'White African-American' Suing N.J. Med School

[Nova]

Since my perspective and thoughts are irrelevent to the discussion, I will sit back and watch the two of you hash out the true point of the thread and ponder whether or not WSER's as a whole and myself in particular believe that "minorities are too sensitive" and are attempting to claim "special rights...." now that the two of you have pronounced it as fact. I have not done as much research on WSers and race relations, but look forward to reading the results of your research on similar threads.
:chicken:

believe, my post to which you refer was not directed at you. (Or anyone else in particular, but certainly not at you.)

However, in retrospect, I can see how it might seem to be.

Entirely my bad. Please accept my apology.

:blowkiss:

 

[Nova]

...The "real subject" of this thread and almost all WS threads on race relations is strikingly consistent: minorities are too sensitive and try to claim "special rights" to which they aren't entitled....

Perhaps my comment above was too strongly worded. But after umpteen pages of posters arguing vehemently about who's a "real" African-American, I have to wonder.

Said posters are intelligent and fluent in English. They know a "killdeer" is a bird and not the dude who shot Bambi's mother. They know a "bulldozer" is a machine and not a sleeping bovine. They know "Greenland" isn't very green these days.

So when such vehemence is applied to arguing not just that the defendent in this case has a right to use words in an odd way, but that "African-American" must mean something other than what it does, I have to think maybe the "real subject" here is something else, maybe this argument is a stand-in for some other disagreement.

Now has discussed his unfortunate experiences at Berkeley, so I know he is understandably skeptical of academia and its politics.

But what is most everyone else talking about with such intensity, if not the ongoing racial conflict in our culture? And why are the "sides" so clearly drawn?

 

[fortytwo]

Perhaps my comment above was too strongly worded. But after umpteen pages of posters arguing vehemently about who's a "real" African-American, I have to wonder.

Said posters are intelligent and fluent in English. They know a "killdeer" is a bird and not the dude who shot Bambi's mother. They know a "bulldozer" is a machine and not a sleeping bovine. They know "Greenland" isn't very green these days.

So when such vehemence is applied to arguing not just that the defendent in this case has a right to use words in an odd way, but that "African-American" must meaning something other than what it does, I have to think maybe the "real subject" here is something else, maybe this argument is a stand-in for some other disagreement.

Now has discussed his unfortunate experiences at Berkeley, so I know he is understandably skeptical of academia and its politics.

But what is most everyone else talking about with such intensity, if not the ongoing racial conflict in our culture? And why are the "sides" so clearly drawn?

(bold above by me)

Having only my rather limited, recent experience here to draw upon I have to say that these "sides", whatever they might be, are also rather quickly and somewhat inexplicably "assigned".

Who knew?

Mr. Serodio's legal grievance against the school is not based on the reception within the school community of his somewhat idiosyncratic use of "African American", it is based on his suspension, allegedly a result of that use.

I was certainly unprepared to discover that suggesting contemplation of the merits of the case itself, the key element of which is his suspension, rather than the etymology and semantics of a label which may or may not actually be an issue somehow amounted to a declaration of alignment. I remain uncertain exactly what I am assumed to be in alignment with.

If it should be determined that his suspension resulted from actions or behaviors of his beyond his insistence on an arguably provocative employment of that term then the question of usage becomes moot.

This is all I have suggested. This, and the possibility that there might be more information yet to be uncovered before it is appropriate to arrive at a final judgment.

I quite honestly do not understand why this is found to be so unpalatable.

 

[Nova]

fortytwo,

I probably owe you an apology as well. I think your posts became accidentally associated with mine and I am sorry for that.

That being said, I do agree with you. If the only reason for the suspension were that a white immigrant from Mozambique claimed to be African-American (whatever his motive) in response to a class exercise, then the suspension is wrong.

But I've never believed that was the only reason for the suspension and your research to date seems to confirm as much. As it stands now, I don't know whether I agree with the suspension; I don't know what all the issues were. On the whole, I tend to side with the right of free speech, but educators do have some obligation to prevent the disruption of educational activities.

My concern in this tread, obviously, has been to rebut the contention that black Americans have no right to choose a label for themselves that -- like most Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans or German-Americans -- refers to ancient origin rather than birthplace.

Why some people have a such a strong emotional stake in contesting common language usage puzzles me.

But that's my fight, not yours, and posters should note that you and I have not conspired to take any joint position on these issues. (In fact, we don't know one another and never exchanged posts until the last page or so of this thread.)

 

[Linda7NJ]

Perhaps my comment above was too strongly worded. But after umpteen pages of posters arguing vehemently about who's a "real" African-American, I have to wonder.

Said posters are intelligent and fluent in English. They know a "killdeer" is a bird and not the dude who shot Bambi's mother. They know a "bulldozer" is a machine and not a sleeping bovine. They know "Greenland" isn't very green these days.

So when such vehemence is applied to arguing not just that the defendent in this case has a right to use words in an odd way, but that "African-American" must mean something other than what it does, I have to think maybe the "real subject" here is something else, maybe this argument is a stand-in for some other disagreement.

Now has discussed his unfortunate experiences at Berkeley, so I know he is understandably skeptical of academia and its politics.

But what is most everyone else talking about with such intensity, if not the ongoing racial conflict in our culture? And why are the "sides" so clearly drawn?

I can assure you my arument is what it is, there is no underlying issue or argument I wish to have. IMO it has absolutely nothing to do with race....which was my point all along.

 

[Nova]

I can assure you my arument is what it is, there is no underlying issue or argument I wish to have. IMO it has absolutely nothing to do with race....which was my point all along.

IIRC, Linda, your argument is that all hyphenated terms relating to national origin are "silly," and I'll certainly grant you that your view doesn't relate just to one particular group.

But what do you suggest instead? Do you really expect 300 million Americans to pretend we all have the same backgrounds, customs, etc., and never to mention that most of us define ourselves to some extent in terms of ethnic origin?

'Cause if so, I gotta tell ya, history ain't on your side. "Identity" including issues of ethnicity has been a central issue (and struggle) in American thought since long before our Revolution. We are not all the same, nor need we be; and as long as we recognize our differences, we will invent terms for them.

 

[jannuncutt]

fortytwo,

The "real subject" of this thread and almost all WS threads on race relations is strikingly consistent: minorities are too sensitive and try to claim "special rights" to which they aren't entitled.

Thank you very much for your posts and research.

Nova,
It happens so often.....too many times.....to those that others think are different. For crying out loud - we could not even keep a thread dedicated to the passing Coretta Scott King free of bigotry. Remember?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36040&highlight=coretta+scott+king

 

[Nova]

Nova,
It happens so often.....too many times.....to those that others think are different. For crying out loud - we could not even keep a thread dedicated to the passing Coretta Scott King free of bigotry. Remember?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36040&highlight=coretta+scott+king

I do indeed remember, jan.

Unfortunately, not everyone here shares our memories and some posters assumed my remarks were personal references to them.

I should have been clearer.

Thanks for the cite, as it may help everyone understand what I was talking about.

 

[angelmom]

Did anyone see this? My DH was channel surfing last night, and I almost choked when I saw the part about them adopting an "African" baby and their comments about him when he turned out to be white. Ripped from the headlines indeed!

Also interesting is the difference in the stories from Fox vs. the LA Times.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522403,00.html

New Animated Comedy 'The Goode Family' Pokes Fun at Political Correctness

Gerald and Helen Goode live by a simple motto: WWAGD.

Translation: What Would Al Gore Do?

The politically correct couple lead a carbon-footprint-free family in the new animated comedy "The Goode Family," premiering Wednesday night on ABC, which pokes fun at all things holier-than-thou.

And in a swipe at politically correct overseas adoption, the family's 16-year-old son, Ubuntu, whom they adopted from Africa as a baby, is in fact white. It turns out he was from South Africa, and they forgot to check the right box!

and then:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-goode-family27-2009may27,0,1697192.story

Mike Judge's new show works best when the cultural potshots give way to human needs.

Teenage son Ubuntu (David Herman) is the African baby they adopted, who turned out to be Afrikaans and white. He is dressed in native garb, nonetheless, and is a bit of an ox, though with a talent for driving.

"I'm sorry I used so much gas, Dad," he says, having driven to rescue his father and sister from a Christian purity ball. (Judge and Co. do not save all their barbs for the Goodes.)

"It's OK," says his father. "What's important is you feel guilty about it."

 

[Angels_Not_Forgotten]

I've never even heard of that but looks like something up my alley!!

 

[Nova]

I think Mike Judge is a genius, so I watched the new show. Found it okay, but rather like shooting fish in a barrel.

It's not as if that sort of extreme political correctness has any real power in our culture, outside San Francisco and a few blocks of Hollywood -- maybe.

Great satire requires a formidable target.