Anonymouse and Semantics 101

The Study of Racialism
Discussion of U.S. Racialism
Please read The Rules before posting.

FAQ

The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Site Management

Author

Message

anonymouse
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
{Posts: 677 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 14:23 Post subject: Anonymouse and Semantics 101

gemini072 wrote:

You need to click on The Rules at the top of the page under OneDropRule.org

In order for confusion to be less, we have to use terms in similar ways. Black does not = African

I know black does not equal African, I never said nor implied that it does. Nor does black = African American no matter how much people try to insist that it does.

fwsweet
Administrator

Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 5380 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 14:46 Post subject:

anonymouse wrote:

gemini072 wrote:

You need to click on The Rules at the top of the page under OneDropRule.org In order for confusion to be less, we have to use terms in similar ways. Black does not = African

I know black does not equal African, I never said nor implied that it does. Nor does black = African American no matter how much people try to insist that it does.

What Tyrone was trying to explain is that there is no absolute meaning for "black." "Black" means different things to different people at the same time. It means different things to the same person at different times. Because this discussion group places great stress on clarity, we insist that people make clear which meaning they intend whenever they use the term. Tyrone was just trying to help you avoid getting suspended accidentally. That is what moderators do. I second his suggestion that you should read The Rules at least once, especially rule 3.3.11. If I come to believe that you are being unresponsive to a moderator's advice, then per rule 4.7 I am required to suspend you even if the moderator does not.

gemini072
Moderator

Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2942 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 14:47 Post subject:

anonymouse wrote:

gemini072 wrote:

You need to click on The Rules at the top of the page under OneDropRule.org

In order for confusion to be less, we have to use terms in similar ways. Black does not = African

I know black does not equal African, I never said nor implied that it does. Nor does black = African American no matter how much people try to insist that it does.

People tend to go on and on about mixing of ethnic groups but doesn't Africa possess the greatest number of ethnic groups? Most American (North/Central & South) American blacks are just that: An amalgamation of different African ethnic groups with a dose of native American and European thrown into the mix. If they are of West Indian decent you might want to add some Chinese, East Indian and "Syrian" (catch all phrase for Arab) for good measure. So your average black person will have some features that are not typically African. That is also the reason that most Africans can tell a non-African black by looks alone. We tend to look exotic to them.
But that does not make us any less black. IMHO of course

What does that last statement mean then. It seems from the above statement that your using them hand in hand.

gemini072
Moderator

Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2942 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 15:06 Post subject: Re: MULATO OF THE WEEK

LSGH wrote:

Each week, we here @ Mulato Haven shall feature an OUTSTANDING Mixedrace Person!

This Week is Monsieur RICHIE GRAY!

Monsieur Richie Gray is a Native of Chicago & composed of The Very FINEST Louisiana Creole Stock!:
http://nsula.edu/creole/definition.asp

For nearly 3 decades, Monsieur Gray has smashed balls for University Academy, St. Ignatius College Prep, Hampton University, Xavier University, Etc.

Monsieur Gray was last cited mentoring youngsters in Philly!

That pic is James Blake

anonymouse
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
{Posts: 677 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 16:57 Post subject:

gemini072 wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

gemini072 wrote:

You need to click on The Rules at the top of the page under OneDropRule.org

In order for confusion to be less, we have to use terms in similar ways. Black does not = African

I know black does not equal African, I never said nor implied that it does. Nor does black = African American no matter how much people try to insist that it does.

Ok now I am confused. Where am I equating being black with being African? I stated that most African blacks can visually discern whether a (previously unknown) American black is or is not African based upon their features. But even though most of us have easily identifiable non African lineage that does not make us any less black. So stating that Tonya Lewis Lee appears to be mixed or biracial is disingenuous since just about every North/Central/South American black comes from a mixed lineage.

Going back to my example, no one would look at the grandmother (or the mother) and say, "Oh she is definitely mestizo" when she is. Yet the grandaughter whose looks eerily reflect her great grandmother's features is constantly questioned about being mixed or mestizo and she is not.

My point is being black in the New World means that you are a person who is the result of many ethnic and "racial" mixes over the years and I maintain it is darn near impossible (and maybe even pointless) to try to sift through the meltingpot that a person's genetic heritage has become in an attempt to differentiate them from someone else with a similar genetic background.

gemini072
Moderator

Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2942 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 17:21 Post subject:

anonymouse wrote:

gemini072 wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

gemini072 wrote:

You need to click on The Rules at the top of the page under OneDropRule.org

In order for confusion to be less, we have to use terms in similar ways. Black does not = African

I know black does not equal African, I never said nor implied that it does. Nor does black = African American no matter how much people try to insist that it does.

Ok now I am confused. Where am I equating being black with being African? I stated that most African blacks can visually discern whether a (previously unknown) American black is or is not African based upon their features.

Maybe, maybe not. That would be hard to say. Especially since dress and speach would be a dead giveaway. I think Wesley Snipes would easily be able to pass among certain native African groups.

But even though most of us have easily identifiable non African lineage that does not make us any less black.

Maybe that's whats throwing the conv. No one is questioning anyones Black identity by saying they have obvious mixed features. This is why I'm trying to get your definition of Black.

So stating that Tonya Lewis Lee appears to be mixed or biracial is disingenuous since just about every North/Central/South American black comes from a mixed lineage.

She doesn't appear to be mixed, genetically she is obviously mixed, and I don't know if she has a white parent or a white greatgrandparent.

Your mixing 2 different ideas:
Mixed 1 with Nigerian,French & English
Mixed 1 with Nigerian,Ghanahian, Zulu
are 2 different kinds. Will produce 2 very different looks

I hope you aren't saying like slave masters "They came over like that"

Going back to my example, no one would look at the grandmother (or the mother) and say, "Oh she is definitely mestizo" when she is. Yet the grandaughter whose looks eerily reflect her great grandmother's features is constantly questioned about being mixed or mestizo and she is not.

What does the father of the grandaughter look like? She didn't come immaculetly right?

That is a very different definition of Black. I personally don't believe every 'black' american is the result of ethnic and racial mixing. There are many people who generation after generation have only mixed with people who are pretty much not mixed. The same with White americans.

anonymouse
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
{Posts: 677 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 17:41 Post subject:

gemini072 wrote:

Well therein lies our differences of opinion. I suspect my definition is more accurate than yours. I personally do not know any black person from the US, Central, South America or the Caribbean who cannot name a non-black ancestor or two from both sides of their family tree.

fwsweet
Administrator

Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 5380 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 17:58 Post subject:

anonymouse wrote:

Well therein lies our differences of opinion. I suspect my definition is more accurate than yours.

Please see my comments at http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?p=29211#29211

fwsweet wrote:

"Accuracy" is meaningless in this context. Peer-reviewed college-level dictionaries tell how a word actually is used, not how it should be used. ... How [a word] is actually used in the U.S. vernacular is a legitimate topic. But the next person who argues that any definition is more "correct" or "accurate" than any other in any forum will be immediately suspended without warning.

I am not suspending you now, but please consider this to be a formal warning. As per rule #3.7, you must no longer debate the "correct" meaning of the word "Black."

gemini072
Moderator

Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2942 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 18:06 Post subject:

anonymouse wrote:

gemini072 wrote:

I'll say it again you need to click on the link below and read 3:1

http://onedroprule.org/odrrules.php

I suspect your definition is a very much steeped in the ODR.

I know a whole lot of them neither look it nor do they know of native or european ancestors.

Last edited by gemini072 on Thu 11 Oct 2007 18:24; edited 2 times in total

anonymouse
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
{Posts: 677 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 18:20 Post subject:

fwsweet wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

Well therein lies our differences of opinion. I suspect my definition is more accurate than yours.

Please see my comments at http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?p=29211#29211

fwsweet wrote:

I am not suspending you now, but please consider this to be a formal warning. As per rule #3.7, you must no longer debate the "correct" meaning of the word "Black."

wait a minute. I was specifically asked what was my definition of Black.

gemini072 wrote:

Maybe that's whats throwing the conv. No one is questioning anyones Black identity by saying they have obvious mixed features. This is why I'm trying to get your definition of Black.

And by responding on how I define black I am in violation? What is the point in having a forum such as this if statements cannot be questioned?

Additionally in this post Gemini commits the same "infraction" that I supposedly committed yet where is his warning?

gemini072 wrote:

William
Moderator

Joined: 30 Mar 2005
{Posts: 1082 }
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 18:49 Post subject:

anonymouse wrote:

I suspect my definition is more accurate than yours.

You are attempting to claim your definition is more accurate than someone else's. This falls under the realm of Rule 3.7:

The Rules wrote:

3.7 Once a Dispute is Revealed to be a Semantic Difference, End It. — Many disputes turn out to be mere differences in word usage between the parties. Once this is apparent, you must end the dispute immediately.

anonymouse wrote:

Additionally in this post Gemini commits the same "infraction" that I supposedly committed yet where is his warning?

Tyrone (who is a moderator, in case you haven't noticed) infracted no rule. He simply stated he doesn't believe every black-identified person to be the product of "racial" mixing.

anonymouse
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
{Posts: 677 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 18:58 Post subject:

William wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

I suspect my definition is more accurate than yours.

You are attempting to claim your definition is more accurate than someone else's. This falls under the realm of Rule 3.7:

The Rules wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

Additionally in this post Gemini commits the same "infraction" that I supposedly committed yet where is his warning?

Tyrone (who is a moderator, in case you haven't noticed) infracted no rule. He simply stated he doesn't believe every black-identified person to be the product of "racial" mixing.

Moderator or no, he asked me for my definition of black and I provided it. He then stated his definition of the word black but implied that my definition was wrong (although he used the word "different" as if his definition was the norm).

Either we both were wrong or neither of us were.

gemini072
Moderator

Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2942 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 19:15 Post subject:

anonymouse wrote:

William wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

I suspect my definition is more accurate than yours.

You are attempting to claim your definition is more accurate than someone else's. This falls under the realm of Rule 3.7:

The Rules wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

Additionally in this post Gemini commits the same "infraction" that I supposedly committed yet where is his warning?

Tyrone (who is a moderator, in case you haven't noticed) infracted no rule. He simply stated he doesn't believe every black-identified person to be the product of "racial" mixing.

Did you ever read the rules when we asked?

If find is interesting that you think we are getting on you and you should not be offended. We understand while communicating with a new member that you don't know this cultures language. So Frank & I tried to stear you in the right direction of ODR.org

anonymouse
Wizard
Wizard

Joined: 09 Oct 2007
{Posts: 677 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 19:20 Post subject:

gemini072 wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

William wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

I suspect my definition is more accurate than yours.

You are attempting to claim your definition is more accurate than someone else's. This falls under the realm of Rule 3.7:

The Rules wrote:

anonymouse wrote:

Additionally in this post Gemini commits the same "infraction" that I supposedly committed yet where is his warning?

Tyrone (who is a moderator, in case you haven't noticed) infracted no rule. He simply stated he doesn't believe every black-identified person to be the product of "racial" mixing.

I read the rules when I joined the site. What I find it odd was the selective enforcement of the rules. Perhaps it is just a case of an established member versus a newbie but the rules do not appear to have been enforced evenly in this instance.

sagascend
Moderator-at-Large

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2418 }

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 19:22 Post subject:

Anonymouse wrote:

Either we both were wrong or neither of us were.

No. You are in violation of Rule 3.7, as has already been pointed out. let me try to clarify:

First, a site standard definition for the term "black" exists:

Quote:

3.3.11. black — The word “black” has different meanings that are easily confused. Readers often misunderstand which meaning was intended by the writer, especially since many readers are not native speakers of U.S. English. For example, each of the following sentences uses the word to mean something different: “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches.” “Many Brazilians have Black ancestry.” “The untouchables of India are Black.” “Australian Aborigines self-identify as Black.” “Walter White was actually Black even though he looked White.” “Black people around the world, especially in Asia and the Middle East, were exploited and oppressed by European conquest and colonization.”

Two usages are particularly confusing: African-American and Sub-Saharan. Most usages of “Black” on this site refer to the African-American ethnic community as in, “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches.” To avoid ambiguity use “African American” instead (or A-A for short). Another usage denotes someone of apparently African phenotype or ancestry. As in, “Many Brazilians have Black ancestry.” To avoid ambiguity use “sub-Saharan ancestry” instead (or SSA for short). The two usages of “Black” in combination make your text virtually unintelligible. If you write, for example “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches and most Brazilians have Black ancestry, ” no one will be able to decipher what you mean. The first clause uses “Black” to mean “African American” (since the vast majority of Brazilians are Catholics), but the second then suggests that most Brazilians have African-American ancestors (obviously a false statement). But if the reader assumes that “Black” means “sub-Saharan,” then the second clause makes sense (most Brazilians really do have some sub-Saharan ancestry) but the first clause is obviously false, since Protestant church-centered neighborhoods are unique to North America. And so, always avoid using “Black,” rather than the site-recommended terms, “African-American (A-A)” or “Sub-Saharan (SSA)” unless you make very clear which meaning you intended. Never strive for deliberate ambiguity. Never refuse to clarify which meaning you intended. And never insist, for example, that Australian Aborigines are “Black” in the same sense that Walter White was “Black.”

The fact that you provided your definition of the term is not "wrong," though others are free to disagree with your usage and discuss it as long as the argument is not semantic. It's clear that this argument is semantic and it has to end per moderator request if you would like to keep your posting privileges.

Second, Tyrone's request that you clarify your definition is precisely what a member of this site should do when a non-standard or unfamiliar definition of a term is used. There is nothing "wrong" with this approach.

Third, the warning is also not about whether you used your definition of "black," but that you stated that your interpretation for such an ambiguous and confusing term is the "more accurate" version. There is no more accuracy to be had in a semantic argument, especially when attempting to discuss blackness. Again, the term is and has never been clearly and unambiguously applied to the same population of humans. That is precisely why the semantic argument needs to end after it becomes clear that someone is making an apples and oranges comparison.

fwsweet
Administrator

Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 5380 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL

Posted: Thu 11 Oct 2007 19:46 Post subject:

There is little that I can add to what the three moderators have already explained. Tyrone asked for your definition because you used a word in an unusual way. It was not that your useage was "wrong." He just wanted to know what you meant, because this site is serious about avoiding misunderstandings. So far so good. But when you then said that your usage was "more accurate," you violated a site rule. Everyone is entitled to her own definition of a word (but must make clear what that definition is). But nobody is entiled to say that their definition is "more accurate" than anyone else's.

Display posts from previous:

	The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Site Management	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1