Pulpsmack
Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004 From: Louisiana Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Blaakmaan If the only way people can discuss this is to boil it down to "personal preference," then why bother talking about it? Nail on the head. This is the best you can boil the subject down to (constructively) and it thus becomes no more special than guys with moustaches, large women, etc. quote:
A personal "preference" for one racial group over another (particularly for another racial group over one's own) is not the same as a personal preference for short over tall; blonde over brunette; fat over skinny, or any other dichotomy in America. Race is unique. It's simply different. Your point ranges from spot on to complete crap, depending on the beholder. Clearly it is important/special to YOU, not so much to another, (and more important to others than it is to you). quote:
People aren't and haven't been oppressed (disadvantaged, maybe, but not oppressed) because they were short, tall, blonde, brunette, skinny, or fat. But they have been because they believed in another sect of Christianity, or because they were Christian, or they weren’t, or because they were from another country (of like race) or because they weren't. Your attempt to make the color special also opens the door to making it as commonplace as those other exercises of human nature. quote:
It's one thing to say "It's my preference, so leave me alone about it," which doesn't advance the discussion much. But saying a racial preference is like a preference for a hair color is just incorrect. The problem when you take "black/white/yellow/red/brown" beyond hair, skin, and features, you are invariably injecting stereotypical features into the equation, which can go to the extreme of racism, regardless of which side you perceive the issue. Black is hair, skin, features. Anything else is ethnic/cultural/social baggage that you inject into it. What is "black" (or black enough)? Take your template of all things a "black man" is and is not... good or bad. Then press that template over a black man born and raised in England, or West Africa, and you will find the fit is ridiculous. If I don't like black as a preference, it is because I don't like the contrast of the skin... I don't like the stereotypical features like the lips, nose, and cheeks which are sculpted differently than mine. It makes no difference where they come from... they are not attractive to my senses. If I don't like "black", then that is going to be some fabricated mish-mash of what a black (wo)man is in America today, based on history, culture, socio-economic factors etc. It means that a group infused with certain attitudes, beliefs, and mannerisms don't appeal to me. This is preference as well, although one may make the argument (right or wrong) that it may be more nefarious. So, if "black" is this collection of attitudes, beliefs, and mannerisms that clash with my preferences, then I wouldn't have the same problems with a young lady from England, or West Africa. Similarly, I would have a problem with people who pick up the standard of "blackness" and pantomime it whether they are white, hispanic, asian, etc. Finally, I may not like both black or "black", in that I don't like the my perceived American cultural representation of what "black" is, nor do I like the physical attributes that accompany the black race... an infusion of my last two paragraphs. Point being, at least one of these is pure preference, and the other two could be either a coincidental pure preference, a mixed issue, or something deeper. But your dismissal of this as "preference only" is really betraying your emotional views on the subject. Yes black/"black" CAN BE and IS about something more than pigment and folicles, but that does not mean that it MUST BE by any means. It also CAN BE and IS about pigment and folicle alone. So the choice boils down to discuss this as a preference (which begs the question "why bother, other than some curiosity") or discuss this as something deeper by infusing stereotypes, racism and the controversy that accompanies this on both sides, which is never done productively in the first place.
< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 10/9/2007 3:52:40 PM >
|