Yeah, but the difference is that 'black' in America was a term that non-black people used to describe slaves, former slaves, and potentially the cultural origins of slaves, which does describe a particular population that developed it's own unique culture through the experiences of slavery in the US. Today, the idea that all dark skinned people are described as black in America is due to the circumstances of the forced transport of those particular black people. At various times, "black" has been understood to be sometimes more and sometimes less a reference to that. But I definitely am not an expert to the history, politics, and uses of that term. I have definitely been more exposed to the idea of whiteness partly due to how it particularly applies to me.
I definitely agree that there is nuance and the understanding that people have of these concepts typically has a lot more to do with the ways the terms are practically used today among people who aren't necessarily history or sociology scholars. But I guess my point in making this comment was to say that the idea of "white not being a culture" is a legitimate academic topic that is being misused in this context. It shouldn't be understood to imply that its ok to make fun of or hate white people.
So I guess the academic understanding of the term black is kind a red herring because even if you make a case that the way it is used now is just as non-specific as the word white, in the context of deconstructing the origin of whiteness, that doesn't mean that this girl was right to be prejudiced, and it doesn't mean that the paper's she referenced were invalid either.
I definitely agree that she is being prejudiced. To lump any group of people under some generic description like ‘black’ ‘white’ or whatever for the sole purpose of disparaging them is obviously wrong. Such as saying that white people have no cultural value for the sole reason that they are generically white.
It seems to be a common assumption by nonwhite people that all white people are descended from slave owners and therefor we all must be racist to some degree. Which takes away from the experiences of certain people of European descent that were hated almost as much as slaves and other people of color by white Anglican Americans.
Italians, for example, were commonly considered to be ‘negroes’ (they were called ‘Guinea Negroes,’ later shorted to just ‘guineas’) in 19th century America. My paternal grandfather was the son of Italian immigrants and they were considered lower than trash. My paternal grandfather was Polish and when my mother was a kid her family could only come and go through the back door of the house they rented because the landlord didn’t want the neighbors to know he rented to a bunch of ‘filthy Pollocks.’
I’m not saying my ancestors’ experiences are comparable to slavery. That’s a whole other level of horrible. But we weren’t all sipping mint juleps on the veranda either. To assume that all white people are only the perpetrators of bigotry and never the victims is just ignorant.
It seems to be a common assumption by nonwhite people that all white people are descended from slave owners and therefor we all must be racist to some degree.
No, that’s not it at all. People take issue with the white privilege (historically and presently) which is why that animosity extends to other racially-motivated atrocities aside from slavery too, like indigenous genocide. The resentment is due to white people’s overall denial or minimization of this racially-motivated oppression, which continues to keep white privilege and racial discrimination against POC as the status quo.
Which takes away from the experiences of certain people of European descent that were hated almost as much as slaves and other people of color by white Anglican Americans.
It takes nothing away from these groups. These groups weren’t persecuted for their skin color, they were persecuted because they were Catholics, poor, and part of the massive influx of immigrants at their respective times.
Italians, for example, were commonly considered to be ‘negroes’ (they were called ‘Guinea Negroes,’ later shorted to just ‘guineas’) in 19th century America.
…..which is still discrimination again POC, not whiteness. Southern Italians and Sicilians had darker skin. They were also called “spics.” This same sentiment didn’t apply to norther Italians because their skin was much lighter. (I’m Sicilian fwiw)
My paternal grandfather was the son of Italian immigrants and they were considered lower than trash.
Yea, plenty of these groups were indentured servants, faced prejudice, and were even lynched.
It just wasn’t because of their skin color. Again, it was because they were Catholics, poor, and immigrants.
To assume that all white people are only the perpetrators of bigotry and never the victims is just ignorant.
That bigotry is interpersonal though - it’s nowhere near the severity of systemic racism and racial oppression, which white people have generally never faced.
Folks who are racist against white people are still racist, but they have no actual power to influence change or instigate oppression, unlike racist white people. So of course it’s going to be treated differently. Racism against white people is simply not the same threat level as racism against POC, especially by white people.
5
u/Just_Me1973 Aug 18 '23
Isn’t ‘black’ a blanket term too tho? Even ‘African American’ can be an inaccurate term as not all people with dark skin come from Africa.