Posted: Fri 12 Oct 2007 00:58 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Powell wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
MP (mulattoprince) wrote:
A person who has another option based upon phenotype or born in another country would have to be a little crazy to labeled themselves voluntarily black in America.
I guess you have never heard of pride in the people that raised you. Just because some people have issues doesn't make the identity of Black bad. But it has to be a label you feel comfortable with. Just like any other.
What happens to the kid of two fully accepted and fully identified Blacks (say Vanessa Williams and enry Louis Gates Jr) who happens to get most all the genes for a European phenotype? Born in a Black community, raised by a Black family, etc. They are supposed to identify as White all of a sudden?
Consider Barack Obama. Born into a "white" family (Mom, maternal grandparents; deserted by African dad), raised in a non-black community in Hawaii, with a phenotype that most Americans would probably consider "black." Is he supposed to identify as "black" all of a sudden? Oh, wait! He did! What's wrong with doing it the other way around?
He also spent time in Indonesia. Was he then supposed to identify as Malay/Indonesian? lol
Every time Barack looked in the mirror as a boy or spoke his name aloud his "blackness" was reaffirmed. And even if he tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, "Pull over you mulatto you!!!"
You know, I've been on this earth for almost 30 years and I've never had a police officer "set me straight" about my "blackness".
In all seriousness, scare tactics such as these need to stop.
I've been on it for 38 and I heard it quite a few times. Of course I grew up in NYC so that may be a factor but please do not act as if this phenomenon is something from the cinemas or a throwback to "the olden days" that is dredged up every now-and-then to be used as a scare tactic. Law enforcement's negative attitudes and actions against black men and/or people of colour has been heavily documented over the years by numerous organizations. It has become so common the colloquial term is referred to as DWB (Driving While Black)
Life isn't fair. It happens. Life goes on. *shrug* But please do not deny the reality of many people in the US.
Posted: Fri 12 Oct 2007 01:07 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
anonymouse wrote:
I've been on it for 38 and I heard it quite a few times. Of course I grew up in NYC so that may be a factor but please do not act as if this phenomenon is something from the cinemas or a throwback to "the olden days" that is dredged up every now-and-then to be used as a scare tactic. Law enforcement's negative attitudes and actions against black men and/or people of colour has been heavily documented over the years by numerous organizations. It has become so common the colloquial term is referred to as DWB (Driving While Black) Life isn't fair. It happens. Life goes on. *shrug* But please do not deny the reality of many people in the US.
Posted: Sat 13 Oct 2007 01:12 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
anonymouse wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Powell wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
MP (mulattoprince) wrote:
A person who has another option based upon phenotype or born in another country would have to be a little crazy to labeled themselves voluntarily black in America.
I guess you have never heard of pride in the people that raised you. Just because some people have issues doesn't make the identity of Black bad. But it has to be a label you feel comfortable with. Just like any other.
What happens to the kid of two fully accepted and fully identified Blacks (say Vanessa Williams and enry Louis Gates Jr) who happens to get most all the genes for a European phenotype? Born in a Black community, raised by a Black family, etc. They are supposed to identify as White all of a sudden?
Consider Barack Obama. Born into a "white" family (Mom, maternal grandparents; deserted by African dad), raised in a non-black community in Hawaii, with a phenotype that most Americans would probably consider "black." Is he supposed to identify as "black" all of a sudden? Oh, wait! He did! What's wrong with doing it the other way around?
He also spent time in Indonesia. Was he then supposed to identify as Malay/Indonesian? lol
Every time Barack looked in the mirror as a boy or spoke his name aloud his "blackness" was reaffirmed. And even if he tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, "Pull over you mulatto you!!!"
You know, I've been on this earth for almost 30 years and I've never had a police officer "set me straight" about my "blackness".
In all seriousness, scare tactics such as these need to stop.
I've been on it for 38 and I heard it quite a few times. Of course I grew up in NYC so that may be a factor but please do not act as if this phenomenon is something from the cinemas or a throwback to "the olden days" that is dredged up every now-and-then to be used as a scare tactic. Law enforcement's negative attitudes and actions against black men and/or people of colour has been heavily documented over the years by numerous organizations. It has become so common the colloquial term is referred to as DWB (Driving While Black)
Life isn't fair. It happens. Life goes on. *shrug* But please do not deny the reality of many people in the US.
I don't deny that many people are treated unfairly. I also don't deny that blacks (as well as Hispanics) get targeted for stops moreso than other groups.
I deny the notion that mixed people have to claim a black label because if they don't, the "evil policeman" (aka the KKK, aka The man, aka the Boogeyman) will put them in their place.
Posted: Sat 13 Oct 2007 15:29 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Powell wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
MP (mulattoprince) wrote:
A person who has another option based upon phenotype or born in another country would have to be a little crazy to labeled themselves voluntarily black in America.
I guess you have never heard of pride in the people that raised you. Just because some people have issues doesn't make the identity of Black bad. But it has to be a label you feel comfortable with. Just like any other.
What happens to the kid of two fully accepted and fully identified Blacks (say Vanessa Williams and enry Louis Gates Jr) who happens to get most all the genes for a European phenotype? Born in a Black community, raised by a Black family, etc. They are supposed to identify as White all of a sudden?
Consider Barack Obama. Born into a "white" family (Mom, maternal grandparents; deserted by African dad), raised in a non-black community in Hawaii, with a phenotype that most Americans would probably consider "black." Is he supposed to identify as "black" all of a sudden? Oh, wait! He did! What's wrong with doing it the other way around?
He also spent time in Indonesia. Was he then supposed to identify as Malay/Indonesian? lol
Every time Barack looked in the mirror as a boy or spoke his name aloud his "blackness" was reaffirmed. And even if he tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, "Pull over you mulatto you!!!"
You know, I've been on this earth for almost 30 years and I've never had a police officer "set me straight" about my "blackness".
In all seriousness, scare tactics such as these need to stop.
I've been on it for 38 and I heard it quite a few times. Of course I grew up in NYC so that may be a factor but please do not act as if this phenomenon is something from the cinemas or a throwback to "the olden days" that is dredged up every now-and-then to be used as a scare tactic. Law enforcement's negative attitudes and actions against black men and/or people of colour has been heavily documented over the years by numerous organizations. It has become so common the colloquial term is referred to as DWB (Driving While Black)
Life isn't fair. It happens. Life goes on. *shrug* But please do not deny the reality of many people in the US.
I don't deny that many people are treated unfairly. I also don't deny that blacks (as well as Hispanics) get targeted for stops moreso than other groups.
I deny the notion that mixed people have to claim a black label because if they don't, the "evil policeman" (aka the KKK, aka The man, aka the Boogeyman) will put them in their place.
Where did I ever make that claim? Please show me that. I stated that Barack would have been treated as a black man based upon his looks alone. Certainly no one would say, "Oh - you're not black you're mulatto. Sorry for the inconvenience sir. Drive safely and have a nice day."
Posted: Sat 13 Oct 2007 17:05 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
Hanzou wrote:
I deny the notion that mixed people have to claim a black label because if they don't, the "evil policeman" (aka the KKK, aka The man, aka the Boogeyman) will put them in their place.
This is a borderline strawman since it falsely adds Boogeyman and KKK to anonymouse's original claim which was only about cops: "even if [Obama] tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, 'Pull over you mulatto you!!!'"
anonymouse wrote:
I stated that Barack would have been treated as a black man based upon his looks alone. Certainly no one would say, "Oh - you're not black you're mulatto. Sorry for the inconvenience sir. Drive safely and have a nice day."
Yes, you did. And that is the nub of your disagreement. You claim that cops would NOT say, "said, 'Pull over you mulatto you!!!'" Well, cops seldom say "Pull over you African-American you" or "Pull over you Puerto Rican you." That is not how cops talk when making a traffic stop. Now you are saying that cops do not go to the other extreme: "Oh - you're not black you're mulatto. Sorry for the inconvenience sir. Drive safely and have a nice day." Again, cops do not say, "You're White. Sorry for the inconvenience sir, etc." nor "You're Puerto Rican. Sorry for the inconvenience sir, etc."
The gist of your thesis, as I understand it (stripping out the exaggeration), is the alleged fact that (1) police officers usually impose a "Black" classification on mixed people. Your implied conclusion from this alleged fact seemed to be that, (2) therefore mixed people should yield to police officers' misclassification and impose it upon themselves. Have I understood your alleged fact correctly? Have I understood your conclusion correctly?
I would say that Gates and V. Williams are not in the same social milieu as those who are outside said milieu. The urban environment is where many of those alleged abuses take place and they are far away from cameras, unless of course, neighbourhood 'activists' happen to have cameras to record those abuses! When you are far removed from an urban sphere, you are insulated form the upfront abuses (most of the time) and therefore you are "off screen" as it were, from the rabble!
I personally do not consider Obama an African American but within the sphere of USA social construct, he is labelled as such because that is how that construct works. He is more of an immigrant to me who happens to have an association with America through his maternal grandparents and his mother.
Because there are diferent values and constructs for 'mixed', Obama becasue of his name would be more African and Muslim than "black or African American. His behaviour, type of clothing, speech patterns, etc would surely determine how he was treated and by whom!
Posted: Sat 13 Oct 2007 22:34 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
fwsweet wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
I deny the notion that mixed people have to claim a black label because if they don't, the "evil policeman" (aka the KKK, aka The man, aka the Boogeyman) will put them in their place.
This is a borderline strawman since it falsely adds Boogeyman and KKK to anonymouse's original claim which was only about cops: "even if [Obama] tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, 'Pull over you mulatto you!!!'"
I added the KKK, the Man, and the Boogeyman because oftentimes they are used in this same line of thinking. I've heard numerous times that mixed people should identify as black because racist whites in various professions will be racist towards them.
Its nothing more than a scare tactic, and its a downright silly one at that.
Posted: Sat 13 Oct 2007 22:38 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
anonymouse wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Powell wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
MP (mulattoprince) wrote:
A person who has another option based upon phenotype or born in another country would have to be a little crazy to labeled themselves voluntarily black in America.
I guess you have never heard of pride in the people that raised you. Just because some people have issues doesn't make the identity of Black bad. But it has to be a label you feel comfortable with. Just like any other.
What happens to the kid of two fully accepted and fully identified Blacks (say Vanessa Williams and enry Louis Gates Jr) who happens to get most all the genes for a European phenotype? Born in a Black community, raised by a Black family, etc. They are supposed to identify as White all of a sudden?
Consider Barack Obama. Born into a "white" family (Mom, maternal grandparents; deserted by African dad), raised in a non-black community in Hawaii, with a phenotype that most Americans would probably consider "black." Is he supposed to identify as "black" all of a sudden? Oh, wait! He did! What's wrong with doing it the other way around?
He also spent time in Indonesia. Was he then supposed to identify as Malay/Indonesian? lol
Every time Barack looked in the mirror as a boy or spoke his name aloud his "blackness" was reaffirmed. And even if he tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, "Pull over you mulatto you!!!"
You know, I've been on this earth for almost 30 years and I've never had a police officer "set me straight" about my "blackness".
In all seriousness, scare tactics such as these need to stop.
I've been on it for 38 and I heard it quite a few times. Of course I grew up in NYC so that may be a factor but please do not act as if this phenomenon is something from the cinemas or a throwback to "the olden days" that is dredged up every now-and-then to be used as a scare tactic. Law enforcement's negative attitudes and actions against black men and/or people of colour has been heavily documented over the years by numerous organizations. It has become so common the colloquial term is referred to as DWB (Driving While Black)
Life isn't fair. It happens. Life goes on. *shrug* But please do not deny the reality of many people in the US.
I don't deny that many people are treated unfairly. I also don't deny that blacks (as well as Hispanics) get targeted for stops moreso than other groups.
I deny the notion that mixed people have to claim a black label because if they don't, the "evil policeman" (aka the KKK, aka The man, aka the Boogeyman) will put them in their place.
Where did I ever make that claim? Please show me that. I stated that Barack would have been treated as a black man based upon his looks alone. Certainly no one would say, "Oh - you're not black you're mulatto. Sorry for the inconvenience sir. Drive safely and have a nice day."
Barack Obama would be treated like a US senator. I seriously doubt he'd be treated like a regular citizen.
Posted: Mon 15 Oct 2007 02:00 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
fwsweet wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
I stated that Barack would have been treated as a black man based upon his looks alone. Certainly no one would say, "Oh - you're not black you're mulatto. Sorry for the inconvenience sir. Drive safely and have a nice day."
Yes, you did. And that is the nub of your disagreement. You claim that cops would NOT say, "said, 'Pull over you mulatto you!!!'" Well, cops seldom say "Pull over you African-American you" or "Pull over you Puerto Rican you." That is not how cops talk when making a traffic stop. Now you are saying that cops do not go to the other extreme: "Oh - you're not black you're mulatto. Sorry for the inconvenience sir. Drive safely and have a nice day." Again, cops do not say, "You're White. Sorry for the inconvenience sir, etc." nor "You're Puerto Rican. Sorry for the inconvenience sir, etc."
Actually they have and would say that about black and Puerto Ricans in NYC, Philly, Bridgeport, Denver, certain parts of New Jersey among other places. I cannot speak for the rest of the country.
Now if that is you in the your avatar picture I can almost guarantee that you are not subject to the same...courtesies...that a black or a person with visible black ancestry receives from the police. On many occasions people with visible African ancestry are treated with suspicion and/or outright hostility.
So if you have never had a gun pointed at your head, forced to get out of your car in the the winter without being allowed to retrieve your jacket and compelled to place your hands on the hood of the police car while the helpful police officers ransacked your car for no reason whatsoever (Washington DC, junior year in college in my old Jeep Wrangler) then you have no idea what I am talking about. If you have never been pulled over after stopping at an ATM and had police officers record the names, addresses & telephone numbers of the occupants of your car (freshman year, Hempstead, Long Island in my mother's Ford Tempo), then you have no idea what I am talking about. If you have never tried to flag down a police officer because you were lost but instead of helping you he starts looking through your vehicle for god-knows-what (junior year, Upper Marlboro, MD in Mum's Tempo again) then you have no idea what I am talking about. If you have never been pulled over at night and had so many police officers surrounding your car that the night has seeming turned to day because of the spotlights from multiple police cruisers for what turned out to be a burnt out tail light (Washington DC, senior year in my Jeep), you have no idea what I am talking about. I could go on but it is pretty depressing to think about. And in all of these incidences no citations were given and, after having my car searched/ransacked, I was allowed to go my way. So please forgive me if I don't buy into the "the-police-are-there-to-help-and-protect-you" school of thought.
Mind you I am a clean cut, well spoken even tempered person. I shudder to think what would have happened if I were rougher spoken and/or tougher in appearance with a short fuse.
fwsweet wrote:
The gist of your thesis, as I understand it (stripping out the exaggeration), is the alleged fact that (1) police officers usually impose a "Black" classification on mixed people. Your implied conclusion from this alleged fact seemed to be that, (2) therefore mixed people should yield to police officers' misclassification and impose it upon themselves. Have I understood your alleged fact correctly? Have I understood your conclusion correctly?
wrong and wrong
fwsweet wrote:
(1) police officers usually impose a "Black" classification on mixed people. Your implied conclusion from this alleged fact seemed to be that,
Since there is no uniform "look" that a mixed person has, it would be foolish for me to make this statement. If you have visible African ancestry, especially darker coloured skin, to the casual observer you are going to be labeled as a black person.
fwsweet wrote:
(2) therefore mixed people should yield to police officers' misclassification and impose it upon themselves.
I never made that conclusion. You can self identify til the cows come home but if you look like Barack Obama, to the casual observer you are a black man and will be treated as such. To not be prepared for that reality is foolhardy and could be dangerous to your health and well being.
Now I grew up blissfully unaware of any of this. I lived in a middle class "white flight" neighbourhood (Cambria heights, NY), went to parochial schools in "white neighbourhoods" (Queens Village & Bayside, NY). I never heard the terms black, white, indian, coolie, native/indigenous, etc. in my home growing up - people were people. Father was a career NYPD, mother was college professor. As a child my mother always told me to never leave home without some type of identification: library card, even the little card that came with those colourful velcro wallets that I used to carry. But she never told me why. It was only once I became of age if figured it out on my own. When I asked her why she never told me, she said, "I did not want to burden you with some of the realities of life in this country at such a young age."
And my experiences are in no way out of the ordinary.
Last edited by anonymouse on Mon 15 Oct 2007 02:36; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Mon 15 Oct 2007 02:01 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
Hanzou wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
I deny the notion that mixed people have to claim a black label because if they don't, the "evil policeman" (aka the KKK, aka The man, aka the Boogeyman) will put them in their place.
This is a borderline strawman since it falsely adds Boogeyman and KKK to anonymouse's original claim which was only about cops: "even if [Obama] tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, 'Pull over you mulatto you!!!'"
I added the KKK, the Man, and the Boogeyman because oftentimes they are used in this same line of thinking. I've heard numerous times that mixed people should identify as black because racist whites in various professions will be racist towards them.
Its nothing more than a scare tactic, and its a downright silly one at that.
I is reality for millions of people in this country. You denying it does not change the fact that it happens daily.
I would say that Gates and V. Williams are not in the same social milieu as those who are outside said milieu. The urban environment is where many of those alleged abuses take place and they are far away from cameras, unless of course, neighbourhood 'activists' happen to have cameras to record those abuses! When you are far removed from an urban sphere, you are insulated form the upfront abuses (most of the time) and therefore you are "off screen" as it were, from the rabble!
I personally do not consider Obama an African American but within the sphere of USA social construct, he is labelled as such because that is how that construct works. He is more of an immigrant to me who happens to have an association with America through his maternal grandparents and his mother.
Because there are diferent values and constructs for 'mixed', Obama becasue of his name would be more African and Muslim than "black or African American. His behaviour, type of clothing, speech patterns, etc would surely determine how he was treated and by whom!
I agree - Barack is a living breathing example of an African American but culturally he is not.
Posted: Mon 15 Oct 2007 02:09 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Powell wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
MP (mulattoprince) wrote:
A person who has another option based upon phenotype or born in another country would have to be a little crazy to labeled themselves voluntarily black in America.
I guess you have never heard of pride in the people that raised you. Just because some people have issues doesn't make the identity of Black bad. But it has to be a label you feel comfortable with. Just like any other.
What happens to the kid of two fully accepted and fully identified Blacks (say Vanessa Williams and enry Louis Gates Jr) who happens to get most all the genes for a European phenotype? Born in a Black community, raised by a Black family, etc. They are supposed to identify as White all of a sudden?
Consider Barack Obama. Born into a "white" family (Mom, maternal grandparents; deserted by African dad), raised in a non-black community in Hawaii, with a phenotype that most Americans would probably consider "black." Is he supposed to identify as "black" all of a sudden? Oh, wait! He did! What's wrong with doing it the other way around?
He also spent time in Indonesia. Was he then supposed to identify as Malay/Indonesian? lol
Every time Barack looked in the mirror as a boy or spoke his name aloud his "blackness" was reaffirmed. And even if he tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, "Pull over you mulatto you!!!"
You know, I've been on this earth for almost 30 years and I've never had a police officer "set me straight" about my "blackness".
In all seriousness, scare tactics such as these need to stop.
I've been on it for 38 and I heard it quite a few times. Of course I grew up in NYC so that may be a factor but please do not act as if this phenomenon is something from the cinemas or a throwback to "the olden days" that is dredged up every now-and-then to be used as a scare tactic. Law enforcement's negative attitudes and actions against black men and/or people of colour has been heavily documented over the years by numerous organizations. It has become so common the colloquial term is referred to as DWB (Driving While Black)
Life isn't fair. It happens. Life goes on. *shrug* But please do not deny the reality of many people in the US.
I don't deny that many people are treated unfairly. I also don't deny that blacks (as well as Hispanics) get targeted for stops moreso than other groups.
I deny the notion that mixed people have to claim a black label because if they don't, the "evil policeman" (aka the KKK, aka The man, aka the Boogeyman) will put them in their place.
Where did I ever make that claim? Please show me that. I stated that Barack would have been treated as a black man based upon his looks alone. Certainly no one would say, "Oh - you're not black you're mulatto. Sorry for the inconvenience sir. Drive safely and have a nice day."
Barack Obama would be treated like a US senator. I seriously doubt he'd be treated like a regular citizen.
We were talking about when he was younger long before he entered politics.
Posted: Mon 15 Oct 2007 14:30 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
anonymouse wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
I deny the notion that mixed people have to claim a black label because if they don't, the "evil policeman" (aka the KKK, aka The man, aka the Boogeyman) will put them in their place.
This is a borderline strawman since it falsely adds Boogeyman and KKK to anonymouse's original claim which was only about cops: "even if [Obama] tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, 'Pull over you mulatto you!!!'"
I added the KKK, the Man, and the Boogeyman because oftentimes they are used in this same line of thinking. I've heard numerous times that mixed people should identify as black because racist whites in various professions will be racist towards them.
Its nothing more than a scare tactic, and its a downright silly one at that.
I is reality for millions of people in this country. You denying it does not change the fact that it happens daily.
So millions of mixed people stopped by the police and told they are black?
I wonder how many Hispanics are going to claim a black identity at the next census.
The notion that people with African features will automatically be assumed to be "black" is a foolish one. I have been called everything from Arab to Chinese, and I have very noticeable African heritage. Its even more foolish to believe that racists have more authority over your self identity than you do.
If I go to the airport and get called a "raghead" by some idiot in baggage claims (that actually occured to a friend of mine who is also mulatto), am I supposed to consider myself an Arab?
Posted: Mon 15 Oct 2007 15:18 Post subject: Re: Right to identity
Hanzou wrote:
anonymouse wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Hanzou wrote:
I deny the notion that mixed people have to claim a black label because if they don't, the "evil policeman" (aka the KKK, aka The man, aka the Boogeyman) will put them in their place.
This is a borderline strawman since it falsely adds Boogeyman and KKK to anonymouse's original claim which was only about cops: "even if [Obama] tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight. And I doubt they would have said, 'Pull over you mulatto you!!!'"
I added the KKK, the Man, and the Boogeyman because oftentimes they are used in this same line of thinking. I've heard numerous times that mixed people should identify as black because racist whites in various professions will be racist towards them.
Its nothing more than a scare tactic, and its a downright silly one at that.
I is reality for millions of people in this country. You denying it does not change the fact that it happens daily.
So millions of mixed people stopped by the police and told they are black?
I wonder how many Hispanics are going to claim a black identity at the next census.
Is it really that difficult to understand or are you doing this intentionally? What I said is that numerous people are stopped BECAUSE they look "black" as it is defined in the United States. What Hispanics (btw: which can be any "race") claim on the census has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
The notion that people with African features will automatically be assumed to be "black" is a foolish one. I have been called everything from Arab to Chinese, and I have very noticeable African heritage. Its even more foolish to believe that racists have more authority over your self identity than you do.
If I go to the airport and get called a "raghead" by some idiot in baggage claims (that actually occured to a friend of mine who is also mulatto), am I supposed to consider myself an Arab?
I tell you what: if you appear to be an Arab, if I were you I would not bring a copy of the Q'uran onto an airplane and chant, "Allahu Akbar" before the plane takes off. But then again that sounds a little too much like common sense.
The gist of your thesis, as I understand it, is the alleged fact that (1) police officers usually impose a "Black" classification on mixed people. Your implied conclusion from this alleged fact seemed to be that, (2) therefore mixed people should yield to police officers' misclassification and impose it upon themselves. Have I understood your alleged fact correctly? Have I understood your conclusion correctly?
anonymouse wrote:
wrong and wrong
Look, I really hate to point his out to you since you are new here, but you give me no choice. You are running the risk of suspension for violating rule 3.6, specifically 3.6.1: “Do not enter a dispute until you are sure that your opponent understands your thesis. Failure to clarify your thesis in a dispute or deliberately making it hard to grasp are grounds for suspension. For more on this point, read item 2 of the thread Introduction to Science-As-Process.
I am trying to understand your thesis but you are not helping. When asked if you are talking about police mistreatment of people who “look Black” you seem to say, no, you are talking about police mis-identifying people as Black who are actually something else. But when asked if you are saying that police mis-identify people as Black who are actually something else, you produce evidence of police mistreatment of people who “look Black” It is beginning to look as if your position comes under “Failure to clarify your thesis in a dispute or deliberately making it hard to grasp.”
Help me out here. Take a step back, a deep breath, and explain whether your point is about non-Blacks who are mis-catoegorized as Black or about Blacks who are mistreated (or about something else entirely).
The gist of your thesis, as I understand it, is the alleged fact that (1) police officers usually impose a "Black" classification on mixed people. Your implied conclusion from this alleged fact seemed to be that, (2) therefore mixed people should yield to police officers' misclassification and impose it upon themselves. Have I understood your alleged fact correctly? Have I understood your conclusion correctly?
anonymouse wrote:
wrong and wrong
Look, I really hate to point his out to you since you are new here, but you give me no choice. You are running the risk of suspension for violating rule 3.6, specifically 3.6.1: “Do not enter a dispute until you are sure that your opponent understands your thesis. Failure to clarify your thesis in a dispute or deliberately making it hard to grasp are grounds for suspension. For more on this point, read item 2 of the thread Introduction to Science-As-Process.
I am trying to understand your thesis but you are not helping. When asked if you are talking about police mistreatment of people who “look Black” you seem to say, no, you are talking about police mis-identifying people as Black who are actually something else. But when asked if you are saying that police mis-identify people as Black who are actually something else, you produce evidence of police mistreatment of people who “look Black” It is beginning to look as if your position comes under “Failure to clarify your thesis in a dispute or deliberately making it hard to grasp.”
My point was a simple one that I have stated over and over: If you "appear" to be black/African American/primarily of African extraction, the police will treat you as such. And here is where it was stated:
anonymouse wrote:
Every time Barack looked in the mirror as a boy or spoke his name aloud his "blackness" was reaffirmed. And even if he tried to deny his "blackness" any police office would have been happy to set him straight.
anonymouse wrote:
I stated that Barack would have been treated as a black man based upon his looks alone.
anonymouse wrote:
You can self identify til the cows come home but if you look like Barack Obama, to the casual observer you are a black man and will be treated as such.
anonymouse wrote:
If you have visible African ancestry, especially darker coloured skin, to the casual observer you are going to be labeled as a black person.
anonymouse wrote:
On many occasions people with visible African ancestry are treated with suspicion and/or outright hostility.
anonymouse wrote:
What I said is that numerous people are stopped BECAUSE they look "black" as it is defined in the United States.
I am having a hard time understanding how my thesis could be misinterpreted and/or misunderstood.
If you "appear" to be black/African American/primarily of African extraction, the police will treat you as such.
Okay. In that case, we can ignore the evidence and examples you provided of mistreatment and focus only upon how police classify people.
With this in mind, would it not be more accurate to divide the situation into the following three situations?
People (like me or Charles, say) who "look White" to a typical English-speaking cop are likely to be categorized as White.
People (like Maya or Dragon Horse, say) who "look Black" to a typical English-speaking cop are likely to be categorized as Black.
And people (like many members here) who look somewhere in-betweenish, will inspire the typical English-speaking cop to ask "what are you?" After all, for in-betweenish-looking people, we are no longer talking about "racial profiling" but simply doubt as to how the cop should fill in his report.
Does that make sense or have I misunderstood your thesis again? ["If you "appear" to be black/African American/primarily of African extraction, the police will treat you as such."]
P.S. If I now understand you, please do not answer with another list of examples of police mistreatment of people who "look Black." We are talking about how in-betweenish-looking people are classified, not about how Black-looking are mistreated.
If you "appear" to be black/African American/primarily of African extraction, the police will treat you as such.
Okay. In that case, we can ignore the evidence and examples you provided of mistreatment and focus only upon how police classify people.
With this in mind, would it not be more accurate to divide the situation into the following three situations?
People (like me or Charles, say) who "look White" to a typical English-speaking cop are likely to be categorized as White.
People (like Maya or Dragon Horse, say) who "look Black" to a typical English-speaking cop are likely to be categorized as Black.
And people (like many members here) who look somewhere in-betweenish, will inspire the typical English-speaking cop to ask "what are you?" After all, for in-betweensih-looking people, we are no longer talking about "racial profiling" but simply doubt as to how the cop should fill in his report.
Does that make sense or have I misunderstood your thesis again? ["If you "appear" to be black/African American/primarily of African extraction, the police will treat you as such."]
Close except for the inbetweenish part. Some people would say Barack looks inbetweenish but he would be treated (or mistreated) as black man. And even if you look "hispanic" you may not get treated any better.
That reminds me of a joke I heard from a Puerto Rican comic on one of those comedy shows. He was in the Bronx driving in a car with his black friends. The police pulled them over and yelled, "All you *insert the n word* get out the car!!"
His friends all got out and assumed the position but he stayed in the car. So the police officer asked him, "What is your problem? Are you deaf?"
He replied, "I'm not black, Im Puerto Rican"
To which the policeman responded, "You're just as Spanish speaking *insert the n word* now get out of the car!!!"
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
