of hurting them by speaking it. When piled opon all the other cruelty they suffered from, the pejoratives were literally just insult added to injury.

So it is that guys like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. used the word "Negro" proudly to denote themselves and the race/culture to which they belonged ... and yet, that word too came to be seen as a pejorative, not because the letters, sequencing, and technical logic that once belonged to the word were inherently hateful, but because of the spiteful way "non-Negroes" used the word. So I think it was very much a case of, not what was said, but how (and in what context) it was said. Which likewise is true of every word and sentence in the whole English language (or any language).

The tormenting, torture, and twisting of these once-innocuous words turned them into pejoratives, one after another. And thus began the long procession of ever-changing monikers, a sort of perpetual struggle to at least be spoken to politely if not sincerely. The N-word, colored persons or persons of color, Negroes, blacks or black persons, African Americans and as of this thread, brown-skinned persons which itself isn't faring too well (despite its optical accuracy). When, then, will that "war over words" end? only when "European Americans" stop treating "African Americans" like a lower, less-honorable form of life.

So I both do take my monikers seriously, and yet at times laziness and the madness of it all sways me into the use of outdated(?) words. I mean really, was "blacks" invented as a moniker for the descendants of Southern-States slaves out of someone's desire to make that minority race/culture/heritage feel bad about themselves? I doubt it. Yet the style of its subsequent usage by the descendants of Southern-States slavemasters turned it into a word of hate. And then people cried out once again for a new word that would end the hurtfulness at last, and the can was kicked down the road yet another time. But guess what? No matter how many times we change what we call them, they remain marginalized, maltreated, and outcast. Thus zeroing in on the words just doesn't seem to have solved the big problem.

My personal impression is that the word "blacks" offends some "blacks" (who'd much prefer I call them African Americans), but offends other "blacks" (who'd much prefer I *didn't* call them African Americans) not at all. That's the state of affairs as I thus far understand it, and the reason I often say "blacks" (and "whites"): because it's quick and easy, doesn't seem to offend too many people too much, and allows us to get (a little quicker and more efficiently) to the heart of the matter; namely, how we treat the descendants of Southern-States slaves in general. And by extension, how the descendants of Southern-States slavemasters and their ilk, those who happen to be polyamorous or even just who love and/or live with polymorists, can improve the way they present themselves to the minority race/culture in question so as to inspire in that race/culture a feeling of safety and welcome amongst "white polyamorists."

The general gist of all this applies to "blacks," Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans, Oriental persons, and all races/colors/cultures who do and/or have in the past suffer/suffered oppression from America's infamous Caucasians. But it especially compares the merit of the "moniker problem" with the merit of what I believe is the root cause of the moniker problem: the superiority attitude of the majority culture/color/race. Changing words in order to change attitudes is usually, IMO, pulling the cart before the horse. We bigots (I won't resist inclusion in that group at least for argument's sake) need to "get over ourselves." Then and only then will we find monikers that the descendants of Southern-States slaves will perceive as gentle, kind, and respectful.

And that's why I said and still believe that demonstrations, civil discourse between the races, and things like Martin Luther King Jr.'s unforgettable "I have a dream" speech, will help black/white relations much more than any tinkering with nomenclature.

I can see a bit more the "justification" for coining words like "polyamory." After all, those are words that describe things (e.g. people) for which/whom no label existed previously. So there at least one could argue that the English is made more complete by the advent of words like polyamory. But to take an already-existing word (e.g. blacks) and change it over and over again because it feels offensive no matter how many times we change it, doesn't seem to me to accomplish much of anything except to confuse the English language (or any language) and make communication harder (for we all know it was already hard enough).

And that's why I persistently vote that we talk more about how we treat each other in deed (e.g. tone of voice and the attitude behind it), less about which actual words-for-the-same-thing we use (animals versus non-human persons, blacks versus African Americans, gay marriage versus same-sex marriage, etc.), and get back to this thread's original topic which is how to get polyamorists of diverse races to come together (by persuasion, not coercion) even more than they have thus far.

Along those lines, I propose that for the sake of those to whom nomenclature does greatly matter, we start a new thread for that particular discussion. At the risk of taking flak for being an inappropriate man for the job, I'll go ahead and create that thread.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"

Last edited by kdt26417; 11-26-2013 at 06:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-25-2013, 09:42 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,416
Default

It's done.

See the thread: What Should We Call the Descendants of Southern-States Slaves? etc. for further details.

Kevin
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-25-2013, 09:50 PM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Well, the most PC way to say it would be "people from ethnic minorities", but amongst people who know you, you could say ethnics.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-25-2013, 10:21 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,416
Default

... Oh wait I get it. "Ethnic" as a noun is a word to be used appropriately by people who actually belong to an ethnic minority, whereas "ethnic" as an adjective is the better/more appropriate choice for those of us who were so "fortunate" as to be born into an ethnic majority family.

Ahem; don't mean to be flippant, cute, or curt here; just bogged down by a mass of PM's, emails, and unanswered posts on various threads, so forgive me for whipping through this bit of honestly intriguing information and filing it in a flash. I promise to say "people from ethnic minorities" instead of "ethnics" from now on.

Oh ... unless it's a casual conversation with people who I know and who know me well, in which case I can make an exception and indulge myself in the use of the word (noun) "ethnics." Whew! I think I've got your basic idea right but am glad to accept any corrections I'm in need of.

Sincere regards,
Kevin T.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-26-2013, 12:44 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Oh gods, don't "speak of the devil" [read: "speak of the moderators" -- but I don't mean you're a devil, O ruthlessly witty one] or the devil will come, and have my filthily-delusioned European American butt in a sling for saying black and white (There goes my myopic black-and-white thinking again).


And I even agree with you about the distinction between prejudice and stereotyping. Thanks for your post in general.
I don't mind being a devil-but I've been told I make a better succubus.

After a week and a half of lectures, homework and study on the specific differences between prejudice, stereotypes, system 1 thinking, system 2 thinking, how evolution theoretically plays into all of it, discrimination etc... I figured it would be helpful to point out that there is in fact a difference. We often link them, we often see where there are legitimate links. But-the existence of one doesn't necessarily mean that the other is actually there.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-26-2013, 01:13 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,093
Default Trivia on stereotypes and prejudice (with reference at end)

"Stereotyped beliefs and prejudiced attitudes exist not only because of social conditionaing and because they enable people to displace hostilities, but also as byproducts of normal thinking processes. Many stereotypes spring less from malice of the heart than from the machinery of the mind.

One way we simplify our environment is to categorize-to organize the world by clustering objects into groups (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000, 2001). A biologist classifies plants and animals. A human classifies people. Having done so, we think about them more easily. If persons in a group share some similarities-if most MENSA members are smart, and most basketball players are tall-knowing their group memberships can provide useful information with minimal effort (Macrae & others, 1994). Stereotypes sometimes offer "a beneficial ratio of infomration gained to effort expended" (Sherman & others, 1998). Stereotypes represent cognitive efficiency. They are energy-saving schemes for making speedy judgments and predicting how others will think and act. Thus, stereotypes and outgroup bias may, as Carlos David Navarrete and others (2010) have noted, "serve ultimate, evolutionary functions," by enabling our ancestors to cope and survive.

Experiments expose our spontaneous categorization of people by race. Much as we organize what is actually a color continuum into what we perceive as distinct colors, such as red, blue, and green, so our "discontinuous minds" (Dawkins, 1993) cannot resist categorizing people into groups.

****By itself, such categorization is not prejudice, but it does provide a foundation for prejudice.*****


Prejudice is distinct from stereotyping and discrimination. Social psychologists explore these distinctions and the different forms that prejudice assumes today.
Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, racism, sexism-the terms often overlap. Let's clarify them....

Prejudice-a preconceived negative judgment of a group and its individual members.
Stereotype-a belief about the personal attributes of a group of people. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. Sometimes, they are accurate.

Prejudice is an attitude. An attitude is a distinct combination of feelings, inclinations to act, and beliefs. It can be easily remembered as the ABC's of attitudes: Affect (feelings), Behavior tendency (inclination to act), and Cognition (beliefs). A prejudiced person may dislike those different from self and behave in a discriminatory manner, believing them ignorant or dangerous.
The negative evaluations that mark prejudice often are supported by negative beliefs, called stereotypes. To stereotype is to generalize. To simplify the world, we generalize: The British are reserved. Americans are outgoing. Professors are absent minded. Such generalizations can be more or less true (and are not always negative)....
An accurate stereotype can be desirable. We call it "sensitivity to diversity" or "cultural awareness in a multicultural world." To stereotype the British as more concerned about punctuality than Mexicans is to understand what to expect and how to get along with others in each culture. "Accuracy dominates bias," notes Lee Jussim (2012). "The social perception of glass (of people judging others) is about 90 percent full."
The 10 percent problem with stereotypes arises when they are overgeneralized or just plain wrong. To presume that most American welfare clients are African American is to overgeneralize, because it just isn't so. To presume that single people are less conscientious and more neurotic than partnered people, as did people in one German study, was wrong, because it just wasn't so (Greitemeyer, 2009). To presume that people with disabilities are incompetent and asexual, as did Oregonians in another study, misrepresents reality (Nario-Redmond, 2010). To stigmatize the obese as slow, lazy, and undisciplined is inaccurate (Puhl & Heuer, 2009, 2010). To presume that Muslims are terrorists, priests are pedophiles, and evangelicals hate homosexuals overgeneralizes from the worst examples of each....

Prejudice is a negative attitude. Discrimination is a negative behavior. Discrimination often has its source in prejudicial attitudes (Dovidio & others, 1996;Wagner & others, 2008)....

Racism and sexism are institutional practices that discriminate, even when there is no prejudicial intent...."

Meyers, David G. (2013)Social Psychology
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-26-2013, 01:15 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,093
Default Link to an awesome test on implicit prejudices

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:52 PM.