Breaking Glass Ruling.

On the Breaking Glass thread, Barnabus62 said:
The boundary is clear. Vigorous criticisms of political policies and actions in any nation are open territory to any Shipmate. Lumping all citizens of that nation together in such criticisms is out of bounds.
IMO, this is a highly variable thing. Members of a voluntary group,¹ especially one in which individuals can affect direction, have a shared responsibility. Saying Britain does X or the Tories do Y is about that shared responsibility. In general,² it should not be necessary to qualify that with the exceptions within that group as long as it is framed properly. For example: America doesn't like black people is an accurate statement that is not personal. Americans don't like black people is borderline. It is accurate, it is not personal, but it could be construed as such.
Using a group name to talk about group responsibility is a perfectly normal and reasonable thing. It is cumbersome to always qualify. "Xgroup drinks tea. Well, not all of them, Mary likes a coffee, John prefers energy drinks, Hazel drinks mostly water, Eric...."



¹National affiliation is technically by choice, though circumstance doesn't always allow easy change.
²Yes, group appellations can be used in a personal way; it is the staple of the lazy comedian, but not allowing them makes conversation tedious.
«1

Comments

  • Our experience here is that the use of national stereotypes, ascribing the position of government to the whole of a nation or otherwise lumping everyone in a national group together is very likely to result in a rapid rise in the temperature of exchanges here. Especially when the position being ascribed to the entire national group is one that's not held by the majority of representatives of that group who post here. It may take a bit more work to phrase a comment such that it avoids ascribing positions to entire groups of people, but the benefit of doing so is to avoid threads descending to flaming while facilitating quality conversation about what people actually think.

    The line between robust criticism of policies or attitudes of some people in a country and slamming everyone in that country is one that we've reminded people of many times before. It shouldn't have surprised anyone who's been around here for a while that with the way that thread had been developing another reminder of that line was issued.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Americans don't like black people is borderline. It is accurate, it is not personal, but it could be construed as such.
    I don’t think it’s borderline, nor do I think it’s accurate—unless you’re going to tell me that aside from white Americans not liking black people, African Americans don’t like black people either. Or are they not included in “Americans”?

    It’s a lazy and unnecessary over-generalization that’s almost sure to be taken personally and that gets in the way of what might otherwise be a valid and worthwhile point. It’s a good way to make sure people argue more on how you said something than consider what you’re actually trying to say.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Americans don't like black people is borderline. It is accurate, it is not personal, but it could be construed as such.
    I don’t think it’s borderline, nor do I think it’s accurate—unless you’re going to tell me that aside from white Americans not liking black people, African Americans don’t like black people either. Or are they not included in “Americans”?

    It’s a lazy and unnecessary over-generalization that’s almost sure to be taken personally and that gets in the way of what might otherwise be a valid and worthwhile point. It’s a good way to make sure people argue more on how you said something than consider what you’re actually trying to say.
    Making the point that the country is to blame will almost certainly result in a lot of denials from people who do not think they are part of the problem. There is no winning that if the person is not aware enough to understand at the beginning of the discussion.
    Using the blanket term does not negate the membership of components of that group that are the targets of discussion. Saying America/Americans don't like black people is not dismissing that black people are Americans. That is a simplistic or myopic interpretation.
    And it is NOT a generalisation. It is assigning group responsibility to the group. Which is not only correct, it is normal speech.
  • I disagree. Unless every American, or almost American, doesn’t like black people, then of course it’s a generalization, and it’s ineffective way of making an otherwise valid point. If your point is to assign group responsibility, that it quite easily done by saying “Americans as a group/as a society don’t like black people,” or “American society doesn’t like black people.”

  • Our experience here is that the use of national stereotypes, ascribing the position of government to the whole of a nation or otherwise lumping everyone in a national group together is very likely to result in a rapid rise in the temperature of exchanges here. Especially when the position being ascribed to the entire national group is one that's not held by the majority of representatives of that group who post here. It may take a bit more work to phrase a comment such that it avoids ascribing positions to entire groups of people, but the benefit of doing so is to avoid threads descending to flaming while facilitating quality conversation about what people actually think.

    The line between robust criticism of policies or attitudes of some people in a country and slamming everyone in that country is one that we've reminded people of many times before. It shouldn't have surprised anyone who's been around here for a while that with the way that thread had been developing another reminder of that line was issued.
    It is not that I have an objection to general warnings about monitoring one's phraseology. However, NP had already qualified his post before the warning was issued.
    NP was using Republicans in the normal, conventional general sense. LC reacted in a personal way.
    Which is unreasonable? A? B? A and B?
    Understanding that not every, single person in a group think and acts the same way is important. But so is understanding that every, single member shares at least some responsibility towards that groups collective behaviour. It is this which easily gets lost in these discussions. And it is this which I am concerned about.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I disagree. Unless every American, or almost American, doesn’t like black people, then of course it’s a generalization, and it’s ineffective way of making an otherwise valid point. If your point is to assign group responsibility, that it quite easily done by saying “Americans as a group/as a society don’t like black people,” or “American society doesn’t like black people.”
    Saying Americans (or Republicans or Tories or train enthusiasts, etc) is a normal and conventional way of saying X as a group. And, to repeat myself, allowing too much of an out allows people to excuse themselves from the group without acknowledging their personal responsibility for the group to which they belong.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    The line between robust criticism of policies or attitudes of some people in a country and slamming everyone in that country is one that we've reminded people of many times before. It shouldn't have surprised anyone who's been around here for a while that with the way that thread had been developing another reminder of that line was issued.
    Exactly.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I disagree. Unless every American, or almost American, doesn’t like black people, then of course it’s a generalization, and it’s ineffective way of making an otherwise valid point. If your point is to assign group responsibility, that it quite easily done by saying “Americans as a group/as a society don’t like black people,” or “American society doesn’t like black people.”
    Saying Americans (or Republicans or Tories or train enthusiasts, etc) is a normal and conventional way of saying X as a group. And, to repeat myself, allowing too much of an out allows people to excuse themselves from the group without acknowledging their personal responsibility for the group to which they belong.
    I’m still going to disagree. My experience is that saying Americans or Republicans or Tories or whatever else to mean the group in the context of something like a political discussion is almost guaranteed to generate more heat than light.

  • Not because it is incorrect, but because people are too defensive. This is supposed to be a community of robust debate. That should work both ways.
  • To be clear: I am not saying B62 was wrong to place a warning, I am concerned that the warning might push the burden of consideration too far in one direction.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ... understanding that every, single member shares at least some responsibility towards that groups collective behaviour. It is this which easily gets lost in these discussions.

    I don't think that every member is responsible for the actions of the majority of a group. That is wrong thinking and wrong blaming. Should I not remain part of the group and attempt to heal the attitudes or actions from within? If I were to withdraw from the group, I would be unable to initiate such reforms.

    Of course group responsibility is normally only used when blasting a group of whom one is not a member. That is where the heat comes from.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Not because it is incorrect, but because people are too defensive.
    Or because it’s unnecessarily combative. Sorry—you’re not going to convince me that it’s an effective way to make a point.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ... understanding that every, single member shares at least some responsibility towards that groups collective behaviour. It is this which easily gets lost in these discussions.

    I don't think that every member is responsible for the actions of the majority of a group. That is wrong thinking and wrong blaming. Should I not remain part of the group and attempt to heal the attitudes or actions from within? If I were to withdraw from the group, I would be unable to initiate such reforms.

    Of course group responsibility is normally only used when blasting a group of whom one is not a member. That is where the heat comes from.

    I want to know who made LB my very own personal morality police.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ... understanding that every, single member shares at least some responsibility towards that groups collective behaviour. It is this which easily gets lost in these discussions.

    I don't think that every member is responsible for the actions of the majority of a group. That is wrong thinking and wrong blaming. Should I not remain part of the group and attempt to heal the attitudes or actions from within? If I were to withdraw from the group, I would be unable to initiate such reforms.
    IF you are working towards reforms, then there is little reason to be defensive.

    The idea of belonging to a group, especially a political group, is to further the aims of the group. One might only like one or two positions, but the rest come along.
    Of course group responsibility is normally only used when blasting a group of whom one is not a member. That is where the heat comes from.
    I disagree. IME, the more conservative the group, the less internal division is tolerated. But division is fairly much the hallmark of lefty parties. That is part of the reason that smaller groups control the larger electorate.
    And it is not "blasting" to discuss the deficiencies.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Not because it is incorrect, but because people are too defensive.
    Or because it’s unnecessarily combative. Sorry—you’re not going to convince me that it’s an effective way to make a point.
    If a person cannot see the difference between general use and specific, it is unlikely that any points will be heard.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    If a person cannot see the difference between general use and specific, it is unlikely that any points will be heard.
    @lilbuddha here is what I hope will need to be my only post on this thread.

    There is a long and painful history on the Ship of nation-related comments in particular being misinterpreted and the result going nuclear very quickly. Thinking carefully about how "you" may be interpreted (general or personal) and about whether a statement can be fairly said to refer to all those of a particular nationality (especially when made by those of another nationality) is part of our general culture of mutual respect and in no way prevents the substantive debate being robust.

    This "pond war" principle can safely be extended to other generalisations.

  • This thing is probably all my fault, or nearly all my fault. I commented vigourously about Republicans. If my comments pointed at all Americans, that was bad, and actually not at all what I meant. But my intent isn't actually the issue I think.

    I did not intend to provoke anyone, and most particularly not a shipmate who I know and have kind regards for because of her generous support of me in the past. I have damaged a relationship with someone I don't actually know. But the ship being what it is, we know the persona of others, and I have transgressed in a fit of pique which lasted not just a moment but for several posts and response. I don't know how long, but probably several hours. I am truly sorry for offence, and I want to say it publicly. I am sorry @Lamb Chopped. And I mean it.

    Not intending to violate a procedure, like accidentally driving a car through a red light, does not matter, as the offence is made out by the action of doing the driving not by the intent. I take this episode as instructing me to be more careful. That noted, I have done this same thing in past (I'm not expecting any others to recall, but I internally know that I have), and seem to understand that I lack to capacity in an online forum to not be stupid about it periodically. Because I value the dialogue is part of it. None of this is an excuse, and it has nothing to do with trying to explain away my responsibilities. Rather it is my explanation for how I got us here. I am sorry to have affected others as well.

    Another perspective which I have developed over many years is that I like having friends with whom I disagree. It enriches my life to have connections to such people. For what that's worth.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Not because it is incorrect, but because people are too defensive. This is supposed to be a community of robust debate. That should work both ways.

    If you'd be so kind, please help me understand why it's the responsibility of others not to feel attacked when you take it upon yourself to attack them?
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    I remember a very nasty pond war which took place shortly after I joined the ship. I almost left.

    I come here to discuss ideas, not to fight or witness a fight.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Not because it is incorrect, but because people are too defensive. This is supposed to be a community of robust debate. That should work both ways.

    If you'd be so kind, please help me understand why it's the responsibility of others not to feel attacked when you take it upon yourself to attack them?
    No one attacked anyone on that thread. Someone felt attacked. This is not to say one cannot feel legitimately attacked despite the intentions of the other person, because of course they can.
    One cannot completely control for that. What I am talking about is keeping a reasonable balance.
  • This thing is probably all my fault, or nearly all my fault. I commented vigourously about Republicans. If my comments pointed at all Americans, that was bad, and actually not at all what I meant. But my intent isn't actually the issue I think.

    I did not intend to provoke anyone, and most particularly not a shipmate who I know and have kind regards for because of her generous support of me in the past. I have damaged a relationship with someone I don't actually know. But the ship being what it is, we know the persona of others, and I have transgressed in a fit of pique which lasted not just a moment but for several posts and response. I don't know how long, but probably several hours. I am truly sorry for offence, and I want to say it publicly. I am sorry @Lamb Chopped. And I mean it.

    Not intending to violate a procedure, like accidentally driving a car through a red light, does not matter, as the offence is made out by the action of doing the driving not by the intent. I take this episode as instructing me to be more careful. That noted, I have done this same thing in past (I'm not expecting any others to recall, but I internally know that I have), and seem to understand that I lack to capacity in an online forum to not be stupid about it periodically. Because I value the dialogue is part of it. None of this is an excuse, and it has nothing to do with trying to explain away my responsibilities. Rather it is my explanation for how I got us here. I am sorry to have affected others as well.

    Another perspective which I have developed over many years is that I like having friends with whom I disagree. It enriches my life to have connections to such people. For what that's worth.

    Forgiven. Go in peace.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    If a person cannot see the difference between general use and specific, it is unlikely that any points will be heard.
    @lilbuddha here is what I hope will need to be my only post on this thread.

    There is a long and painful history on the Ship of nation-related comments in particular being misinterpreted and the result going nuclear very quickly. Thinking carefully about how "you" may be interpreted (general or personal) and about whether a statement can be fairly said to refer to all those of a particular nationality (especially when made by those of another nationality) is part of our general culture of mutual respect and in no way prevents the substantive debate being robust.
    Using a group name to represent the group's attributes is normal. One that many, if not most, people here have done. Likely including some of those protesting.
    I'm not saying never worry about the perception of one's posts, just that reading posts should have the same caution.

    BTW, NP is on the same side of the pond as LC
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    But not in the same country.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Speaking as a shipmate, it should surely be quite straightforward to keep a 'reasonable balance'. Rather than saying 'Americans are...' it's not too hard to think about wording, and talk about systematic racism in the US, and about the fact that many people don't even realise they're racist. And if you word it more thoughtfully, people are more likely to be open to what you're saying, and less likely to be defensive, so you will be more successful at getting your point across.

    Also, there's no such thing as 'perfectly normal' when it comes to this sort of thing. All groups of people have different norms and codes of etiquette. Online discussion groups have different rules and guidelines, based on the history and dynamics of that group of people and the purpose of the group, etc. I know of plenty of other groups where it really isn't acceptable to make generalisations about a country, and they tend to be international groups. I've observed predominantly British groups making sweeping statements about the US, and predominantly American groups making sweeping statements about the UK, and anyone challenging this is not taken seriously because they are not the majority. But for international groups to work well, there needs to be a bit of sensitivity and careful wording.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    To be clear: I am not saying B62 was wrong to place a warning, I am concerned that the warning might push the burden of consideration too far in one direction.

    The warning is much the same as many, many others that have been posted over the last 20 years or so, and as yet there have been no negative effects. It would be nice if people would stop posting anti-American things here, but I'm not holding my breath. There is no history of non-Brits repeatedly going into discussions of disastrous British elections or Brexit or the like and posting things like "How's that working for ya?" Non-Canadians don't repeatedly post blanket criticisms of Canada. Non-Australians and non-New Zealanders, ditto. But again and again and again people feel fine posting blanket criticisms of the U.S. and Americans. So I don't share your concern.

    There are over 300 million Americans. We're not all the same. We're living, breathing individuals. We're coming up on a monumentally important election, one that could well determine whether or not our country becomes an authoritarian state. Anyone wishing to reserve the right to be snotty to us on the 2020 Elections thread can meet me in Hell.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    To be clear: I am not saying B62 was wrong to place a warning, I am concerned that the warning might push the burden of consideration too far in one direction.

    The warning is much the same as many, many others that have been posted over the last 20 years or so, and as yet there have been no negative effects.
    I've not been here 20 years, but this is not the same Ship I first boarded. Not saying better or worse, just different.
    Ruth wrote: »
    It would be nice if people would stop posting anti-American things here, but I'm not holding my breath. There is no history of non-Brits repeatedly going into discussions of disastrous British elections or Brexit or the like and posting things like "How's that working for ya?"
    With respect, Americans in general don't know much about anywhere but America, but the rest of the world has a greater level of familiarity with the US. In part because the US disproportionately affects other parts of the world.
    Ruth wrote: »
    There are over 300 million Americans. We're not all the same. We're living, breathing individuals. We're coming up on a monumentally important election, one that could well determine whether or not our country becomes an authoritarian state. Anyone wishing to reserve the right to be snotty to us on the 2020 Elections thread can meet me in Hell.
    I'm not trying to reserve the right to be snotty. I'm trying to reserve the right to discuss the problems and responsibilities of group membership. I recognise that not all people in a group are identical, but I also recognise that responsibility is broader than some are willing to accept.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    This is the Styx lilBuddha. Since you aren't quarreling with my ruling (which is straightforward reminder of a very old policy) you must be querying the policy.

    How would you change it?

    We definitely will not revoke the defence against the destructive effects of pond wars and similar. You can forget about that. And we definitely will not have policies confined to any particular nation.

    You know our commandments, guidelines and FAQs. How would you modify them?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I'm not trying to reserve the right to be snotty. I'm trying to reserve the right to discuss the problems and responsibilities of group membership. I recognise that not all people in a group are identical, but I also recognise that responsibility is broader than some are willing to accept.
    I don't see how insisting on the right to say "Americans don't like black people" contributes to a discussion of the problems and responsibilities of group membership.

    If you want to say something about group responsibility, why not just do that, and skip the gross generalization which you clearly recognize could be easily construed as a personal attack. You say qualifications are cumbersome, but even if people don’t take offense, you’re probably going to have to come up with more nuanced statements than that in any reasonable discussion, so it really doesn’t seem that you’ll have saved yourself any trouble by omitting them at the start.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...For example: America doesn't like black people is an accurate statement that is not personal. ...
    It's inaccurate, and it's intensely personal. Some Americans don't like black people, but that's hardly true of all of us. Please try to resist the urge to stereotype. It only demonstrates your lack of first-hand information about us.


  • I have enough sins of my own. I don't like being beaten for the sins of others. Nor do I like being criticized for being overly sensitive and unwilling to accept responsibility.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Members of a voluntary group,¹

    ...

    ¹National affiliation is technically by choice, though circumstance doesn't always allow easy change.

    The problem with your own argument is writ large in what you have chosen to turn into a footnote.

    Are you seriously arguing that people ought to just casually move countries in order to not get caught up in a sweeping generalisation on a message board?

    Attempting to compare nationality and residency with, say, deciding to resign from the local club when it does something nasty just does not work.

  • lb--

    Respectfully: why do *you* have to school everyone on everything? (Hyperbole, but fairly accurate.)

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I've not been here 20 years, but this is not the same Ship I first boarded. Not saying better or worse, just different.

    When Alan says "our experience here," that encompasses two decades of periodic anti-American posts. Lots of things have changed, but not that.
    Ruth wrote: »
    It would be nice if people would stop posting anti-American things here, but I'm not holding my breath. There is no history of non-Brits repeatedly going into discussions of disastrous British elections or Brexit or the like and posting things like "How's that working for ya?"
    With respect, Americans in general don't know much about anywhere but America, but the rest of the world has a greater level of familiarity with the US. In part because the US disproportionately affects other parts of the world.

    First, you're not dealing with "Americans in general" here. You're dealing with Americans who are more educated and better informed than the general American populace. So you've again made a generalization about Americans that doesn't apply to those of us posting here.

    Second, being well informed about the US doesn't entitle someone to be obnoxious to Americans.
    I'm trying to reserve the right to discuss the problems and responsibilities of group membership. I recognise that not all people in a group are identical, but I also recognise that responsibility is broader than some are willing to accept.

    You want to mount an argument for who's responsible for the policies of the Republican party or of any one of a number of shitty things going on in the U.S., go right ahead. But don't expect anyone to simply "accept" it.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Saying America/Americans don't like black people is not dismissing that black people are Americans. That is a simplistic or myopic interpretation.
    Yes, it is excluding "black people" from "Americans". If a complacent centrist poster had uttered the generalisation, "Americans verb black people," you wouldn't be calling it a myopic interpretation of their words. You'd be happy to point out how the language they used perpetuates the ideological problem. Language isn't purged of ideological bias by the political affiliation of the person using it.
  • One thread of aggressive pedantry gets closed, and another one starts. Is this like weeds in a garden?

  • Ruth wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I've not been here 20 years, but this is not the same Ship I first boarded. Not saying better or worse, just different.

    When Alan says "our experience here," that encompasses two decades of periodic anti-American posts. Lots of things have changed, but not that.
    Ruth wrote: »
    It would be nice if people would stop posting anti-American things here, but I'm not holding my breath. There is no history of non-Brits repeatedly going into discussions of disastrous British elections or Brexit or the like and posting things like "How's that working for ya?"
    With respect, Americans in general don't know much about anywhere but America, but the rest of the world has a greater level of familiarity with the US. In part because the US disproportionately affects other parts of the world.

    First, you're not dealing with "Americans in general" here. You're dealing with Americans who are more educated and better informed than the general American populace. So you've again made a generalization about Americans that doesn't apply to those of us posting here.
    Yes, at least the more vocal posters here are better informed than the average American. But still not as well as the reverse.
    Ruth wrote: »
    Second, being well informed about the US doesn't entitle someone to be obnoxious to Americans.
    Not an argument I have made, so please stop implying I have.

    Ruth wrote: »
    You want to mount an argument for who's responsible for the policies of the Republican party or of any one of a number of shitty things going on in the U.S., go right ahead. But don't expect anyone to simply "accept" it.
    I'd settle for people hearing it, which is a hugely variable thing, even on SOF.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Saying America/Americans don't like black people is not dismissing that black people are Americans. That is a simplistic or myopic interpretation.
    Yes, it is excluding "black people" from "Americans". If a complacent centrist poster had uttered the generalisation, "Americans verb black people," you wouldn't be calling it a myopic interpretation of their words. You'd be happy to point out how the language they used perpetuates the ideological problem. Language isn't purged of ideological bias by the political affiliation of the person using it.
    Black Americans use the very same wordage. They are not excluding themselves from being American, neither am I.
  • But when someone says 'Americans hate Blacks' then they are implying that either that Black Americans are not real Americans or Black Americans hate themselves. Do you not see the problem?
  • @lilbuddha - the host who made the thread post has directly addressed you here.

    They are the one person in this thread you need to be talking to, so if you could respond to them, that would be lovely.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    This is the Styx lilBuddha. Since you aren't quarreling with my ruling (which is straightforward reminder of a very old policy) you must be querying the policy.

    How would you change it?

    We definitely will not revoke the defence against the destructive effects of pond wars and similar. You can forget about that. And we definitely will not have policies confined to any particular nation.

    You know our commandments, guidelines and FAQs. How would you modify them?
    I am not querying policy, commandments or guidelines. I am addressing implementation. There is a balance between posting with sensitivity in mind and posting with abandon. Most times I think the Crew get monitoring that right. This time, it appeared to list a bit more to one side than the other.
    That might be more my own sensitivities, though.
    I think I am pretty close to finished with this thread. Partly because it is already devolving into tangents, but mostly because we are not seeing the same things here. And I'm not sure there is a right or wrong in that.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    @lilbuddha - the host who made the thread post has directly addressed you here.

    They are the one person in this thread you need to be talking to, so if you could respond to them, that would be lovely.
    Hilarious x-post, for multiple reasons.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...And I'm not sure there is a right or wrong in that.
    I was always of the opinion that the hosts and admins are the arbiters of right and wrong here.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    lilBuddha

    Yes, I think you should drop it. There is no enthusiasm at Host or Admin level to change policies or their application. And to judge by this thread you are the only Shipmate who believes a case can be made for doing so.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Saying America/Americans don't like black people is not dismissing that black people are Americans. That is a simplistic or myopic interpretation.
    Yes, it is excluding "black people" from "Americans". If a complacent centrist poster had uttered the generalisation, "Americans verb black people," you wouldn't be calling it a myopic interpretation of their words. You'd be happy to point out how the language they used perpetuates the ideological problem. Language isn't purged of ideological bias by the political affiliation of the person using it.
    Black Americans use the very same wordage. They are not excluding themselves from being American, neither am I.

    Black Americans use the N word of each other also. It doesn't give you the right to.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    @lilbuddha , Google tells me that at its peak, 44m people watched the Cosby show. Seems to me that's evidence that significant numbers of Americans have no problem with black people as such.

    Sure, US culture has issues around black people, as part of the legacy of slavery.

    Referring to that issue in a way that tells American Shipmates how they feel about black people is not only presumptuous and likely to get people's backs up, but also over-simplifies.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    It strikes me that however one might plead against it, the way @lilbuddha uses the words 'America' and 'American' in this thread is implicitly racist. The subtext is that it assumes that an American is a white Caucasian person, and the country they are part of, is a white Caucasian nation. It's quite a good example of how institutional racism might manifest itself even among those who are seeking to campaign against it.

  • Russ wrote: »
    @lilbuddha , Google tells me that at its peak, 44m people watched the Cosby show. Seems to me that's evidence that significant numbers of Americans have no problem with black people as such.

    There is, of course, a significant difference between finding someone amusing as a performer on television, and being happy about them marrying your daughter. I think looking at how white people interact with ordinary black people that they meet in their day-to-day lives is a rather better indicator than whether they enjoy black entertainers on TV.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    It strikes me that however one might plead against it, the way @lilbuddha uses the words 'America' and 'American' in this thread is implicitly racist. The subtext is that it assumes that an American is a white Caucasian person, and the country they are part of, is a white Caucasian nation. It's quite a good example of how institutional racism might manifest itself even among those who are seeking to campaign against it.
    Black Americans are as American as Brown Americans who are as American as mixed Americans who are as American as White Americans. That doesn't change that America is a predominately white Western European culture that has implied, and outright said, that people with melanin are not real Americans.

    For balance, this is true in the UK as well.

    And yes, xenophobia is not only along colour lines, but colour cannot blend in.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    "America" has said nothing. Americans have said any number of things, good and bad both.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    @lilbuddha , Google tells me that at its peak, 44m people watched the Cosby show. Seems to me that's evidence that significant numbers of Americans have no problem with black people as such.

    There is, of course, a significant difference between finding someone amusing as a performer on television, and being happy about them marrying your daughter. I think looking at how white people interact with ordinary black people that they meet in their day-to-day lives is a rather better indicator than whether they enjoy black entertainers on TV.

    Can't speak about my daughter marrying a black person, though I can speak about my daughter marrying a Filipino. I think he was afraid I would be upset. He ran away when he first saw me. I had no problem, though. He lost his father when he was five, so he always calls me Dad now.
This discussion has been closed.