3 ms·

Majority of Black Americans are a distinct shared cultural group, like Hispanic folk, who come in many different pigments, also like Hispanic folk, who also ten

by imbnwa 5y ago

Majority of Black Americans are a distinct shared cultural group, like Hispanic folk, who come in many different pigments, also like Hispanic folk, who also tend to have an identifiable manner of speaking and protocol, also like Hispanic folk.

thegrimmest 5y ago
The problem is that while "hispanic" indicates a linguistic origin, "black" (like "white") indicates a physical trait - having skin pigment past an arbitrary threshold of darkness/lightness. You can be black and hispanic, or white and hispanic. You can't be a white black american, even if that accurately describes your skin and culture respectively. Also, you're problematically lumping all sorts of people who happen to have dark skin into a single category. The African immigrants I know want nothing to do with "american black culture" and resent being associated with it. Finally, in order to be able to discuss these issues clearly, it's important to have distinct terms. If someone wants to criticize "american black culture", they cannot do so without being labelled as racist, despite that fact that criticism of cultural practices is generally accepted. Basically we have two concepts: 1) Being "black" - being of african descent and/or being above a certain threshold of darkness in skin pigment. We should not tolerate discrimination for being black. It's also worth noting that this sort of categorization of people into black/white is not very scientific. 2) Belonging to American slave-descended culture. You can belong to this cultural group regardless of your skin color. We should be tolerant of criticism of this culture's ideology and practices. These two concepts need different names. I'm aware "slave-descended" isn't an ideal (if accurate) name, so open to suggestions here.
- tptacek 5y ago
  No, Black culture is not simply about skin tone.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize. It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here?
    - imbnwa 5y ago
      >That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize. I literally wrote "Majority of Black Americans...who come in many different pigments" > It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here? This is why I wrote "Majority" but you should also consult a Nigerian-American
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        Let's try it this way: "A lot of hispanic countries have problems with drug cartels, crime and corruption" vs. "A lot of black communities have problems with drugs, violence and poor educational outcomes" It's pretty easy to accuse the latter statement of being racist isn't it? Not so much the former though huh? Why do you think that is?
        tptacek 5y ago
        Because Black communities aren't countries.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        OK, replace "countries" with "communities" - my point stands.
        tptacek 5y ago
        No, it doesn't; if you replace countries with communities, the other statement becomes immediately and obviously problematic.
        5y ago
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > you're problematically lumping all sorts of people who happen to have dark skin into a single category United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone for over 400 years; the GP didn't invent it today on HN. It's already been done and well-ingrained. If your skin is black, many people will treat you differently, to the extent that you may be subject to violence, many won't hire you, loans are more difficult to obtain, you'll experience stereotypes and racism regularly. In the end, rather than deal with danger and abuse every day, you end up living in the same neighborhoods, socializing with the same people, going to the same schools and restaurants, visiting the same websites ... to make your daily life peaceful and safe. As I mentioned in another thread, you can't even watch porn without encountering endless racist stereotypes. As a result, while you may not think so and there are always exceptions, Americans with black skin share a lot with each other. > slave-descended culture What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)? > We should be tolerant of criticism of this culture's ideology and practices. Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical. More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not. It's obviously easy, and often done, to say things that are arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism. Also, criticizing groups seems inherently stereotypical. An at-will club, such as the Libertarian Party or local Linux User Group, is different. But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible or at fault for some stereotype which may have nothing to do with you (and usually are false and often racist anyway). Let's look at people as individuals, responsible for their own actions. Finally, there's a lot of effort to create space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism?
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    > United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone Wouldn't the best solution to this problem represent a rejection of such categorization? Wouldn't that necessarily exclude "X for Black People" in the same way it excludes "X for White People"? I'd like to live in a society where skin tone is no more important than hair color. Surely the best way to get there is to de-emphasize skin tone and therefore "blackness" and "whiteness"? > What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)? From tptacek in another post: "Black culture ... was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture (while uniting them for another 100 years in the experience of apartheid and the civil rights movement). It's its own powerful, interesting thing." I have a hard time disagreeing - it seems to be a distinct cultural group. > Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical I disagree. I would say many people are able to make the distinction, and the lack of appropriate terminology to discuss it is universally frustrating. > More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not. It's quite easy. If you criticize a practice of cannibalizing visitors then it's reasonably clear the culture/practices are at issue, not the inherent traits of the people, unless of course we can prove some genetic predisposition to cannibalism. > arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism Yes doublespeak is a thing, but that doesn't mean frank discussion should be off the table. > But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible I would say that it exactly does. Who else can be responsible for a culture's practices than the people who maintain and perpetuate that culture? > space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism? Because these are intrinsically related. As long as we can't disentangle the criticism and solutionizing of very real problems with black culture and ideology from racist bigotry against black people we'll never solve the problem. As long as black people are in a special class that's protected from serious criticism they can never be equal to the rest of us.

by imbnwa 5y ago

thegrimmest 5y ago

The problem is that while "hispanic" indicates a linguistic origin, "black" (like "white") indicates a physical trait - having skin pigment past an arbitrary threshold of darkness/lightness. You can be black and hispanic, or white and hispanic. You can't be a white black american, even if that accurately describes your skin and culture respectively. Also, you're problematically lumping all sorts of people who happen to have dark skin into a single category. The African immigrants I know want nothing to do with "american black culture" and resent being associated with it. Finally, in order to be able to discuss these issues clearly, it's important to have distinct terms. If someone wants to criticize "american black culture", they cannot do so without being labelled as racist, despite that fact that criticism of cultural practices is generally accepted. Basically we have two concepts: 1) Being "black" - being of african descent and/or being above a certain threshold of darkness in skin pigment. We should not tolerate discrimination for being black. It's also worth noting that this sort of categorization of people into black/white is not very scientific. 2) Belonging to American slave-descended culture. You can belong to this cultural group regardless of your skin color. We should be tolerant of criticism of this culture's ideology and practices. These two concepts need different names. I'm aware "slave-descended" isn't an ideal (if accurate) name, so open to suggestions here.

tptacek 5y ago
No, Black culture is not simply about skin tone.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize. It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here?
  - imbnwa 5y ago
    >That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize. I literally wrote "Majority of Black Americans...who come in many different pigments" > It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here? This is why I wrote "Majority" but you should also consult a Nigerian-American
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      Let's try it this way: "A lot of hispanic countries have problems with drug cartels, crime and corruption" vs. "A lot of black communities have problems with drugs, violence and poor educational outcomes" It's pretty easy to accuse the latter statement of being racist isn't it? Not so much the former though huh? Why do you think that is?
      - tptacek 5y ago
        Because Black communities aren't countries.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        OK, replace "countries" with "communities" - my point stands.
        tptacek 5y ago
        No, it doesn't; if you replace countries with communities, the other statement becomes immediately and obviously problematic.
        5y ago
wolverine876 5y ago
> you're problematically lumping all sorts of people who happen to have dark skin into a single category United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone for over 400 years; the GP didn't invent it today on HN. It's already been done and well-ingrained. If your skin is black, many people will treat you differently, to the extent that you may be subject to violence, many won't hire you, loans are more difficult to obtain, you'll experience stereotypes and racism regularly. In the end, rather than deal with danger and abuse every day, you end up living in the same neighborhoods, socializing with the same people, going to the same schools and restaurants, visiting the same websites ... to make your daily life peaceful and safe. As I mentioned in another thread, you can't even watch porn without encountering endless racist stereotypes. As a result, while you may not think so and there are always exceptions, Americans with black skin share a lot with each other. > slave-descended culture What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)? > We should be tolerant of criticism of this culture's ideology and practices. Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical. More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not. It's obviously easy, and often done, to say things that are arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism. Also, criticizing groups seems inherently stereotypical. An at-will club, such as the Libertarian Party or local Linux User Group, is different. But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible or at fault for some stereotype which may have nothing to do with you (and usually are false and often racist anyway). Let's look at people as individuals, responsible for their own actions. Finally, there's a lot of effort to create space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism?
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  > United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone Wouldn't the best solution to this problem represent a rejection of such categorization? Wouldn't that necessarily exclude "X for Black People" in the same way it excludes "X for White People"? I'd like to live in a society where skin tone is no more important than hair color. Surely the best way to get there is to de-emphasize skin tone and therefore "blackness" and "whiteness"? > What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)? From tptacek in another post: "Black culture ... was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture (while uniting them for another 100 years in the experience of apartheid and the civil rights movement). It's its own powerful, interesting thing." I have a hard time disagreeing - it seems to be a distinct cultural group. > Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical I disagree. I would say many people are able to make the distinction, and the lack of appropriate terminology to discuss it is universally frustrating. > More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not. It's quite easy. If you criticize a practice of cannibalizing visitors then it's reasonably clear the culture/practices are at issue, not the inherent traits of the people, unless of course we can prove some genetic predisposition to cannibalism. > arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism Yes doublespeak is a thing, but that doesn't mean frank discussion should be off the table. > But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible I would say that it exactly does. Who else can be responsible for a culture's practices than the people who maintain and perpetuate that culture? > space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism? Because these are intrinsically related. As long as we can't disentangle the criticism and solutionizing of very real problems with black culture and ideology from racist bigotry against black people we'll never solve the problem. As long as black people are in a special class that's protected from serious criticism they can never be equal to the rest of us.