Apparently Barack "isn't black"

[jambo]

is it me, or is this jibberish?

I go back and make a thoughtful comment on your post despite the intervening stream of abuse and this is the way you engage with it?

The was this conversation has turned cant help but evoke the episode of curb where larry mistakes a black man in a queue for the valet then after being lambasted by wanda gets further grief because he didnt tell his agent that the script she wrote was written by a black woman, 'and not one of them light skinned blacks, reeeal black'

Yes, jambo is the black man in the queue.

 

[matt b]

I go back and make a thoughtful comment on your post despite the intervening stream of abuse and this is the way you engage with it?

thoughtful might be pushing it, but frankly its friday afternoon, i've had a busy day, and your arguments, though couched in fancy language are rubbish and ignore the power of language, its use in different contexts etc etc. if bernard manning wasn't dead, you could be his spokesperson

 

[sufi]

hope i'm not interrupting as i can tell you're enjoying this rather under-informed speculation about what is black what is race etc.... again....

caught this article on the eve of the election which seems germane (tho not germaine )

When I was asked to appear on Today, BBC Radio 4's flagship news programme, to talk about Barack Obama and the US election, I was more than happy to do so.

But when I was asked whether Obama is considered black or mixed-race, I thought at first that I was hearing things. I simply didn't know what to say but then got angry. Not at the formidable Sarah Montague who had asked me the question, but at whoever thought the question a legitimate one.

Suddenly, I was whisked back to the language of the pulp fiction I used to read in my youth during the "blaxploitation" era of the 1970s: novels called Mandingo, Slave, and all of the other tosh that sold by the truckload and featured slaves kicking the butts of their white masters.

The question was worthy only of the pub, the blogosphere, and under the hairdryer. If the BBC had had someone "black/black British/mixed race" (or whatever the individuals might choose to call themselves) in charge of things, this would not have been given airtime.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: until the UK sees fit to make way for the wealth of black talent available gaffes like the one I walked into will continue to be the gift to bad race relations that just keeps on giving. But there is an even deeper issue here: why is it necessary to designate Obama's race at all, and even more importantly, is it possible, even desirable to go beyond it?

The answer to the first question is an easy one: the election of a man of African descent in a nation in which African blood was not only a stigma but a possible death sentence, and the right to keep things that way helped to create a civil war, is an achievement of monumental importance.

The answer to the second is more problematic, more complex. Our eyes are part of the brain and while we see what we see, it is the brain, with its millennia of conditioning that interprets what we see. That conditioning places labels on different skin colours, usually rating lighter skins at a higher level of evolution, cleanliness, intelligence and goodness.

In my time, during my Black Power youth, we made a virtue of dark skin in an attempt to overthrow centuries of stigma both with, and outside of, the black community.

Today, to some extent, the pendulum has swung the other way, with a young dark-skinned black girl telling me once that she couldn't get a date because black boys only like light-skinned and/or white girls. And so the beat goes on unto eternity, until we decide to bring a halt to it.

I'm neither a geneticist nor a scientist, but I know enough to know that the difference chromosomally between different "races" is so minuscule as to not even register. Yet we elevate or denigrate skin colour to such an extent as to imply that something magical might be occurring in the US today.

Hopefully we will witness the triumph of a hard-working, highly intelligent, focussed and in many ways extraordinary man with a few plans that just might get us out of the mire. If we can begin to see Obama in this way, we just might have a chance for a real future.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/04/race-barackobama

 

[john eden]

thoughtful might be pushing it, but frankly its friday afternoon, i've had a busy day, and your arguments, though couched in fancy language are rubbish and ignore the power of language, its use in different contexts etc etc.

Plus, I made you google Wham lyrics with my immense psychick powers.

 

[matt b]

Plus, I made you google Wham lyrics with my immense psychick powers.

the final nail in the coffin, you magicking bastard

 

[jambo]

thoughtful might be pushing it, but frankly its friday afternoon, i've had a busy day, and your arguments, though couched in fancy language are rubbish and ignore the power of language, its use in different contexts etc etc.

No, you are simply exhibiting prejudice and are unable or unwilling to see what I am actually saying. To bring the thread back to something relevant and some level of civility I gave same thoughts on 'structural inequality' as you had mentioned it. What I say is of course not the whole story, I'm sure we can agree on much of that anyway, but something that occurred to me. You don't want to expend any effort in understanding that so you mock and disparage. What do think my 'argument' is exactly? Are we arguing about something? I have not used fancy words in the slightest, if I had perhaps you would be more impressed and awed and not be so quick to dismiss. No matter.

But I hope people are taking note, the insults, prejudice, insinuations, jibes, hostility and dismissal levelled at this poster on a thread ostensibly about issues of prejudice and perception is both instructive and ironic. I do not take it personally.

 

[droid]

the final nail in the coffin, you magicking bastard

Black Magick Innit.

 

[droid]

But I hope people are taking note, the insults, prejudice, insinuations, jibes, hostility and dismissal levelled at this poster on a thread ostensibly about issues of prejudice and perception is both instructive and ironic. I do not take it personally.

Move over Kevin Barry.

 

[jambo]

Perhaps some people should have a little look at their attitudes to new arrivals. It's like a provincial rugby pub or something with all the mateyness, back slapping, in-jokes and suspicion of outsiders.

Nice post sufi.

 

[crackerjack]

But I hope people are taking note, the insults, prejudice, insinuations, jibes, hostility and dismissal levelled at this poster on a thread ostensibly about issues of prejudice and perception is both instructive and ironic. I do not take it personally.

Jesus H Christ.*









* No insults, prejudice, insinuations, jibes, hostility or dismissal intentionally levelled at Christians, or theists of any other kind.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But when I was asked whether Obama is considered black or mixed-race, I thought at first that I was hearing things. I simply didn't know what to say but then got angry. Not at the formidable Sarah Montague who had asked me the question, but at whoever thought the question a legitimate one.

You know, I just can't see why this should provoke such outrage. What is it that's so offensive about it? It can't be that it merely acknowledges the man's heritage, as if that "shouldn't be an issue in this day and age", because the fact that he polled 97% of the black vote in America suggests it certainly is an issue to African-Americans, doesn't it? OK, so the Democrats generally have a better record on race relations than the Reps, but when was the last time a Democratic candidate got 97% of the black vote? When was the last time any candidate got 97% of any one ethnic group's vote?

 

[matt b]

. You don't want to expend any effort in understanding that so you mock and disparage. What do think my 'argument' is exactly? Are we arguing about something? I have not used fancy words in the slightest, if I had perhaps you would be more impressed and awed and not be so quick to dismiss. No matter.

it seems to me, that you think people should be able to call other people whatever YOU (bollocks the original mistake changes what I waspointing out entirely. Sorry) want, as this will somehow overcome historical structural inequalities. anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of PC language fascist.

i don't agree with this. however, if you are not arguing this, then please clearly state your position.

your use of words does not to my mind at least aid the clarity of the points you are trying to make. maybe that's where all the confusion lies. i don't think claiming that i am prejudiced towards you helps matters.

my tip would be, don't wander into a discussion forum with a solid membership who have, over time come to an informal understanding of how to discuss stuff in a meaningful way (sometimes) and then give yourself RSI in an attempt to get yourself noticed.

of course there will be an element of piss taking if you do this, esp. if you start bandying about 'PC gone mad' claims. it's childish

 

[fokse vektaire xeven]

'kin ell you've been here a week

that's what you think

 

[matt b]

that's what you think

crikey. Ian town!

 

[jambo]

it seems to me, that you think people should be able to call other people whatever they want, as this will somehow overcome historical structural inequalities.

I think refusing to accept that historical structural inequalities must necessarily be a limitation on achievement and possibility can help overcome them. That's what I said.

I also said that we may sometimes describe people in ways other than the way they would describe themselves. It's not always offensive, sometimes it is.

I wasn't necessarily drawing a link between the two, although I guess now you mention it they are not entirely unrelated. But maybe you should stick to reading what is said.

anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of PC language fascist.

Really, have I said this? It was about the issue with Berlusconi using a term and a criticism of that as not being politically correct. You've inflated this.

i don't think claiming that i am prejudiced towards you helps matters.

That's how it looks from the drastic misreading of what I've typed.

my tip would be, don't wander into a discussion forum with a solid membership who have, over time come to an informal understanding of how to discuss stuff in a meaningful way (sometimes) and then give yourself RSI in an attempt to get yourself noticed.

I'm giving myself RSI in an effort not to be misrepresented.

of course there will be an element of piss taking if you do this, esp. if you start bandying about 'PC gone mad' claims. it's childish

Taking the piss when points are thoroughly misunderstood or dismissed is rude and childish.

I used 'PC high ground' in an informal way. It just means aiming for the moral high ground, being more 'politically correct' than someone else. If 'you' are taking a position that a certain use of language is unacceptable then this is a way of describing what you are doing.

 

[crackerjack]

You know, I just can't see why this should provoke such outrage. What is it that's so offensive about it? It can't be that it merely acknowledges the man's heritage, as if that "shouldn't be an issue in this day and age", because the fact that he polled 97% of the black vote in America suggests it certainly is an issue to African-Americans, doesn't it? OK, so the Democrats generally have a better record on race relations than the Reps, but when was the last time a Democratic candidate got 97% of the black vote? When was the last time any candidate got 97% of any one ethnic group's vote?

The Dems generally get around 90% of the black vote.

 

[Mr. Tea]

The Dems generally get around 90% of the black vote.

OK, fair enough. But later she asks:

But there is an even deeper issue here: why is it necessary to designate Obama's race at all, and even more importantly, is it possible, even desirable to go beyond it?

and answers herself:

The answer to the first question is an easy one: the election of a man of African descent in a nation in which African blood was not only a stigma but a possible death sentence, and the right to keep things that way helped to create a civil war, is an achievement of monumental importance.

So the colour of Obama's skin clearly *is* significant. Why, then, the anger over the question as to whether he's black or mixed race?

 

[crackerjack]

I think refusing to accept that historical structural inequalities must necessarily be a limitation on achievement and possibility can help overcome them. That's what I said.

I also said that we may sometimes describe people in ways other than the way they would describe themselves. It's not always offensive, sometimes it is.

I wasn't necessarily drawing a link between the two, although I guess now you mention it they are not entirely unrelated. But maybe you should stick to reading what is said.

Really, have I said this? It was about the issue with Berlusconi using a term and a criticism of that as not being politically correct. You've inflated this.

That's how it looks from the drastic misreading of what I've typed.

I'm giving myself RSI in an effort not to be misrepresented.

Taking the piss when points are thoroughly misunderstood or dismissed is rude and childish.

I used 'PC high ground' in an informal way. It just means aiming for the moral high ground, being more 'politically correct' than someone else. If 'you' are taking a position that a certain use of language is unacceptable then this is a way of describing what you are doing.

Matt tries to explain politely why you're getting the responses you are, and you just come back with more of the same.

Enough of the martyrdom, please.

This began because you started in with the PC accusations - a loaded term, as you must be aware - since when you've been acting like the kid in the playground who keeps getting his lunch money nicked. Either dish it out and take it, or do neither. Don't complain when arsey posts meet with arsey responses.

 

[nomadthethird]

really? given berlusconi's record, it wouldn't suprise me. what's your take on jim davidson's 'hilarious' chalky white character?



why's this pc highground of which you speak? do you not agree with the idea of treating people equally/ understanding structural inequality etc etc?

Yeah, it's funny, in the U.S. all of the "PC" mudslinging stopped around 2000 when people realized it was meaningless and counterproductive. Now everyone's moved on to bitching about hipsters.

 

[nomadthethird]

Perhaps some people should have a little look at their attitudes to new arrivals. It's like a provincial rugby pub or something with all the mateyness, back slapping, in-jokes and suspicion of outsiders.

Nice post sufi.

You're exactly right. That's what this place is. Be careful or you may piss off the "oldest" posters and they'll coup, and try to find some way to annoy you out of existence with their self-righteous crusade to "stay on topic" or "keep things civil."

Thin skinned people and the internet, a match made in heaven!