reply to post by redoubt
But referring to people by the color of their skin with normal non-offensive adjectives isn't racist. Thats what I don't understand here. How is
this thread even about racism? I don't see anyone offended to being referred to as white, or black or anything else. And I would argue that anyone
who is offended by that may have a guilty conscious.
reply to post by davesidious
Because if people who usually do that end up lynching them, or setting fire to a cross on their lawn, or just shooting them, it might have certain
connotations a white person who's never been a minority in such a way would ever understand.
I don't know what century you're living in but we have a black president, racism still exists but it's changed, and most people make it out to be
worse than it actually is. I think classism is always the biggest issue, so does this mean we can no longer refer to people as rich, middle class, or
poor? And for god's sake could you not refer to white people as "white" people? They are simply "people who have never been a minority, but may
be some day."
Here's a simple solution: ask black folks - if it's more common for black folks to not want to be referred to by their colour, don't do it. It's
that simple. It's not for white people to decide.
here's a way to make that solution not so simple, take out all the references to color since that what you're advocating anyway. It starts to not
be as clear....why? because it's missing a crucial part of it's text called adjectives, that BTW aren't offensive to anyone. I suppose you should
take out the word simple too just to be safe...you don't wanna be offending any solutions out there.
It's not political correctness gone mad, it's the only way we can move on as a species. Once racism has gone, we can go back to using that phenotype
as an identifier, as we might today use height or hair colour.
the only way we can move on as a species is to eliminate racism? and you think eliminating descriptive words regarding someone's normal
characteristics of skin tone are a key stepping stone to this goal? And after racism has been deemed gone, we can go back to having a skin tone?
Sheer madness...this thread is full of some of the most disjointed logic I have ever heard. I suppose we should do surgery on everyones eyes so that
they can only see one color. If that pesky brain of ours realizes that there's more than one color out there it could be racism!!! GASP!
All of you folks saying "why the big deal?" are pretending that it's the same thing to be white or a minority. It isn't. History might have
passed, but it still echoes to this day. Once the echoes go, then you'll be right. Until then you're simply being short-sighted and somewhat
arrogant that you can't understand how you're not right.
You sound like someone from my parents generation. The echos are going going going....just look around you, but again I don't think skin tone
references have anything to do with racism. You're just describing someones appearance, it's weird to find that offensive.
reply to post by CaptChaos
Yeah you're right actually, the mexicans I used to kick it with did the same thing, lighter skinned girls were often referred to by a slang word,
simply meaning, "white girl." The masculine version of the word is used for me, it wasn't offensive though, just a way of describing me that was
universally understood. I didn't notice any type of disrespect for people based on skin tone in the parts of mexico that I've been to.
reply to post by halfoldman
I don't know what sweet you're referring to buddy, never heard of it. And I'm pretty sure that's how the term native american came into being, so
that they could be differentiated from actual indians who come from india. I just don't think it's caught on everywhere.