Do hyphenated-Americans contribute to racism?

[Rikurzhen]

What's "plagiarized", tampon boy? Can one plagiarize oneself? Maybe if you're John Fogerty...

I copied my own post from a week ago, that's all it is. The specific literary references have yet to be challenged, so they stand unmolested. And revealingly they still stand undiscussed. A troll found the same reference somewhere else and he's hung up on shiny objects.

I must say it was one of the more bizarre deflections I've ever seen, a poster trying to call another poster a "Nazi" for citing books from 1897 to 1906 -- long before Nazis ever existed, before even World War One started. Yeah that makes sense.

Still butthurt that you thought Iron Maiden invented the triplet are we?

What a maroon.

Awwwwww, did widdle Pogo get his feewings hurt now?

Is he gonna whine now about people disliking his horribly crap-ass jokes?

Will he plagiarize someone else's work, just to try to make himself sound smarter than he really is?

We're on to you, you little whiny plagiarizing punk *****.

Look out.

Lift a finger and break a synapse sweat to the citation itself; there's a link back to the post where it came from. Dumbass.

Dismissed.

You playing dumb is not convincing anyone. I've explained your crime to you many times now, you plagiarized all of the non-translated text. Even if we give a dishonest man like you the benefit of the doubt on your claim that you translated the French text into English, that still leaves you plagiarizing all of the commentary surrounding that translated text. That's what you stole from that Nazi website. You've been caught.

Here's a life lesson for you - if you're going to insult people, like me, then be scrupulously clean and honest, because I'm going to return fire by looking for your weakness. If you had just been a civil person, then I would have let your plagiarism pass. You're like a whore who is raising a stink about the virtue of a virgin who just had sex with her fiance. That behavior gets people's attention.

Go read that Nazi website, it's a word for word duplicate of what you "claim" to have written.

 

[shart_attack]

What's "plagiarized", tampon boy? Can one plagiarize oneself? Maybe if you're John Fogerty...

I copied my own post from a week ago, that's all it is. The specific literary references have yet to be challenged, so they stand unmolested. And revealingly they still stand undiscussed. A troll found the same reference somewhere else and he's hung up on shiny objects.

I must say it was one of the more bizarre deflections I've ever seen, a poster trying to call another poster a "Nazi" for citing books from 1897 to 1906 -- long before Nazis ever existed, before even World War One started. Yeah that makes sense.

Still butthurt that you thought Iron Maiden invented the triplet are we?

What a maroon.

Awwwwww, did widdle Pogo get his feewings hurt now?

Is he gonna whine now about people disliking his horribly crap-ass jokes?

Will he plagiarize someone else's work, just to try to make himself sound smarter than he really is?

We're on to you, you little whiny plagiarizing punk *****.

Look out.

Lift a finger and break a synapse sweat to the citation itself; there's a link back to the post where it came from. Dumbass.

Dismissed.

You playing dumb is not convincing anyone. I've explained your crime to you many times now, you plagiarized all of the non-translated text. Even if we give a dishonest man like you the benefit of the doubt on your claim that you translated the French text into English, that still leaves you plagiarizing all of the commentary surrounding that translated text. That's what you stole from that Nazi website. You've been caught.

This may be the first time I've ever seen anyone have the right to say that our boy Pogo is "playing dumb".

That's because he really is dumb, see.

All serial plagiarists are.

Here's a life lesson for you - if you're going to insult people, like me, then be scrupulously clean and honest, because I'm going to return fire by looking for your weakness. If you had just been a civil person, then I would have let your plagiarism pass. You're like a whore who is raising a stink about the virtue of a virgin who just had sex with her fiance. That behavior gets people's attention.

Go read that Nazi website, it's a word for word duplicate of what you "claim" to have written.

You are like a shark.

I like that.

Bust 'im up, brutha.

 

[alan1]

Do you not know what the term Afro means?

A hair style made popular by American Blacks but what has that got to do with this conversation?

You silly white boy. White Africans would be called by the country they come from Americans if they so desired. For example if they come from Tanzania the would be called Tanzanian Americans. They could never be African Americans until there is a country called Africa in Africa.

If you want to get technical, since there are no countries named America or Africa, we are talking continents not countries with African-American.

That is actually a pretty interesting point. It can even be taken a step further, as there is no continent called America. There are two continents, one is North America and the other is South America, then there is that little bit of land betwixt the two called Central America.

I'm curious and don't know the answer, but do people of African (continent) descent that live in Canada, Mexico or any part of South America or Central America call themselves "African-American"?

 

[BillyP]

African-American is just a PC term to denote a black person. Geez, it has nothing to do with Africa, and 99% of US blacks have never even been there and most probably couldn't find it on a map if you spotted them the a, f, r, i and c.

 

[Rikurzhen]

What's "plagiarized", tampon boy? Can one plagiarize oneself? Maybe if you're John Fogerty...

I copied my own post from a week ago, that's all it is. The specific literary references have yet to be challenged, so they stand unmolested. And revealingly they still stand undiscussed. A troll found the same reference somewhere else and he's hung up on shiny objects.

I must say it was one of the more bizarre deflections I've ever seen, a poster trying to call another poster a "Nazi" for citing books from 1897 to 1906 -- long before Nazis ever existed, before even World War One started. Yeah that makes sense.

Still butthurt that you thought Iron Maiden invented the triplet are we?

What a maroon.

Awwwwww, did widdle Pogo get his feewings hurt now?

Is he gonna whine now about people disliking his horribly crap-ass jokes?

Will he plagiarize someone else's work, just to try to make himself sound smarter than he really is?

We're on to you, you little whiny plagiarizing punk *****.

Look out.

Lift a finger and break a synapse sweat to the citation itself; there's a link back to the post where it came from. Dumbass.

Dismissed.

You playing dumb is not convincing anyone. I've explained your crime to you many times now, you plagiarized all of the non-translated text. Even if we give a dishonest man like you the benefit of the doubt on your claim that you translated the French text into English, that still leaves you plagiarizing all of the commentary surrounding that translated text. That's what you stole from that Nazi website. You've been caught.

This may be the first time I've ever seen anyone have the right to say that our boy Pogo is "playing dumb".

That's because he really is dumb, see.

All serial plagiarists are.

Here's a life lesson for you - if you're going to insult people, like me, then be scrupulously clean and honest, because I'm going to return fire by looking for your weakness. If you had just been a civil person, then I would have let your plagiarism pass. You're like a whore who is raising a stink about the virtue of a virgin who just had sex with her fiance. That behavior gets people's attention.

Go read that Nazi website, it's a word for word duplicate of what you "claim" to have written.

You are like a shark.

I like that.

Bust 'im up, brutha.

We started off having a nice civil discussion about Mathbud's thesis on differences. Pogo came in all autistic like and was belaboring the obvious and I tried to play peacemaker and be diplomatic. I understood Mathbud's point from the get-go but like a dog with a bone, Pogo wouldn't let go of his obvious point. You see, I didn't know that he was dumb, I thought there was actually something there, some fine point or nuance that he was building up to, but that nuance never materialized. It was dawning on me that there was no there there.

His being dumb isn't really the problem though, it's his playing dumb on purpose, his constant focus on his translation and the willful decision to pretend that that's what the issue is about. I've made it very clear in a number of posts that it's all of the other text that he plagiarized from a NAZI website that is the issue but he just ignores that and continues to point to the translations and his links to old books. Can someone really be that dumb? That's why I think he's just playing dumb - better to have people think you're dumb than a liar and plagiarist.

 

[Pogo]

What's "plagiarized", tampon boy? Can one plagiarize oneself? Maybe if you're John Fogerty...

I copied my own post from a week ago, that's all it is. The specific literary references have yet to be challenged, so they stand unmolested. And revealingly they still stand undiscussed. A troll found the same reference somewhere else and he's hung up on shiny objects.

I must say it was one of the more bizarre deflections I've ever seen, a poster trying to call another poster a "Nazi" for citing books from 1897 to 1906 -- long before Nazis ever existed, before even World War One started. Yeah that makes sense.

Still butthurt that you thought Iron Maiden invented the triplet are we?

What a maroon.

Awwwwww, did widdle Pogo get his feewings hurt now?

Is he gonna whine now about people disliking his horribly crap-ass jokes?

Will he plagiarize someone else's work, just to try to make himself sound smarter than he really is?

We're on to you, you little whiny plagiarizing punk *****.

Look out.

Lift a finger and break a synapse sweat to the citation itself; there's a link back to the post where it came from. Dumbass.

Dismissed.

You playing dumb is not convincing anyone. I've explained your crime to you many times now, you plagiarized all of the non-translated text. Even if we give a dishonest man like you the benefit of the doubt on your claim that you translated the French text into English, that still leaves you plagiarizing all of the commentary surrounding that translated text. That's what you stole from that Nazi website. You've been caught.

This may be the first time I've ever seen anyone have the right to say that our boy Pogo is "playing dumb".

That's because he really is dumb, see.

All serial plagiarists are.

Here's a life lesson for you - if you're going to insult people, like me, then be scrupulously clean and honest, because I'm going to return fire by looking for your weakness. If you had just been a civil person, then I would have let your plagiarism pass. You're like a whore who is raising a stink about the virtue of a virgin who just had sex with her fiance. That behavior gets people's attention.

Go read that Nazi website, it's a word for word duplicate of what you "claim" to have written.

You are like a shark.

I like that.

Bust 'im up, brutha.

Look dickhead... I don't know or care what troll boy thinks he came up with. Apparently he's got a "Nazi website"? BFD, maybe he wants a cookie. The fact remains my citations are valid, and linked, and properly attributed -- I never claimed to have written them. That he found somebody else using the same citation is meaningless; the citations themselves were the point.

This ain't my first internet rodeo on this topic or this point; check out my extensive posts on the KKK right here on this site. I inherited a small library on all of this from an older cousin who was also a writer. I used to publish his work, and when he passed away I took over the space and started my own political blog. That was ten years ago and I was writing well before that, so I have a lot of content out there. It gets quoted sometimes. Who cares? I have no control of that, nor is a ******* website blurb important.

You don't "plagiarize" a ******* website blurb; you plagiarize a book, or an article, or a piece of music. I've found both of the latter two of my work on the internets in the past, without accreditation, including website blurbs setting up a point, such as this. Such a blurb isn't "creative writing" any more than this post is. Not important. But I have never written for, or even seen, a "Nazi website". In fact I've never written anything for anybody else that didn't physically come off a printing press. Not on political topics.

ALL of that aside, because it was never the point --- this is:

--- exactly HOW does the fact that some troll finds (cookie cookie) the same references on some "Nazi site" .... somehow change the nature or validity of those references? Are the references genuine, or are they not? Are they attributed or are they not? Do they make the point, or do they not?

They are, they are, and they do. And they're linked, and fully credited, and there is no dispute. This is the question I kept putting to this asshole the other day, a puerile poison-the-well fallacy from which he ran away rather than admit to it. He is in effect Arnold Horshack, frantically waving his hand in the air crying "Mista Kotter! Mista Kotter! I got a Nazi website saying the same thing, that means he's a Nazi so that invalidates his points so I don't have to address them!" His ploy was to put up a smokescreen in some kind of desperation to obscure the references I posted. They must have been more significant than I thought. But it's a fatal fallacy.

And you fell for it. Your role is to stand in the corner waving pom-poms. He at least participated in this thread before going off on this tangent. You haven't contributed jack shit.

Both of y'all need to find yer big boy pants. The citations stand; they are valid and attributed; the links work. This trollism deflection bullshit doesn't.

"Plagiarism" my ass. Learn your terms and grow the **** up.

 

[Pogo]

African-American is just a PC term to denote a black person. Geez, it has nothing to do with Africa, and 99% of US blacks have never even been there and most probably couldn't find it on a map if you spotted them the a, f, r, i and c.

I think it was invented as a device to get away from the previous terms that were highly charged from the emotion of the struggles that went into achieving social equality. It's easy to look with disdain on terminology that has run its course and was fresh when invented in its time. At that time there had been so much angst and suffering over our racial history that any term at all was destined to be loaded.

IOW "African American" offered a dignity that had not been available prior to that point. It doesn't mean you're from Africa; it means your ancestors were. Unlike Brazil (see next post), direct reference to color could overheat a conversational exchange because of that history. "Negro" and "black", as well as a few disparaging terms, refer to color. "African American" doesn't.

 

[Pogo]

Do you not know what the term Afro means?

A hair style made popular by American Blacks but what has that got to do with this conversation?

You silly white boy. White Africans would be called by the country they come from Americans if they so desired. For example if they come from Tanzania the would be called Tanzanian Americans. They could never be African Americans until there is a country called Africa in Africa.

If you want to get technical, since there are no countries named America or Africa, we are talking continents not countries with African-American.

That is actually a pretty interesting point. It can even be taken a step further, as there is no continent called America. There are two continents, one is North America and the other is South America, then there is that little bit of land betwixt the two called Central America.

I'm curious and don't know the answer, but do people of African (continent) descent that live in Canada, Mexico or any part of South America or Central America call themselves "African-American"?

Yup, that's true; there are some 28 countries in "America", yet we claim the adjective for ourselves.

I don't know about the rest of SA but in Brazil, where most of the African influx came in, it's common to refer to a person by color, e.g. "moreno/morena". One might call one's sweetheart "nega". It's a term of endearment rather than anything insulting, even though it refers to color. The difference is all in the historical baggage.

 

[Rikurzhen]

What's "plagiarized", tampon boy? Can one plagiarize oneself? Maybe if you're John Fogerty...

I copied my own post from a week ago, that's all it is. The specific literary references have yet to be challenged, so they stand unmolested. And revealingly they still stand undiscussed. A troll found the same reference somewhere else and he's hung up on shiny objects.

I must say it was one of the more bizarre deflections I've ever seen, a poster trying to call another poster a "Nazi" for citing books from 1897 to 1906 -- long before Nazis ever existed, before even World War One started. Yeah that makes sense.

Still butthurt that you thought Iron Maiden invented the triplet are we?

What a maroon.

Awwwwww, did widdle Pogo get his feewings hurt now?

Is he gonna whine now about people disliking his horribly crap-ass jokes?

Will he plagiarize someone else's work, just to try to make himself sound smarter than he really is?

We're on to you, you little whiny plagiarizing punk *****.

Look out.

Lift a finger and break a synapse sweat to the citation itself; there's a link back to the post where it came from. Dumbass.

Dismissed.

You playing dumb is not convincing anyone. I've explained your crime to you many times now, you plagiarized all of the non-translated text. Even if we give a dishonest man like you the benefit of the doubt on your claim that you translated the French text into English, that still leaves you plagiarizing all of the commentary surrounding that translated text. That's what you stole from that Nazi website. You've been caught.

This may be the first time I've ever seen anyone have the right to say that our boy Pogo is "playing dumb".

That's because he really is dumb, see.

All serial plagiarists are.

Here's a life lesson for you - if you're going to insult people, like me, then be scrupulously clean and honest, because I'm going to return fire by looking for your weakness. If you had just been a civil person, then I would have let your plagiarism pass. You're like a whore who is raising a stink about the virtue of a virgin who just had sex with her fiance. That behavior gets people's attention.

Go read that Nazi website, it's a word for word duplicate of what you "claim" to have written.

You are like a shark.

I like that.

Bust 'im up, brutha.

Look dickhead... I don't know or care what troll boy thinks he came up with. Apparently he's got a "Nazi website"? BFD, maybe he wants a cookie. The fact remains my citations are valid, and linked, and properly attributed -- I never claimed to have written them. That he found somebody else using the same citation is meaningless; the citations themselves were the point.

This ain't my first internet rodeo on this topic or this point; check out my extensive posts on the KKK right here on this site. I inherited a small library on all of this from an older cousin who was also a writer. I used to publish his work, and when he passed away I took over the space and started my own political blog. That was ten years ago and I was writing well before that, so I have a lot of content out there. It gets quoted sometimes. Who cares? I have no control of that, nor is a ******* website blurb important.

You don't "plagiarize" a ******* website blurb; you plagiarize a book, or an article, or a piece of music. I've found both of the latter two of my work on the internets in the past, without accreditation, including website blurbs setting up a point, such as this. Such a blurb isn't "creative writing" any more than this post is. Not important. But I have never written for, or even seen, a "Nazi website". In fact I've never written anything for anybody else that didn't physically come off a printing press. Not on political topics.

ALL of that aside, because it was never the point --- this is:

--- exactly HOW does the fact that some troll finds (cookie cookie) the same references on some "Nazi site" .... somehow change the nature or validity of those references? Are the references genuine, or are they not? Are they attributed or are they not? Do they make the point, or do they not?

They are, they are, and they do. And they're linked, and fully credited, and there is no dispute. This is the question I kept putting to this asshole the other day, a puerile poison-the-well fallacy from which he ran away rather than admit to it. He is in effect Arnold Horshack, frantically waving his hand in the air crying "Mista Kotter! Mista Kotter! I got a Nazi website saying the same thing, that means he's a Nazi so that invalidates his points so I don't have to address them!" His ploy was to put up a smokescreen in some kind of desperation to obscure the references I posted. They must have been more significant than I thought. But it's a fatal fallacy.

And you fell for it. Your role is to stand in the corner waving pom-poms. He at least participated in this thread before going off on this tangent. You haven't contributed jack shit.

Both of y'all need to find yer big boy pants. The citations stand; they are valid and attributed; the links work. This trollism deflection bullshit doesn't.

"Plagiarism" my ass. Learn your terms and grow the **** up.

You "wrote" the following in first person:

I find pensée raciste (French for “racist thought”) and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto (a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people in southern France) for the year 1906 . . .​

The NAZI website has the very same text as well as everything else I referenced above plus more at the site. Look both you and the NAZI website even have the same parenthetical comment.

I find pensée raciste (French for “racist thought”) and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto (a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people in southern France) for the year 1906.​

The links to the books aren't what I'm talking about, I'm focusing on the plagiarism. Granted, you fixed things up a bit here and there, added some links which weren't in the NAZI text.

When you wrote "I find pensée raciste . . " that's not actually you writing that, now is it?

The above writing CANNOT be found at your links. DID YOU WRITE THAT OR COPY IT AND PASS IT OFF AS YOUR OWN WRITING?

 

[BillyP]

African-American is just a PC term to denote a black person. Geez, it has nothing to do with Africa, and 99% of US blacks have never even been there and most probably couldn't find it on a map if you spotted them the a, f, r, i and c.

I think it was invented as a device to get away from the previous terms that were highly charged from the emotion of the struggles that went into achieving social equality. It's easy to look with disdain on terminology that has run its course and was fresh when invented in its time. At that time there had been so much angst and suffering over our racial history that any term at all was destined to be loaded.

IOW "African American" offered a dignity that had not been available prior to that point. It doesn't mean you're from Africa; it means your ancestors were. Unlike Brazil (see next post), direct reference to color could overheat a conversational exchange because of that history. "Negro" and "black", as well as a few disparaging terms, refer to color. "African American" doesn't.

African-American MEANS a black American. It refers not to someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol), but to someone in the US of colour. Answer me this: Isn't a white person BORN in Africa who comes over and gets his American citizenship an African-American? If you say yes, then you don't understand what it means, and if you say no, then you're admitting that African-American refers to someone who is black. Pretty simple really.

 

[Pogo]

African-American is just a PC term to denote a black person. Geez, it has nothing to do with Africa, and 99% of US blacks have never even been there and most probably couldn't find it on a map if you spotted them the a, f, r, i and c.

I think it was invented as a device to get away from the previous terms that were highly charged from the emotion of the struggles that went into achieving social equality. It's easy to look with disdain on terminology that has run its course and was fresh when invented in its time. At that time there had been so much angst and suffering over our racial history that any term at all was destined to be loaded.

IOW "African American" offered a dignity that had not been available prior to that point. It doesn't mean you're from Africa; it means your ancestors were. Unlike Brazil (see next post), direct reference to color could overheat a conversational exchange because of that history. "Negro" and "black", as well as a few disparaging terms, refer to color. "African American" doesn't.

African-American MEANS a black American. It refers not to someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol), but to someone in the US of colour. Answer me this: Isn't a white person BORN in Africa who comes over and gets his American citizenship an African-American? If you say yes, then you don't understand what it means, and if you say no, then you're admitting that African-American refers to someone who is black. Pretty simple really.

Sure it does. I'm explaining why it does and why we use a term that's color-nonspecific -- because any reference to color, at the time the term "African American" was invented, was a lit fuse.

And it still is .... just look at how some idiots around here cry "racist" when color is merely mentioned without any value judgment. That's a perfect illustration of why it was invented at the time in the first place. That issue hasn't yet left the social structure; it's still hanging on.

Does "African American" function perfectly in a literal sense? No. It's a circumlocution designed to sidestep the controversy attached to direct mention of color, which still carries its latent subconscious definitions of inferiority.

someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol)

That's true, in a long term sense, but you're taking it too literally. Has to be seen in context, the point being to allude to origins without touching on color. If you have another way to do that, bring it on.

 

[BillyP]

African-American is just a PC term to denote a black person. Geez, it has nothing to do with Africa, and 99% of US blacks have never even been there and most probably couldn't find it on a map if you spotted them the a, f, r, i and c.

I think it was invented as a device to get away from the previous terms that were highly charged from the emotion of the struggles that went into achieving social equality. It's easy to look with disdain on terminology that has run its course and was fresh when invented in its time. At that time there had been so much angst and suffering over our racial history that any term at all was destined to be loaded.

IOW "African American" offered a dignity that had not been available prior to that point. It doesn't mean you're from Africa; it means your ancestors were. Unlike Brazil (see next post), direct reference to color could overheat a conversational exchange because of that history. "Negro" and "black", as well as a few disparaging terms, refer to color. "African American" doesn't.

African-American MEANS a black American. It refers not to someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol), but to someone in the US of colour. Answer me this: Isn't a white person BORN in Africa who comes over and gets his American citizenship an African-American? If you say yes, then you don't understand what it means, and if you say no, then you're admitting that African-American refers to someone who is black. Pretty simple really.

Sure it does. I'm explaining why it does and why we use a term that's color-nonspecific -- because any reference to color, at the time the term "African American" was invented, was a lit fuse.

And it still is .... just look at how some idiots around here cry "racist" when color is merely mentioned without any value judgment. That's a perfect illustration of why it was invented at the time in the first place. That issue hasn't yet left the social structure; it's still hanging on.

Does "African American" function perfectly in a literal sense? No. It's a circumlocution designed to sidestep the controversy attached to direct mention of color, which still carries its latent subconscious definitions of inferiority.

someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol)

That's true, in a long term sense, but you're taking it too literally. Has to be seen in context, the point being to allude to origins without touching on color. If you have another way to do that, bring it on.

Black people is the best term. I don't go all ******* apeshit because someone calls me a white guy, you know why? Because I ******* AM!!! lol! Caucasian works too. But I know negroid doesn't work for blacks, so it's blacks. Anyways, me calling them black (with no malice intended at all) is way nicer than them calling each other nigga.

 

[Pogo]

African-American is just a PC term to denote a black person. Geez, it has nothing to do with Africa, and 99% of US blacks have never even been there and most probably couldn't find it on a map if you spotted them the a, f, r, i and c.

I think it was invented as a device to get away from the previous terms that were highly charged from the emotion of the struggles that went into achieving social equality. It's easy to look with disdain on terminology that has run its course and was fresh when invented in its time. At that time there had been so much angst and suffering over our racial history that any term at all was destined to be loaded.

IOW "African American" offered a dignity that had not been available prior to that point. It doesn't mean you're from Africa; it means your ancestors were. Unlike Brazil (see next post), direct reference to color could overheat a conversational exchange because of that history. "Negro" and "black", as well as a few disparaging terms, refer to color. "African American" doesn't.

African-American MEANS a black American. It refers not to someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol), but to someone in the US of colour. Answer me this: Isn't a white person BORN in Africa who comes over and gets his American citizenship an African-American? If you say yes, then you don't understand what it means, and if you say no, then you're admitting that African-American refers to someone who is black. Pretty simple really.

Sure it does. I'm explaining why it does and why we use a term that's color-nonspecific -- because any reference to color, at the time the term "African American" was invented, was a lit fuse.

And it still is .... just look at how some idiots around here cry "racist" when color is merely mentioned without any value judgment. That's a perfect illustration of why it was invented at the time in the first place. That issue hasn't yet left the social structure; it's still hanging on.

Does "African American" function perfectly in a literal sense? No. It's a circumlocution designed to sidestep the controversy attached to direct mention of color, which still carries its latent subconscious definitions of inferiority.

someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol)

That's true, in a long term sense, but you're taking it too literally. Has to be seen in context, the point being to allude to origins without touching on color. If you have another way to do that, bring it on.

Black people is the best term. I don't go all ******* apeshit because someone calls me a white guy, you know why? Because I ******* AM!!! lol! Caucasian works too. But I know negroid doesn't work for blacks, so it's blacks. Anyways, me calling them black (with no malice intended at all) is way nicer than them calling each other nigga.

Then you're ignoring the context of experience and infusing an egocentrism i.e. assuming your experience is everyone's experience.

Words and terms don't exist in free space on their own. They have histories. And calling up a word heavily charged with one conjures that history.

If words DO exist without context, then you have no complaint about "African American". Can't have it both ways; either they have context, or they do not.

Examples:
"*****"
"c**t"
"Dago"/"Wop"
"Gook"

-- you get the idea. Note that even this site itself won't print the second one.

 

[BillyP]

African-American is just a PC term to denote a black person. Geez, it has nothing to do with Africa, and 99% of US blacks have never even been there and most probably couldn't find it on a map if you spotted them the a, f, r, i and c.

I think it was invented as a device to get away from the previous terms that were highly charged from the emotion of the struggles that went into achieving social equality. It's easy to look with disdain on terminology that has run its course and was fresh when invented in its time. At that time there had been so much angst and suffering over our racial history that any term at all was destined to be loaded.

IOW "African American" offered a dignity that had not been available prior to that point. It doesn't mean you're from Africa; it means your ancestors were. Unlike Brazil (see next post), direct reference to color could overheat a conversational exchange because of that history. "Negro" and "black", as well as a few disparaging terms, refer to color. "African American" doesn't.

African-American MEANS a black American. It refers not to someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol), but to someone in the US of colour. Answer me this: Isn't a white person BORN in Africa who comes over and gets his American citizenship an African-American? If you say yes, then you don't understand what it means, and if you say no, then you're admitting that African-American refers to someone who is black. Pretty simple really.

Sure it does. I'm explaining why it does and why we use a term that's color-nonspecific -- because any reference to color, at the time the term "African American" was invented, was a lit fuse.

And it still is .... just look at how some idiots around here cry "racist" when color is merely mentioned without any value judgment. That's a perfect illustration of why it was invented at the time in the first place. That issue hasn't yet left the social structure; it's still hanging on.

Does "African American" function perfectly in a literal sense? No. It's a circumlocution designed to sidestep the controversy attached to direct mention of color, which still carries its latent subconscious definitions of inferiority.

someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol)

That's true, in a long term sense, but you're taking it too literally. Has to be seen in context, the point being to allude to origins without touching on color. If you have another way to do that, bring it on.

Black people is the best term. I don't go all ******* apeshit because someone calls me a white guy, you know why? Because I ******* AM!!! lol! Caucasian works too. But I know negroid doesn't work for blacks, so it's blacks. Anyways, me calling them black (with no malice intended at all) is way nicer than them calling each other nigga.

Then you're ignoring the context of experience and infusing an egocentrism i.e. assuming your experience is everyone's experience.

Words and terms don't exist in free space on their own. They have histories. And calling up a word heavily charged with one conjures that history.

If words DO exist without context, then you have no complaint about "African American". Can't have it both ways; either they have context, or they do not.

Examples:
"*****"
"c**t"
"Dago"/"Wop"
"Gook"

-- you get the idea. Note that even this site itself won't print the second one.

Sorry but black isn't on the same level as wop or dago. When I talk among friends, nobody ever says African-American. Ever. They all say black. And no, it's not a Stormfront get together, lol.

 

[Pogo]

African-American is just a PC term to denote a black person. Geez, it has nothing to do with Africa, and 99% of US blacks have never even been there and most probably couldn't find it on a map if you spotted them the a, f, r, i and c.

I think it was invented as a device to get away from the previous terms that were highly charged from the emotion of the struggles that went into achieving social equality. It's easy to look with disdain on terminology that has run its course and was fresh when invented in its time. At that time there had been so much angst and suffering over our racial history that any term at all was destined to be loaded.

IOW "African American" offered a dignity that had not been available prior to that point. It doesn't mean you're from Africa; it means your ancestors were. Unlike Brazil (see next post), direct reference to color could overheat a conversational exchange because of that history. "Negro" and "black", as well as a few disparaging terms, refer to color. "African American" doesn't.

African-American MEANS a black American. It refers not to someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol), but to someone in the US of colour. Answer me this: Isn't a white person BORN in Africa who comes over and gets his American citizenship an African-American? If you say yes, then you don't understand what it means, and if you say no, then you're admitting that African-American refers to someone who is black. Pretty simple really.

Sure it does. I'm explaining why it does and why we use a term that's color-nonspecific -- because any reference to color, at the time the term "African American" was invented, was a lit fuse.

And it still is .... just look at how some idiots around here cry "racist" when color is merely mentioned without any value judgment. That's a perfect illustration of why it was invented at the time in the first place. That issue hasn't yet left the social structure; it's still hanging on.

Does "African American" function perfectly in a literal sense? No. It's a circumlocution designed to sidestep the controversy attached to direct mention of color, which still carries its latent subconscious definitions of inferiority.

someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol)

That's true, in a long term sense, but you're taking it too literally. Has to be seen in context, the point being to allude to origins without touching on color. If you have another way to do that, bring it on.

Black people is the best term. I don't go all ******* apeshit because someone calls me a white guy, you know why? Because I ******* AM!!! lol! Caucasian works too. But I know negroid doesn't work for blacks, so it's blacks. Anyways, me calling them black (with no malice intended at all) is way nicer than them calling each other nigga.

Then you're ignoring the context of experience and infusing an egocentrism i.e. assuming your experience is everyone's experience.

Words and terms don't exist in free space on their own. They have histories. And calling up a word heavily charged with one conjures that history.

If words DO exist without context, then you have no complaint about "African American". Can't have it both ways; either they have context, or they do not.

Examples:
"*****"
"c**t"
"Dago"/"Wop"
"Gook"

-- you get the idea. Note that even this site itself won't print the second one.

Sorry but black isn't on the same level as wop or dago. When I talk among friends, nobody ever says African-American. Ever. They all say black. And no, it's not a Stormfront get together, lol.

Isn't it?
How many of these friends are black?

Would you address, say, your female co-worker as "hey c**t"? If not -- why not? Just a word, right?

 

[House]

Would you address, say, your female co-worker as "hey c**t"? If not -- why not? Just a word, right?

If she's a ****, I will.

Are you saying the very color black is derogatory in nature? That's the root of bigotry, right there. True acceptance of a person means the color of their skin is irrelevant to their character and/or worth, not that it doesn't exist.

Unless a ************ is from Africa, he/she ain't African-ANYTHING.

 

[Mac1958]

Would you address, say, your female co-worker as "hey c**t"? If not -- why not? Just a word, right?

If she's a ****, I will.

Are you saying the very color black is derogatory in nature? That's the root of bigotry, right there. True acceptance of a person means the color of their skin is irrelevant to their character and/or worth, not that it doesn't exist.

Unless a ************ is from Africa, he/she ain't African-ANYTHING.

The first thing a member of the PC Police notices is the color of a person's skin.

All of their subsequent behavior relating to that person is predicated on that determination.

Character is irrelevant.

.

 

[BillyP]

African-American is just a PC term to denote a black person. Geez, it has nothing to do with Africa, and 99% of US blacks have never even been there and most probably couldn't find it on a map if you spotted them the a, f, r, i and c.

I think it was invented as a device to get away from the previous terms that were highly charged from the emotion of the struggles that went into achieving social equality. It's easy to look with disdain on terminology that has run its course and was fresh when invented in its time. At that time there had been so much angst and suffering over our racial history that any term at all was destined to be loaded.

IOW "African American" offered a dignity that had not been available prior to that point. It doesn't mean you're from Africa; it means your ancestors were. Unlike Brazil (see next post), direct reference to color could overheat a conversational exchange because of that history. "Negro" and "black", as well as a few disparaging terms, refer to color. "African American" doesn't.

African-American MEANS a black American. It refers not to someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol), but to someone in the US of colour. Answer me this: Isn't a white person BORN in Africa who comes over and gets his American citizenship an African-American? If you say yes, then you don't understand what it means, and if you say no, then you're admitting that African-American refers to someone who is black. Pretty simple really.

Sure it does. I'm explaining why it does and why we use a term that's color-nonspecific -- because any reference to color, at the time the term "African American" was invented, was a lit fuse.

And it still is .... just look at how some idiots around here cry "racist" when color is merely mentioned without any value judgment. That's a perfect illustration of why it was invented at the time in the first place. That issue hasn't yet left the social structure; it's still hanging on.

Does "African American" function perfectly in a literal sense? No. It's a circumlocution designed to sidestep the controversy attached to direct mention of color, which still carries its latent subconscious definitions of inferiority.

someone whose family originated from Africa (Hey! That's everyone in the ******* world!!! lol)

That's true, in a long term sense, but you're taking it too literally. Has to be seen in context, the point being to allude to origins without touching on color. If you have another way to do that, bring it on.

Black people is the best term. I don't go all ******* apeshit because someone calls me a white guy, you know why? Because I ******* AM!!! lol! Caucasian works too. But I know negroid doesn't work for blacks, so it's blacks. Anyways, me calling them black (with no malice intended at all) is way nicer than them calling each other nigga.

Then you're ignoring the context of experience and infusing an egocentrism i.e. assuming your experience is everyone's experience.

Words and terms don't exist in free space on their own. They have histories. And calling up a word heavily charged with one conjures that history.

If words DO exist without context, then you have no complaint about "African American". Can't have it both ways; either they have context, or they do not.

Examples:
"*****"
"c**t"
"Dago"/"Wop"
"Gook"

-- you get the idea. Note that even this site itself won't print the second one.

Sorry but black isn't on the same level as wop or dago. When I talk among friends, nobody ever says African-American. Ever. They all say black. And no, it's not a Stormfront get together, lol.

Isn't it?
How many of these friends are black?

Would you address, say, your female co-worker as "hey c**t"? If not -- why not? Just a word, right?

I'm living in Canada right now, we have no AAs here, nor do we have such a thing as African-Canadian, they're simply called black people.

 

[Pogo]

Would you address, say, your female co-worker as "hey c**t"? If not -- why not? Just a word, right?

If she's a ****, I will.

Are you saying the very color black is derogatory in nature? That's the root of bigotry, right there. True acceptance of a person means the color of their skin is irrelevant to their character and/or worth, not that it doesn't exist.

Unless a ************ is from Africa, he/she ain't African-ANYTHING.

Yeah I know you will....

You might want to read the context; that question doesn't spawn from a vacuum. The context (that's why we have nesting ) is the emotional baggage that words carry (which you've already acknowledged above with the conditional "if"). And that came out of Billy's questioning of the function of the term "African American". Can't just dive in in midstream here; all of that's already addressed.

This is like doing a radio show, listing back all my segues...

 

[Pogo]

Would you address, say, your female co-worker as "hey c**t"? If not -- why not? Just a word, right?

If she's a ****, I will.

Are you saying the very color black is derogatory in nature? That's the root of bigotry, right there. True acceptance of a person means the color of their skin is irrelevant to their character and/or worth, not that it doesn't exist.

Unless a ************ is from Africa, he/she ain't African-ANYTHING.

The first thing a member of the PC Police notices is the color of a person's skin.

All of their subsequent behavior relating to that person is predicated on that determination.

Character is irrelevant.

It doesn't have anything to do with color or character. It has to do with empathy.