Is the term blacklisted racist? (1 Viewer)

[James Spader]

I've got a better idea. How about we stop calling people "white" & "black," neither of which is representative in the least of ones skin color, race, ethnicity or anything else?

I am Latino and my color is macadamia. How you ask? My face blends with my wall when I zoom however I can only select white. I demand macadamia on my census form.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

yes, let's also rename "brownout" and "blackout" power disruptions, "white zones" for un/loading (probably done already), "blacktop" paved surfaces, and "blackboards" in the classroom

it's a newspeak bottomless pit

smh

No it’s not
Language is dynamic and should always evolve to be both more precise and inclusive

 

[James Spader]

I remember working on AH-1 Cobras that there was a switch in the front cockpit that said "Slave" to line up the gun with the telescopic sight unit.

Oh the humanity.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

is the word "racist" racist??

Nope, but asking might be

 

[James Spader]

No it’s not
Language is dynamic and should always evolve to be both more precise and inclusive

I agree on precise not sure about inclusive.

 

[rajncajn]

I think you’re pointing to the issue
Imagine when white colonizers first came to Middle Africa (or Asia or S America)
I am almost certain the native population’s did not say “hey look, white people”
- an actual white person does not exist
- and while there are some with blue/black skin who are very dark; an actual black person does not exist

White and black have obviously been used to qualify skin on some moral scale (white = pure)
In these examples- black/whitelisting, blackballing, et al - the black = bad connotations still exist
While the may not have a unified origins, they certainly run parallel

Is there harm in being more descriptive with our language so that we’re not giving moral weight to color?

We've had this same conversation before and my stance has not changed. Yes, I believe that there is harm in attaching negative connotations, especially of a racial nature, to things where none exist. I also think that there is harm in making superficial changes that actually take away from or create animosity towards what would otherwise be a just cause. It's nothing more than a distraction, that diminishes the intent of a movement by giving some false sense of accomplishment all-the-while providing fodder to those who don't want to see real change.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I agree on precise not sure about inclusive.

That was meant to be an example of ‘dynamic’
That there is a push/pull between précis and inclusive
Someone coins a term to define an action or idea or whatever
Thatbterm often gets applied to other arenas through metaphor or symbolism or whatever
If that language becomes exclusionary, then it should be amended unless there is a very compelling reason not to (like it’s still the only word used to describe the thing it was coined to define)

 

[Zack Lee]

No it’s not
Language is dynamic and should always evolve to be both more precise and inclusive

this seems to support the belief that we should alter what we call the skin colors of people since white and black are almost never precise when it comes to skin color but are as precise as they can possibly be when describing other things.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

We've had this same conversation before and my stance has not changed. Yes, I believe that there is harm in attaching negative connotations, especially of a racial nature, to things where none exist. I also think that there is harm in making superficial changes that actually take away from or create animosity towards what would otherwise be a just cause. It's nothing more than a distraction, that diminishes the intent of a movement by giving some false sense of accomplishment all-the-while providing fodder to those who don't want to see real change.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

this seems to support the belief that we should alter what we call the skin colors of people since white and black are almost never precise when it comes to skin color but are as precise as they can possibly be when describing other things.

That’s part of it - and we should.
At the same time, as we see with ‘black’ ‘negro’ ‘African American ‘ et al - as long as one group wields disproportionate power, all attempts to have language by itself redress that power imbalance is ultimately doomed

Redistribute the power and the language won’t be as fraught

 

[rajncajn]

Then we both agree that it's not the words "black" and "white" that are the root of the problem but rather the attachment of those descriptives to certain particular races. So, why waste time trying to change what is not the problem?

 

[livefromDC]

yes, let's also rename "brownout" and "blackout" power disruptions, "white zones" for un/loading (probably done already), "blacktop" paved surfaces, and "blackboards" in the classroom

it's a newspeak bottomless pit

smh

And if we allow gay marriage, people are going to want to marry dogs.

 

[rajncajn]

That’s part of it - and we should.
At the same time, as we see with ‘black’ ‘negro’ ‘African American ‘ et al - as long as one group wields disproportionate power, all attempts to have language by itself redress that power imbalance is ultimately doomed

Redistribute the power and the language won’t be as fraught

Not that it really matters, but wouldn't "disproportionate opportunity" be a more positive message? Otherwise it comes off like what you're seeking is power rather than equality.

 

[rajncajn]

I could attach a negative racial connotation to "whitewash" and a native American could do the same to "redline" or "in the red."

yes, let's also rename "brownout" and "blackout" power disruptions, "white zones" for un/loading (probably done already), "blacktop" paved surfaces, and "blackboards" in the classroom

it's a newspeak bottomless pit

smh

And if we allow gay marriage, people are going to want to marry dogs.

And this, folks, is how a thread devolves.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Then we both agree that it's not the words "black" and "white" that are the root of the problem but rather the attachment of those descriptives to certain particular races. So, why waste time trying to change what is not the problem?

You got what I was saying backwards
Ultimately you/we would want a more equitable society
UNTIL that happens, then addressing and redressing the symptoms of that imbalance - language and media chief among them - is really the only play