So...is this racist?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

I'm ostensibly a white guy and I can't imagining celebrating something as diffuse and generic as 'white culture'. The few defining factors aren't really enough to get worked up about, and much of the history even within the groups culled together under the banner don't always have that much of a shared history, and some of them are even antagonistic.

**dogma**

Luco wrote:
I'm probably mixed up at this point, but you can't celebrate white culture because its the celebration of having a stranglehold on power, yet we do it all the time but can't acknowledge them as white cultural celebrations?

Two things:

1: White culture only "exists" because of the existence of black culture. Polonius touched on this before, but white culture is a thing only because it excludes that which is black and further deals with only that which is powerful.

2: We do celebrate it all the time, but calling it white basically marginalizes black people even more than the holidays already do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
I'm ostensibly a white guy and I can't imagining celebrating something as diffuse and generic as 'white culture'. The few defining factors aren't really enough to get worked up about, and much of the history even within the groups culled together under the banner don't always have that much of a shared history, and some of them are even antagonistic.

I'm still waiting for that day when Americans start calling themselves "American" without a modifier, we're getting there but there is the requisite struggle.

**Mannahnin**

I'm still not seeing how white people in general can be said to have a shared culture. Americans have a good deal of shared culture, and most of it is still predominantly made by and centered on white people, but that's not the same thing as a "white culture". I wouldn't want Presidents' Day or Independence Day to be thought of as white holidays, even if white people started them. They should be inclusive of all Americans.

White only really means anything in the sense of differentiating a person from darker people. In terms of cultural heritage, my Irish and Swedish ancestors didn't have much in common with Hungarians, or Russians, say.

**Ratbarf**

I'm ostensibly a white guy and I can't imagining celebrating something as diffuse and generic as 'white culture'. The few defining factors aren't really enough to get worked up about, and much of the history even within the groups culled together under the banner don't always have that much of a shared history, and some of them are even antagonistic.

Ever gone to St. Patricks day? How about carnivale, the non-carribean one, gay pride parades, Oktoberfest, Thanksgiving, Halloween, pretty much all country music, womens suffrage, yodelling, hunting with semi-automatic weapons, dogs beleive it or not, and a penchant for the Winter Olympics. All of those things are relatively either white only, vast white majority, or white in its origins.

The fact that said activities are open to pretty much all whites regardless of specific national heritage means they fall under white culture. EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.

**dogma**

Ratbarf wrote:
EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.

Or black, for that matter.

Also, real Irish people do get pissed about it.

**d-usa**

Ratbarf wrote:

Ever gone to St. Patricks day?

Irish heritage, not race based.

How about carnivale, the non-carribean one,

Religious heritage, not race based.

gay pride parades,

The black gays would like a word with you.

Oktoberfest,

German heritage, not race based.

Thanksgiving,

Not race based.

Halloween

Religious holiday, not race based

pretty much all country music,

I give you that one

womens suffrage,

Black women who fight to vote want a word with you.

yodelling,

Cultural heritage, not race based

hunting with semi-automatic weapons

Possibly, but it's fun

dogs beleive it or not,

lol what?

and a penchant for the Winter Olympics.

But again, nationality based, nothing to do with race.

All of those things are relatively either white only, vast white majority, or white in its origins.

If they are white it is not because they are events for white people, they are based on national origin or religious traditions, not race based traditions.

The fact that said activities are open to pretty much all whites regardless of specific national heritage means they fall under white culture. EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.

Unless these events kick out black folks trying to drink green beer, eat brats, go trick & treating, whatever they are not "white culture". Nobody gives a darn if you are black and want to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Nobody cares if you are white and want to get drunk on May 5th either.

Stupid argument is stupid.

**Albatross**

dogma wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:
EG; nobody gives a darn if you aren't Irish and celebrate St. Patrick's Day.

Or black, for that matter.

Also, real Irish people do get pissed about it.

Yes, I can testify to that. I'm only half Irish and... Well, it doesn't annoy me as such, but it is rather pathetic. No-one with any real links to the place bangs on about how 'oirish' they are. I've never even been to a St. Patrick's day party in my life, and my sister was born where the fether's buried!

**Eidolon**

d-usa wrote:
Black people not voting for the guy whose party is trying to make it harder for black people to vote and implies that they are all on welfare?

Clearly racist.

But welcome to the "if we made a white people club we are racist, but the NAACP is okay?" club.

This is basically what I feel about it too, but I just watched Malcolm X with a black muslim friend, so maybe im a traitor to the cause.

**Ratbarf**

lol what?

Dog breeding is a vastly white thing. Not too many minorities into as far as I'm aware aside from Selukies.

As to heritage based, I would say that qualifies, as what is African Americanism but a celebration of shared heritage collated from a variety of different african nations.

What's on the 5th of May?

Black women who fight to vote want a word with you.

That goes more under the civil rights movement. Women had the suffrage before negros I think.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Religious heritage, not race based.

The ethnic nation of the Quebecois would like a word with you.

**Eidolon**

Ratbarf wrote:

Black women who fight to vote want a word with you.

That goes more under the civil rights movement. Women had the suffrage before negros I think.

Negros, LOL

**Ratbarf**

?

**LoneLictor**

The maturity level of this thread is astounding.

Normally I'm against making spiteful, sarcastic comments like this, but I'll make an exception for this thread.

**Luco**

Mannahnin wrote:
I'm still not seeing how white people in general can be said to have a shared culture.

By that argument isn't there a lack of black culture as well or Is there a shared culture between Jamaicans and say, those from Botswana?

**Ahtman**

Luco wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
I'm still not seeing how white people in general can be said to have a shared culture.

By that argument isn't there a lack of black culture as well or Is there a shared culture between Jamaicans and say, those from Botswana?

It is like thinking that White Power and Black Power must mean the same thing because they are similar words, yet they actually mean very different things. White Culture and Black Culture are also actually very different meanings, they just sound similar. Black Culture usually denotes that of the people that are descendants of slaves, not recent immigrants that happen to have dark skin. There is some crossover though, as Jamaicans will often run into racism just as much as another person of African decent in the USA. There is a much greater sense of shared history and struggle for acceptance, though it helps when you are a smaller group to be able to relate to each other in a broad way. For instance, white soldiers returning from WWI weren't killed in such record numbers by their own countrymen that a name was given for that post War summer. Black soldiers returning home on the other hand were, and we got the Red Summer.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
White culture only "exists" because of the existence of black culture. Polonius touched on this before, but white culture is a thing only because it excludes that which is black and further deals with only that which is powerful.

This is a two way street though. Celebrating "black culture" only leads to highlight differances and doesn't do anything to close the gap. The arguments about unified culture stand up just as well. I have just about as much relation to my old world culture as any black people do. But saying I cannot celebrate a unified culture because of how seperate all those european ones are, and then turning around and saying they can is a joke. African cultures back then, and today, are just as widely varied as european ones.

I look at it this way, I'm white, and I celebrate my culture. Not white culture, but American culture. I'm an American. I'm not a Scottish-American, European-American, or even Caucasian-American. I'm just American. These divides aren't going to close themselves until all parties begin to look at themselves the same way. Stop identifying yourself as African-American, Phillipino-American, Latin-American, etc...

A question for our British members. Do folks of African and Indian descent in your country label themselves as such? Or are they just "British"? I've never heard the term African-British used before, so I'm curious.

**youbedead**

Black culture is not the culture of of the old world culture or African culture. It comes from the slave culture, which was a mixture of old world religious traditions mixed heavily with southern baptism, plus a bit of french thrown in. To confuse american black slave culture with african culture is to show a deep ignorance of american history

**reds8n**

Some do , some don't.

Situation in the UK is a bit different owing to the time scales involved of course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18903391

The reign of Elizabeth I saw the beginning of Britain's first black community. It's a fascinating story for modern Britons, writes historian Michael Wood.

Walk out of Aldgate Tube and stroll around Whitechapel Road in east London today, and you'll experience the heady sights, smells and sounds of the temples, mosques and curry houses of Brick Lane - so typical of modern multicultural Britain.

Most of us tend to think that black people came to Britain after the war - Caribbeans on the Empire Windrush in 1948, Bangladeshis after the 1971 war and Ugandan Asians after Idi Amin's expulsion in 1972.

But, back in Shakespeare's day, you could have met people from west Africa and even Bengal in the same London streets.

Of course, there were fewer, and they drew antipathy as well as fascination from the Tudor inhabitants, who had never seen black people before. But we know they lived, worked and intermarried, so it is fair to say that Britain's first black community starts here.

There had been black people in Britain in Roman times, and they are found as musicians in the early Tudor period in England and Scotland.

But the real change came in Elizabeth I's reign, when, through the records, we can pick up ordinary, working, black people, especially in London.

Shakespeare himself, a man fascinated by "the other", wrote several black parts - indeed, two of his greatest characters are black - and the fact that he put them into mainstream entertainment reflects the fact that they were a significant element in the population of London.

Employed especially as domestic servants, but also as musicians, dancers and entertainers, their numbers ran to many hundreds, maybe even more.

And let's be clear - they were not slaves. In English law, it was not possible to be a slave in England (although that principle had to be re-stated in slave trade court cases in the late 18th Century, like the "Somersett" case of 1772).

In Elizabeth's reign, the black people of London were mostly free. Some indeed, both men and women, married native English people.

In 1599, for example, in St Olave Hart Street, John Cathman married Constantia "a black woman and servant". A bit later, James Curres, "a moore Christian", married Margaret Person, a maid.

The parish records of this time from "St Botolph's outside Aldgate", are especially revealing. Here, among French and Dutch immigrants, are a Persian, several Indians and one "East Indian" (from today's Bengal).

In this single small parish, we find 25 black people in the later 16th Century. They are mainly servants, but not all - one man lodging at the White Bell, next to the Bell Foundry off Whitechapel road, probably worked at the foundry.

Some were given costly, high status, Christian funerals, with bearers and fine black cloth, a mark of the esteem in which they were held by employers, neighbours and fellow workers.

Among the names are these:

Christopher Cappervert [ie from Cape Verde] - "a blacke moore"
Domingo - "a black neigro servaunt unto Sir William Winter"
Suzanna Peavis - "a blackamore servant to John Deppinois"
Symon Valencia - "a black moore servaunt to Stephen Drifyeld a nedellmaker"
Cassango - "a blackmoore servaunt to Mr Thomas Barber a marchaunt"
Isabell Peeters - "a Black-more lodgeing in Blew Anchor Alley"
"A negar whose name was suposed to be Frauncis. He was servant to be [sic] Peter Miller a beare brewer dwelling at the signe of the hartes horne in the libertie of EastSmithfield. Yeares xxvi [26]. He had the best cloth [and] iiii [4] bearers"
Among later names, we find:

Anne Vause - "a Black-more wife to Anthonie Vause, Trompetter"
John Comequicke - "a Black-Moore so named, servant to Thomas Love a Captaine"
And, the saddest in this list:

Marie - "a Blackamoor woman that die in the street"
Sometimes the detail in the Botolph's register is absolutely fascinating.

In 1597, for example, Mary Fillis, a black woman of 20 years, had, for a long while, been the servant of Widow Barker in Mark Lane. She had been in England 13 or 14 years, and was the daughter of a Moorish shovel maker and basket maker. Never christened, she became the servant of Millicent Porter, a seamstress living in East Smithfield, and now "taking some howld of faith in Jesus Chryst, was desyrous to becom a Christian, Wherefore shee made sute by hir said mistres to have some conference with the Curat".

Examined in her faith by the vicar of St Botolph's, and "answering him verie Christian lyke", she did her catechisms, said the Lord's Prayer, and was baptised on Friday 3 June 1597 in front of the congregation. Among her witnesses were a group of five women, mostly wives of leading parishioners. Now a "lyvely member" of the church in Aldgate, there is no question from this description that Mary belonged to a community with friends and supporters.

Despite the story of Fillis, the lives of others were far from sweetness and light, of course. The lives of some black people were as free as anywhere in the white European world, but, for many, things were circumscribed and very hard.

Some black women worked alongside their white counterparts as prostitutes, especially in Southwark, and in the brothel area of Turnmill Street in Clerkenwell. Here the famous Lucy Negro, a former dancer in the Queen's service, ran an establishment patronised by noblemen and lawyers. Lucy was famous enough to be paid mock homage in the Inns of Court revels at Gray's Inn.

Her area of London was notorious. "Pray enquire after and secure my negress: she is certainly at The Swan, a Dane's beershop in Turnmil Street," wrote one Denis Edwards in 1602. Shakespeare's acquaintance, the poet John Weaver, also sang the praises of a woman whose face was "pure black as Ebonie, jet blacke".

In around 1600, the presence of black people had become an issue for the English government. Their numbers recently increased by many slaves freed from captured Spanish ships, the presence of black people suddenly came to be seen as a nuisance. In 1601, among the Cecil papers still held at Hatfield House, we hear this:

"The queen is discontented at the great numbers of 'negars and blackamoores' which are crept into the realm since the troubles between her Highness and the King of Spain, and are fostered here to the annoyance of her own people."

The "great numbers" were mainly galley slaves and servants from captured Spanish vessels, and a plan was mooted to transport them out of the country. Was this the first example of government repatriation? In July 1602, Cecil was putting pressure on the merchants, one of whom wrote:

"I have persuaded the merchants trading to Barbary, not without some difficulty, to yield to [ie pay for] the charges of the Moors lately redeemed out of servitude by her Majesty's ships, so far as it may concern their lodging and victuals, till some shipping may be ready to carry them into Barbary…"

Whether this actually happened is unclear. No more then than now, should we take a government's pronouncements on such matters at face value?

But it is at least worth noting that the authorities felt duty-bound to look after food and lodging while the freed slaves were in London. But it cannot be, as is sometimes claimed today, that this edict applied to the many black people who, like Mary Fillis, were living as citizens in London, as they were in Bristol.

Brief as they are, such hints suggest a surprisingly rich hidden narrative for black people in Elizabethan England.

From Lucy Negro to Mary Fillis, their numbers grew in the 17th Century as they were joined by large numbers of people from India and, in particular, Bengal.

Sadly, their own story, in their own words, is lacking, but by the time we reach the 18th Century, we have the remarkable works of prose, poetry and music written by black Britons, among whom the likes of Olaudah Equiano, Ottobah Cugoano and Ignatius Sancho deserve their place in any list of Great Britons.

By the 18th Century, it is thought as many as 20,000 black servants lived in London. They even had their own taverns where they greeted defeat of the "Somersett case" and the victories of the abolitionists with raucous good humour.

Their numbers were still small compared with the population as a whole, but they already had a role in our national story. What would Mary Fillis make of things today I wonder? And what would we give for her story?

**djones520**

Those of Indian descent though? The split between your two countries was much more recent then the cut off of our slave trade, and even slavery, but it's still the PC thing to refer to folks as African-American even though it's been more then 200 years since we stopped taking people from Africa.

**Ahtman**

djones520 wrote:
Those of Indian descent though? The split between your two countries was much more recent then the cut off of our slave trade, and even slavery, but it's still the PC thing to refer to folks as African-American even though it's been more then 200 years since we stopped taking people from Africa.

Yes, because as we all know, when they stopped selling new slaves in the US was when suddenly Black people were considered equals in every way, with full access to all parts of American society.

While we are on the subject, did you know that it hasn't been 200 years since slavery was made illegal in the US? If we count the pseudo-slavery of Jim Crowe, it has been even less time.

**Kilkrazy**

They are called African-American because people are squeamish to say "black" or "coloured".

Note that the white majority does not call itself European-American.

**AgeOfEgos**

I would politely disagree. I call them African Americans---as an 'African American' is different than an 'African'--of course, I might be the odd man out here--as I do not buy into the "race is a social construct" thought of the day either.

**punkow**

This thread is hilarious...

**Albatross**

Really interesting article reds8n, thanks for posting. For my part I've never really heard non-white Britons refer to themselves in terms of their ethnicity except for when it is specifically a topic of conversation, with the possible exception of those in the Asian community. British-Asian is a thing, I guess.

**Kilkrazy**

AgeOfEgos wrote:
I would politely disagree. I call them African Americans---as an 'African American' is different than an 'African'--of course, I might be the odd man out here--as I do not buy into the "race is a social construct" thought of the day either.

Do you call white citizens "European-Americans"?

Surely everyone who is a citizen of the USA is an American, regardless of their colour of skin?

"African-Americans" whose families have been in the US for two hundred years are no more African than I am, except as defined by the colour of their skin.

Conversely there are recent immigrants to the US, from Somalia, Egypt and Nigeria, who are all African and have no more in common with each other culturally or racially than a French Canadian and a Nahuatl Mexican.

**Mannahnin**

"African American" and "black" are typically the courteous terms used in reference to people of that ancestry, in the US. If talking about African American culture or black culture, that can refer to a couple of things. One is the traditions and shared experience of blacks in America, mostly descended from slaves. Things like the religious culture, cuisine, naming practices, etc. It can also refer to the popular culture centered around black people is a more amorphous thing, relating to music and fashion and marketing, and of course marketers try to broaden the appeal to as wide an audience as they can.

Specific subgroups of white people in the US are sometimes referred to or refer to themselves in relation to their ethnic/national background, such as Irish-Americans, Franco-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. Mostly in cases where people still identify with a cultural group. Boston or Brooklyn Irish-Americans, New York or New Jersey Italian-Americans, Franco-Americans in NH and Vermont (and probably other states bordering Canada, but I don't have firsthand experience with them), are descended from large waves of immigrants who maintained some cultural traditions and practices and primarily intermarried within the group, to some extent that being true even to this day. Jersey Shore is perhaps nothing to be proud of, but gives a pop culture example of a particular youth culture of Italian-Americans. I don't know personally whether people of Scandinavian descent in the upper midwest (which had tons of Swedish and Norwegian immigrants) use the terms Swedish-American or Norwegian-American, but I think they may.

**KingCracker**

Kilkrazy wrote:
AgeOfEgos wrote:
I would politely disagree. I call them African Americans---as an 'African American' is different than an 'African'--of course, I might be the odd man out here--as I do not buy into the "race is a social construct" thought of the day either.

Do you call white citizens "European-Americans"?

Surely everyone who is a citizen of the USA is an American, regardless of their colour of skin?

"African-Americans" whose families have been in the US for two hundred years are no more African than I am, except as defined by the colour of their skin.

Conversely there are recent immigrants to the US, from Somalia, Egypt and Nigeria, who are all African and have no more in common with each other culturally or racially than a French Canadian and a Nahuatl Mexican.

This is my outlook on it. As my brother the Giant always said "There isnt an Afircan American Crayon in that box is there? No?!? Ok so they are black then"

Too true

**AgeOfEgos**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Surely everyone who is a citizen of the USA is an American, regardless of their colour of skin?

"African-Americans" whose families have been in the US for two hundred years are no more African than I am, except as defined by the colour of their skin.

Conversely there are recent immigrants to the US, from Somalia, Egypt and Nigeria, who are all African and have no more in common with each other culturally or racially than a French Canadian and a Nahuatl Mexican.

Oh yes KK, without a doubt we are all "Americans" under a cultural lens. I should have probably clarified my stance a bit more--but was posting from my phone so it was laziness induced brevity

.

African Americans in the United States are certainly more African than you are--provided you do not have a significant African American ancestry in your recent past. African Americans have a very specific genotype that is unique with their mixture of Europen/African descent. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/genetic-variation-among-african-americans/ It's true that classifications are something we (as a species) designed--but as a group identifier of alleles that share characteristics, it's valid. Culturally and socially, group DNA differences (call it race, groups, whatever) will always be an issue--until we sufficiently intermingle enough that the biological variety becomes muddied enough--it is no longer socially or culturally relevant. Maybe that will never happen? I hope so. It's certainly a land mine socially to discuss it--even the Human Genome Project had to tiptoe (stating race as a social construct was socially constructed and there were no species within humans--yet we do have group differences). Carefully worded-- hah I bet

. Personally, I actually think categorizing Africans and African Americans as "black" is more racist then pointing out the genetic differences between Africans, African Americans and Europeans and using such labels.

I think it's important to note this for a couple of reasons. One, to ignore the biological basis of race is to do a discredit to races that would respond to specific medical treatments. Africans and African Americans are more predisposed to diabetes, hypertension and sickle cell disease. This is tied to a genome that also happens to increase melatonin as well---so we can't simply dismiss the race as a social construct and move on. That's unfair to African and African Americans that may need more preemptive care in those areas--and respond to certain medications more favorably (IIRC African Americans respond more favorably to Betablockers instead of ACE as an example).

And the other reason is--if we try to dismiss race as purely social construct to counter racists--well, as I noted above-1 we are wrong--and 2--IMHO--that's not the argument we should be using against idiotic racists. The argument I would make is that while genetics/race may predispose us to certain diseases (and yes--perhaps even certain behaviors)-we judge people by their action, not what they statistically may fall under. Racists are idiots and deserve scorn for their idiocy--I just want to make sure we scorn them for the right reasons.

An interesting read on it;

http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/C45405%20resources/McCann%20race%20human%20genome.pdf

**LoneLictor**

I never really thought about the term 'Black' versus the term 'African American'. I guess I always say black for two reasons.

1) I was referred to as white person, not an Anglo Saxton American or whatever the intellectual term for crackers is.

2) Not all black people are African Americans. If I was from Jamaica, I'd probably get annoyed by being called an African American.

**Ahtman**

People choose to be called what they want, and doing so is a sign of respect and understanding. Some people prefer to be referred to as black, some as African-American. Some prefer to be called white, others Franco-American. It is a personal identification issues, and often, especially from non-minorities, it is a cause of consternation, because it would just be easier if the smaller groups would just conform to the larger groups norms and labels. Of course it never really works like that. Indian, Native American, First Nation, Indigenous, Cherokee.

Another problem with 'White Culture' is that it radically changes over time to envelop different groups. Mediterranean groups (Greek, Italian) were not classified as white in the US for for more time than they have been. A white woman was arrested for miscegenation until it was found out that she was of Italian descent, at which point she was let go because the law forbid white people to marry black people, and Italians weren't white. Of course lets not forget 'No Dogs or Irish", either. Jews are now typically considered 'white', unless someone knows they are Jewish, which then colors their view, but most don't think to much on it. Asians are sort of an odd man out in that they are both treated as white, yet often still outsiders.

Anglo Saxon isn't an intellectual term for anything, it is a descriptor of people of descent from the Anglo Saxon groups. It is just old world X-Y, such as African- American.

**AustonT**

Mannahnin wrote:I'm still not seeing how white people in general can be said to have a shared culture.

They don't. Absent skin color white people (esp Americans) are perfectly willing to segregate white people into cultural/racial groups to discriminate against them.

LoneLictor wrote:I never really thought about the term 'Black' versus the term 'African American'. I guess I always say black for two reasons.

I don't use hyphenations at all, something something Teddy Roosevelt.