Being Black

FFFFFUUUUUUUU

I'm just going to copy+paste my Timmy example again. I'd sure hate to have you on a jury! Apparently extra information that was never mentioned is okay to use as evidence... hmm.

You want to prove Timmy hates red apples. But the ONLY information you have is that TImmy has less red apples than green apples. You can't logically draw the conclusion that Timmy hates red apples ONLY based on the information you have.

To try to restate this, I believe what you are saying is that you acknowledge there are statistics that show that unemployment from different groups does vary. One conclusion could be that it has to do with discrimination (which you happen to agree with as you stated several times). Without further information to go on, the data provided by the other person, could be read in various ways. Such as, maybe those groups have a harder time of getting to job interviews (don't live near public transportation) so they never get a chance to be considered for a job, or maybe certain people label themselves in other criteria (ex: a housewife could be unemployed, but not looking for employment, there is no proof she isn't getting hired because she isn't applying to jobs). Of course we don't know any of this, because we have nothing else to add to the data. So the data isn't conclusive to make a point, however it could be used to show a correlation. Correlations dont' always prove anything.

You could have data that says the unemployment rates for people who like peanut butter and jelly is less than those who don't. This doesn't necessarily prove beyond reason that companies are only hiring people who like peanut butter and jelly. Who knows, perhaps the people who hate peanut butter and jelly went to a fast food place for lunch and were unable to get back in time for the interview. Nobody knows because there is only the initial data.

Thanks, but I'm pretty sure that was just an extremely wordy way of saying what I said.

Of course we don't know any of this, because we have nothing else to add to the data. So the data isn't conclusive to make a point, however it could be used to show a correlation. Correlations dont' always prove anything.

This being my absolute point. You don't know any other information than numbers - so you can't draw any conclusions.

I was waiting for someone to post that ridiculous Morgan freeman quote.

Look,ignoring the problem is not the solution to anything,and a lot of people think,just because some black celebrity with a cool voice said this, doesn't make it a valid statement or a representation of how most black people feel.

I understand what Morgan says,black history is just HISTORY,white people where involved in "black history" too.lol

However black history month exists because it is barely taught its schools,probably because it might make white people feel bad and uncomfortable.Which is the exact reason why a lot of people love to quote this,because topics of race aren't something a lot of people want to deal with.Black history month is so people can be more aware of how things went down.

I can't believe people think the solution,is sticking your fingers in your ears,and going "LA LA LA"

like seriously? would you say that about ANYTHING ELSE???

How do we stop rape?

stop talking about it.


how do we stop murder?

stop talking about it.

how do we stop robbery?

stop talking about it.

like seriously,WOW.

Wonderful points. I've had a lot of discussions about this in my education classes, and there is a general consensus now, between educators at least, that "black history month" isn't the right way to go. Not because it isn't important to talk about the achievements of a group of people, but it is the context. It shows that it is an extra. It is part of the history courses that trivialize what makes up a group of people. Like only learning about certain ethnicities through their festivals, food, and traditions. It's all shown as extra, which is just another way of making it excluded. Instead teachers are trying to use more supplementary materials throughout the year to include perspectives of all varieties.

I, personally, have always had a bit of a problem with Black History Month. The main issue is that why reduce it to one month? Its apart of American history and should be taught as such. Another issue I have is that you only learn about the same things over and over again for 12 years. It makes this aspect of history very boring and routine causing the kids to ignore it and never really learn about the subject. It also down plays a LOT of what was going on throughout the movement. We are only told about the very prominent figures like Martin Luther King Jr. but for 12 years? 12 yrs? Come on, the movement was from the ground up, lets learn about those who we don’t know about already. That’s my main problem with black history month.

The answer to the problem is NOT ignoring it!!!! It is NOT not talking about it! The solution is PROPER EDUCATION!!!!!!!!

^^^ This!

Also, I LOVE your ticker!

As a heterosexual white male, you're not being discriminated against and your equal rights aren't in jeopardy. All of us who belong to an oppressed minority group have the responsibility to stand up for ourselves and other oppressed minorities. What you call "promoting an agenda" is simply demanding equal treatment. I'm not surprised you can't empathize.

There's a lot of bias against heterosexual white males, kind of like a backlash. They will be blamed for sexism and racism first. They will be stepped over just so that a company has a woman or ethnic person in positions to fill their quota. And that's speaking as a woman. All of this just needs to find a balance but it'll take a while. I don't care about this enough to be honest, live and let live.

I agree.

i find that interesting too.

infact i noticed a lot of Americans use the term "African American" as if synonymous with black.To be "politically correct"

I am a black man,born in England.So calling me African American doesn't work for me,lol.As I'm not American.

Infact, i'm not African either since i have never been on the continent.We are also referred to as Afro-carribean because most black people that first came to England came over from the Caribbean.

its also begs the question,how come white people aren't called European Americans,but everyone else has to be categorized.

So true! Not all black people identify as being African... ALSO not all Africans are black.

i find that interesting too.

infact i noticed a lot of Americans use the term "African American" as if synonymous with black.To be "politically correct"

I am a black man,born in England.So calling me African American doesn't work for me,lol.As I'm not American.

Infact, i'm not African either since i have never been on the continent.We are also referred to as Afro-carribean because most black people that first came to England came over from the Caribbean.

its also begs the question,how come white people aren't called European Americans,but everyone else has to be categorized.

So true! Not all black people identify as being African... ALSO not all Africans are black.

I think the point he was making was that in England/Britain we don't have the same categorisation of ethnicity as you seem to in the States.

It seems that unless you are of Anglo-Saxon decent in the US, you have a category - Italian American, Irish American, African American etc. We don't have that. If you were born in the UK, you are British. That's it.

Yes... and I was agreeing with that
P.S. I'm not American

People say "African-American" to be politically correct. The Associated Press Style Guide actually says you should use "black" in news articles, but every publisher I ever had would make us use AA instead because they were afraid of hate mail.

I don't think it was necessarily a rational fear, but you just never know who's going to take offense and who doesn't care. I hate it.

I've sat here for about 20 minutes reading this thread. This is insanely interesting to me. I have jumble of thoughts on this topic. I myself am half Mexican and half white, but I grew up in a predominately white town with just my white mother. (my father is mexican but had a heart attack when I was little and doesn't remember me anymore). I don't really care about race. It's just such a who the hell cares thing for me.

I however identify myself as Mexican racially. Not in the way I dress of talk or move or breathe because I don't think there is a difference in how I do anything versus how a "real" Mexican American girl would do anything. I identify myself as Mexican because I feel a connection to the side of my family that I no longer have. I don't randomly tell people I am Mexican, but if someone sees my last name and asks, I will tell them. Or on all the forms for jobs and school to check your race I check Mexican.

On another issue that has sprung up. I don't think we just just be "a man" or "a woman" we are always going to have qualifiers. Like "oh Susie? she's my blonde friend you know the one..." or anything like that. Personally I am known like this

: "Amanda... you know the one really short... really big boobs?"

at this point everyone goes "OHHHHH that Amanda!". To me I don't have a problem with this kind of thing. I think it would be silly leaving out a race when trying to describe someone. If I know 3 Danielle's and only one is black, when I describe her I am going to say she's black. If she's the only gay one I'm going to say

"Danielle the lesbian"

Thats not the only thing about her, nor is it even important. Sometimes these things are just adjectives. I personally would have no problem with someone saying

"Amanda the lesbian/Mexican/hobbit/nerd"

because I am all those things and more. But "Amanda the woman" doesn't really help when trying to remember someone or identify them.

If any of that makes any sense I commend you!

People say "African-American" to be politically correct. The Associated Press Style Guide actually says you should use "black" in news articles, but every publisher I ever had would make us use AA instead because they were afraid of hate mail.

I don't think it was necessarily a rational fear, but you just never know who's going to take offense and who doesn't care. I hate it.

Interesting discussion about the terms. Just to clarify, I said black because I am British, not American, so African american is not relevant at all. Most people in the UK are settled on the term black, it is the correct one.

Well, a black person in England wouldn't be African-American! lol But, in truth, every black person I know refers to him or herself as "black," not AA. I think it's a white guilt kind of thing, like we feel like calling them black is somehow insulting because of slavery. Somehow.

Another popular PC term here is "people of color," which my mother has often pointed out is just another way or saying "colored people," which is a very racist term going back to the Jim Crowe era. We play with language here a lot and get offended very easily. I do love my country, but I will readily admit there is plenty of room for improvement.

Another one is "Native American" vs. "Indian." Most of the "Native Americans" prefer to be called Indian, but white people just won't do it because they think it's offensive.

Another popular PC term here is "people of color," which my mother has often pointed out is just another way or saying "colored people," which is a very racist term going back to the Jim Crowe era. We play with language here a lot and get offended very easily. I do love my country, but I will readily admit there is plenty of room for improvement.

We have that here a little bit. I sort of like it in a way, thought I'd still use black first. I know if sounds like coloured but it isn't; your mother is very sensitive but this term has a different background. because one thing, it comes FROM the people it describes, rather than used by other to label us. Plus PoC means 'all people who aren't white', so, black, asian, brown, etc. in recognition that their is a shared experience of people who aren't white, even if they are all different races. We could just say 'people who aren't white' but tht define people by what they are NOT rather than what they are. I quite like it in some contexts, eg. in my family is quite mixed, both ethnically and racially, so sometimes PoC sums it up well.

It probably has a different context outside of the US.