My recent experience is that African-American is in, Black is out. So
much so that there are those who will accuse you of being a racist if
you use the term "Black".In spite of the title of the NAACP, Negro
will often get you in trouble. The use of it and other historic
terms, like Colored Troops or Free Blacks must be predicated by
extensive explanation that they are historic terms. One cannot
rewrite historic sources to accommodate changes in modern usage. One
can be sensitive to it, but historic quotes are well historic.
I also find the fact that it is perfectly acceptable, in some
circles, for African-Americans to call each other using the N, and
other "offensive" terms word interesting. As someone of Irish
ancestry, I know of very few "Irish-Americans" who would call
themselves Micks or bog trotters. And the same is true of other
ethnic perjoratives. Anyone want to play with that third rail?
I find solace in the fact that if you go back far enough, we are all
(at least according to the Out of Africa theory of human evolution)
Africans. So all the furor is really pretty meaningless. We are all
people and we all bleed.
James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]
On Jan 21, 2007, at 19:11, Excalibur131 wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> I have learned that at least some, perhaps many portions of what
> I've said are irrelevant, misleading and confused. I have no
> problem with this as I have been wrong many times in my lifetime. I
> have also been confused and, yes, I'm sure misleading, but without
> intent. I do not believe that anything I say or think is
> irrelevant, but I will bow to those with more wisdom.
>
> For the last several posts I haven't been sure you and I were
> talking about the same subject. You have written copious
> quantities, but somehow my simple words seem to have failed to
> reach you.
> --------------------
>> A lot of African-Americans are as interested in their "heritage"
>> as are white folks.
>> Anne Pemberton
>
> I'm not offended by it, but I'm somewhat taken back by the use of
> "African-Americans" vs. "white folks." Is there a double-standard
> at work here? If the identifying terminology were reversed how
> would the sentence read?
> Tom
> --------------------
> Do you remember that? The sentence was written in January of 2007
> and my questions were asked in regards to that sentence as it
> applied in January 2007. With all of your words I don't believe you
> have satisfactorily answered the questions that I asked. Of course,
> I could be wrong about that too.
>
> I do wonder what reason you had for avoiding the final paragraph of
> my last post? The paragraph that read:
> "I don't have a clue what the politically correct term is for
> "white folks." I do know that, in more than a few parts of our
> country, the term "black folks" falls into a gray area of what is
> or is not acceptable and may be considered racist. In 2007, is one
> term more acceptable than the other? To me its not. If one is
> unacceptable, then both are unacceptable. If one is acceptable,
> then both are acceptable."
>
> I am a simple man, looking for simple answers to simple questions
> without 400 years of history accompanying the answer. Kevin, with
> respect, perhaps you are unable to come down to my level.
>
> Tom
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
