Something I learned recently, and it makes perfect sense in hindsight, is that the use of African American doesn't necessarily pertain to everyone who is black in skin color. (I'm not calling NA on anything, her post just made me think of something and the PC subject was out there so...) I met a gentleman who is Jamaican. He doesn't consider the label of 'African American' to include him. His bloodline/ancestry is not from Africa... Dave Matthews also identified himself as being African American on an interview I saw long ago (he's from South Africa). In fact, another article I read called Stefan Lessard the only non-African America member of The Dave Matthews Band.
Just my 2 cents...
:)

I was thinking along the lines of the practice of using distinguising features to describe a person (excitable middle age woman with a tangle of red hair ;)). Which, I think is fine if you are trying to pull up a mental picture of a person. My Mother (bless her racist soul) used to always include people's races in her description of them but ONLY if the person was "non-white". (She was often wrong , as in calling my Castilllian Spanish SIL Mexican).

I went to Disneyland with my Gay friend Brad and my Mexican friend Pedro........that's not really necessary.

My grandmother was the same way. Any non-white race had to be included in her descriptions of people. But what made the rest of my family laugh was that she'd always whisper the the race. E.g., "Yes, my neighbor Ron he's black was telling me the other day..."
:rolleyes:

My grandmother did the same. I always knew the race of the person she was talking about. Sometimes, I knew their religion. :D

When I describe people, I try really hard not to bring race into it. But when you're trying to describe the only Chinese guy in the building, saying 'You know, the guy with the black hair...' doesn't work as well...
Then again, saying 'The Chinese guy' often doesn't help either. Some people can't tell Japanese and Chinese apart. Oy.

It's annoying, though, when distinguishing features become unmentionable. If I'm trying to spot someone I've never met in a crowd, it would sure help to know what color their skin is, as well as how long their hair is and what style, and about how tall, and about what build, etc...

My mother keeps refering to "the little colored boy" in her class, she's a teacher. It makes me cringe every time she does it. And normally when she's telling me something he did, the description isn't necessary. He was being disruptive or said something funny, what race he's from doesn't really seem to be a necessary part of the story.

I do agree with GC and Prudence though, when describing someone it's difficult to do without mentioning skin color etc. Unfortunately here it's assumed the person you're describing is white, unless otherwise stated.

There's nothing wrong with describing someone by they physical appearance...if it's a relevant distinguishing feature for the topic at hand. In a list of people who are your friends, it hardly matters. But, as Prudence points out, if you're meeting someone at the airport, you need to have an accurate physical description.

"little colored boy" My mom used that a lot. I used to laugh and say, I know I'm pale but I'm not transparent! Or, I'd ask "What color is he? Purple's my favorite". I don't think she got it though.

There also is that dimension of transparency, when it comes to these issues. Where is one argument, or position, or angle more important than another. In keeping with this - color of skin is valuable for describing someone I'm trying to find, but not IMO, something that makes a sound argument when talking about a charged issue of any point. It's not a point of gossip, and is not the all-encompassing factor in who someone is ______.

Which is the more "important" argument... Black vs. White? Gender Rights? Brown vs. Black? Gay/Lesbian vs. Straight? At what point is an argument invisible, or pale in comparison to another. I think the message Mara Keisling is promoting is one of not making these other issues pale in comparison to your own issue, that they all have their place.

But by this token, sure, "race" as it were is a way to physically describe someone - but how about describing how someone is on an emotional level? I think that's where the true wrong is. And what of someone in a minority that's not easily detected such as someone that's gay, lesbian, bi - someone with an unusual disorder, or someone with a psychological imbalance - some factor that cannot be truly seen from the outside? Do I say, "You know, my gay friend GC..." What purpose does that serve? Yet I hear statements like that, or qualifiers like "He/She's <insert feature here>, you know..."

I think that's where the grind is.

I think that was totally her point. I wish you could have been there. Her talk was so empowering.
:)

I think labels make things easy for some people. My grandfather talked like that all the time, 'That fairy at the front desk is stealing from me. The n-word next door snores too loud. The chink shortchanged me at the liquor store.' And I was thinking how black and white that made everything for him. It was easy to put a brown paper wrapping around everyone and placing a huge tag on the front. No need to investigate what's inside. Just trust the tag and go on to the next package...