Conference hydra::dejavu

1666.0. "Essay on Blacks, Whites, Humans" by TNPUBS::PAINTER (we've got to live together) Fri May 08 1992 15:17

============================================================================

Permission granted by the author for circulation, provided the header
remains intact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Copyright 1983 Richard L. Bradley (SWAM2::BRADLEY_RI)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         BLACKS, WHITES, HUMANS


                          by Richard L. Bradley


    The time has to come eliminate the usage of the words "black" and 
"white" as adjectives describing human beings.  This seemingly innocent 
usage of common terms dulls our perceptions and leads us to false 
judgments.  Black might be better, more up-to-date, than "Negro", but it 
too is dehumanizing, as is the term, "white".

Start with dictionary definitions:

    BLACK.  1a. of the color black.  1b. very dark in color.  1c. having a 
    very deep or low register.   1d. HEAVY, SERIOUS.   2a. having dark 
    skin, hair, and eyes: SWARTHY.  2b. of or relating to the Afro-American 
    people or culture, literature, theater, pride.  3. dressed in black.  
    4. dirty, soiled.  5a. characterized by the absence of light.  5b. 
    reflecting or transmitting little or no light.  5c. served without milk 
    or cream.  6a. thoroughly sinister or evil.  6b. indicative of 
    condemnation or discredit.  7. connected with or invoking the 
    supernatural and especially the devil.  8a. very sad, gloomy, or 
    calamitous.  8b. marked by the occurrence of disaster  9. characterized 
    by hostility or angry discontent.  10. (Chiefly British).  11. showing 
    a profit.  12a. of propaganda: conducted so as to appear to originate 
    within an enemy country and designed to weaken enemy morale-compare 
    WHITE.  12b. characterized by or connected with the use of black 
    propaganda.  13. characterized by grim, distorted, or grotesque satire.

    WHITE. 1a. free from color. 1b. of the color of new snow or milk. 1c. 
    light or pallid in color. 1d. lustrous pale gray.  2a. being a member 
    of a group or race characterized by reduced pigmentation and usually 
    specifically distinguished from persons belonging to groups marked by 
    black, brown, yellow, or red skin coloration.  2b. of, relating to, or 
    consisting of white people.  3c. SLANG: marked by upright fairness. 3. 
    free from spot or blemish.  4. wearing or habited in white.  6a. 
    ultraconservative or reactionary in political outlook and action.  7. 
    not featuring open warfare but involving oblique methods.

    These entries were taken from a 1979 edition of Webster's New Collegiate 
Dictionary.  The reader may note little that is surprising in those 
definitions.  Another entry in Websters' gives a even clearer indication of 
sources of the social and interpersonal harm engendered by usage of the 
words "black" and "white" as descriptions of Humans:

Bradley2


BLACK-AND-WHITE. 5a. sharply divided into good and evil groups, sides or 
ideas.  5b. evaluating or viewing things as either all good or all bad.

    The trouble lies not just in definition, but also in the connotative 
meanings of "black" and "white".  These shared meanings operate below the 
level of consciousness, providing the motivating force for our behavior.  
We, then, invent socially acceptable "reasons" for our actions so that we 
can manage our affairs with the least friction.  This rather complex 
passage from Joseph Chilton Pearce's EXPLORING THE CRACK IN THE  COSMIC 
EGG, gives a better explanation of my thesis:

    "Jerome Brunner spoke of our "representing reality to ourselves" 
verbally in order to make metaphoric mutations of our representations and 
so change aspects of that reality.  This is one of the uses of language 
and creative logic.  But, through acculturation, we don't employ language 
selectively--either as a tool for logic, or as communication.  When 
language becomes semantic, and takes on  negative and positive values 
beyond denotation, our homeostatic system reacts to the emotional 
undertones involved.  Then we act on tangible sensory data, as well as our 
abstract creations, through our culture's value system...We interact with 
a "mediated reality" and consider the artificial result our natural 
condition."

    Thus, we have intelligent, well-educated humans in this country 
declaring that there are, in fact, black and white people.  There is 
obvious confusion of the sociological definition denoted by those words, 
hue or color, and the wide variety of connotations alluded to above. One 
hears news reporters on television solemnly warning us of "a dangerous 
black fugitive from justice, lurking in our communities."  A moments' 
reflection will instantly inform any fully conscious person, that that is 
not information adequate to inform the police or innocent members of the 
community whom to arrest, or to avoid.  Nevertheless, the usage of black 
and white (as well as other depersonalizing terms) continues to deepen 
ethnic divisions, as most people, without awareness, sanctify these terms 
as actual descriptions of real people.

    This past weekend, July 16 and 17, 1983, a newscaster on KNBC 
television, in Los Angeles, solemnly announced that "a young woman's body 
was found in the hills; she was described as black."  How many anxious 
parents were discomfited by this off-hand "description"?




Bradley3
                                COLOR BLIND


    A July 18, 1983 issue of Time magazine carried an article entitled 
"COLOR BLIND" regarding a Louisiana woman, Susie Phipps, whose 
great-great-great-great grandmother was an 18th century slave.  Mrs. Phipps 
found out in 1977, when she applied for a passport, that her birth 
certificate called her "colored".  She claims she has always considered 
herself white.  She protested and sued the state, but was found to be 
non-white because of a law enacted in 1970.  The current Governor of 
Louisiana, David Treen, signed a bill repealing that law, which stipulated 
that a person is non-white if he/she has more than "one thirty-second Negro 
blood".  The new statute requires the state henceforth to accept the 
parent's designation of a child's race.  The change is not retroactive, 
however, so Mrs. Phipps remains a "white black woman" until disposition of 
her appeal this fall.  This is just a small sample of the absurdities we 
allow when we continue usage of presumably racial designations when 
referring to human beings.

    George Leonard, is his new book, THE END OF SEX writes: "The power of 
the abstracting, generalizing intellect is well established.  This mode of 
thought has helped us organize society, to control matter and energy, to 
create useful new fields of endeavor.  The flaws and dangers are perhaps 
less well understood...along the scale of cultural evolution, abstraction 
and generalization tend to precede territorial or ideological war and 
genocide.  That masterpiece of generalization, "The only good Indian is a 
dead Indian, was the creation of civilized men."

    What is needed, both in America and elsewhere is what Leonard calls 
Radical Repersonalization.  It means that both globally and in our most 
intimate personal relations we must, with fully conscious intention, make 
each person's FULL HUMANITY OUR FOCUS.  In order to do that,a necessary 
first step is to attend to our experience, in the moment, and to remove 
from our use abstract and depersonalizing terms that prevent such an 
experience.  Two of those terms are "black" and "white".

    The question arises, "Well, what do I call people; how do I describe 
them, now?"  My solution is simple; call them "Alex," or "Bob," or 
"Laurie," or "My Friend."  If it is necessary to describe someone not 
present, as for a blind date, describe their physiognomic features, i.e., 
size and shape of nose, color of eyes, texture, length, style of hair, mode 
of dress, speech, sound of voice, characteristic phraseology, 
idiosyncrasies, height, weight, education, cultural leaning, language, etc.  
It is perfectly reasonable to describe the actual hue of the person's 
skin--and I defy anyone to find any person who is the color of coal or the 
paper on which this article is printed.

    "Well, what about fighting racism, surely we'll need to refer to groups 
when engaged in those activities?" you may ask.  It is not essential to use 
the words "black" or "white" to conduct selective buying campaigns, or to 
insist that employers hire persons who have skins that are not colored a 
shade of pink, along with those whose skins are."


    "But aren't you making the freedom fighters who introduced "Black 
Pride" and the usage of "BLACK" instead of "Negro" or "nigger" wrong?  No, 
I am not.  I participated with Stokely Carmichael, now called "Kwame," in 
the civil rights struggles of the early '60's, when I attended Howard 
University.  He and others were responsible for the substitution of "black" 
for terms we found objectionable.  I supported this tactical maneuver, and 
I am pleased with many of the results which flowed from them.  But it is no 
longer necessary to prove that Afro-American people can govern cities, 
administer justice, program computers, manage companies, write books, 
magazines and newspapers, pilot airplanes, design new genetic structures, 
or assist in the cure of cancer.  It is perfectly plain that we can do all 
of this and more.  We need to insist that we have additional opportunities 
to do so. For those efforts, usage of the words "black" and "white" is now 
not only unnecessary, but counter-productive.

    "But everyone I know has been conditioned to use those words for many 
years--I can't stop them!"  No, you can't stop them--you can, however, say, 
when they describe someone as "black" or "white."  "You mean black like 
coal or white like plaster?" "Do you mean Caucasian, and if you do, does 
his or her 'race' add anything useful to this conversation?"  I contend 
that you will find that there is virtually never an essential reason to use 
a persons' presumed racial origin as an element of description that adds 
non-inflammatory meaning to the conversation.

    "What else can I do to repersonalize my relationships and help others 
do so, too?"  Write the station managers of major media outlets in your 
city: radio and television stations, magazines, newspapers.  Write or talk 
to speechmakers, teachers, authors, politicians--anyone whose 
pronouncements enter our nervous systems; they need to be reminded that 
their usage of depersonalizing words to describe human beings and human 
conduct is injurious to all.  Send color charts to television news 
departments for them to use when describing criminals who must be captured.  
Practice describing your friends to yourself, (in writing, too) without 
using abstract identifiers like race.  When you next spend time with loved 
ones, or anyone you might need to describe, mentally rehearse  
repersonalized descriptions of them.  You might find your relationships and 
your communication improving from the increase in repersonalization, the 
"I-Thouness" rather than the "I-Itness" of your association.

    These modest proposals will not, in themselves, solve the problem of 
racism.  Individual human beings will participate in its elimination 
through a wide variety of activities. Individuals like you.  You are the 
operator of your nervous system.  You can become conscious of, and have 
power over the way you communicate.  Accept your responsibility, direct 
your behavior, including your thoughts toward ends which improve the human 
condition, rather than those which perpetuate ancient and modern prejudices 
and hatreds which deter our progress toward a world free of the racist 
scourge.

                               BIBLIOGRAPHY


1.  Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1979 by G. C. Merriam 
    Co.

2.  Exploring the Crack in the Cosmic Egg, Joseph Chilton Pearce.  Pocket 
    Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.  Originally, published by 
    Julian Press.  Page 46.

3.  The End of Sex, by George Leonard. J.P. Tarcher Inc. Page 100.

4.  The Silent Pulse, George Leonard.  E.P. Dutton, New York.  Chapter 11, 
    "Life Cannot Be Fooled."

5.  Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Volume 1, The Study of the Structure of 
    Subjective Experience by Robert Dilts, John Grinder, Richard Bandler, 
    Leslie C. Bandler, Judith De Lozier.  Meta Publications, 1980.  "The 
    map is not the territory".  page 3.

6.  Crisis in Black and White, by Charles E. Silberman.  A Vintage Book.

7.  Values Clarification:  A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachers 
    and Students, by Sidney B. Simon, Leland W. Howe, Howard Kirschenbaum.  
    A Hart Book, 1978.

Copyright 1983 Richard L. Bradley (SWAM2::BRADLEY_RI)

re .0:

How extraordinarily shortsighted of the author to place this in a "caucasoid"
versus "negroid" context.  Does he really believe these are the only two
genotypes?

Frankly, I find the tone a bit naive and degrading.  To someone who's,
say, of "native American" or "asiatic" stock, the subliminal message of the base
note is that their feelings aren't that important, or they'd have been
mentioned, too.

Any time I see a news item that says something like "First <x> to achieve .,.."
where "x" can stand for any race or ethnicity, I wonder when such characterizations
will cease to be included.

Steve Kakllis, Jr.

    The article IMHO seems well written.  There are many others who aren't
    addressed but IMHO if we can change just one thought process that seems
    to be discrimminating it may cause us to question others that we may
    not be aware of.  Personally, I look forward to the day when
    descriptions other than friend will not be necessary.
    
    Thank you for sharing the article with us.
    
    Ellen

    Cliff:
    
    All of the racial designators, even Afro-American add to the problem. 
    If you'll recall in the essay, my preference is to call people by their
    given names.
    
    Richard Bradley

    Thank you Ellen.  That's also my wife's name.  :-)  You are the first
    in the Notes file to grasp that this applies to ALL groups. Sexual,
    racial, ethnic, political, whatever.  The idea is that people will use
    Radical Repersonalization all of the time, with everyone.  We are One
    Human Species.  Let's get moving toward getting everyone to realize
    that.
    
    Richard B

    Richard,
    
    I agree with you 100% that we are One Human Species, and I definitely
    have difficulty referring to people as white, black, asian, etc.  But
    you say you hope that one day a persons name will be sufficient.  What
    if you don't know the person, and are trying to describe him/her say to
    the police.  I was thinking that describing that someone as of
    African-American descent would be preferable over "black".  I also
    don't think that describing the color of skin is sufficient, because
    brown skin may be found on people of many different heritages (whew! I
    didn't think I would be able to get around using a racial determination
    on that one).
    
    I am sincerely in a quandary over this as I am concerned about racial
    tension and segregation.  I would like to think that I see all people
    as people regardless of the color of their skin.
    
    Best regards,
    Michelle

    Michelle: Your attitude is of the sort that will Iead to teh kind of
    world we'd like to live in.  Again, I have never seen anyone with white
    or black skin (not living people, anyway). If you practice you'll be
    able to describe people without "racial" descriptors.  Describe what
    you see, hear, feel.  Skin color, types of hair, lips, legs, arms,
    speech, language use, accent, cultural activities, foods they eat,
    school they attended, etc. This list can be extended indifinely. Be
    very peersonal and individual.      
    ffded 
    Richard Bradley

    re: .0,
    
    	I enjoyed the essay, Richard.  At first, I had a strong feeling
    of agreement with it, that if we could somehow remove our tendency to 
    identify ourselves with races, that we would reduce racial tension.
    
    Then, Ursula LeGuin's Lathe_of_Heaven came to mind, and all the grey
    people.  
    
    There are cultural and ideological differences between people who
    identify with particular groups, and blurring the lines between
    them won't prevent us from perceiving and having to deal with (and 
    benefitting from) the differences.   There is a tradeoff between 
    (informational content about cultures and ideologies) and (over-emphasis
    on 'race' per se).
    
    							todd

    Well before you blame all the world's ills on skin colour take a quick
    look at Northern Ireland. Nearly all are white and for that matter
    Christian. However they are tearing out each other's throats about
    which subdivision of that religion they belong to.

    You can keep changing the labels. 

    Negro becomes coloured, then coloured = Negro and becomes offensive.

    Coloured becomes black, then black = coloured and becomes offensive.

    Black becomes Afro-American, then Afro-American = black and becomes 
    offensive.

    Afro-American becomes person of colour, then Afro-American = person of
    colour and becomes offensive.

    And so it goes on. In the UK the PC word for non-white is "Ethnic", I
    wonder how long it will last.

    Jamie.

    
    
    Re: .9
    
    Isn't it something how WE had to go through all those titles - to
    become what we are originally?
    
    In history, we African "Americans" were totally striped of everything
    we had, including our NAME = X . I don't see why the European
    "Americans" are making such a big fuss over the fact that - a nation of
    people decided to correct what was once destroyed by the "Europeans".
    
    Also with all the "titles" that was placed on US by the Europeans, (
    Lazy, ETC. ) . I don't see how they could be such a critic, when it was
    because of them - that we are in the state we're in.
    
    Those people in LA have every reason to react the way they did, (Not that
    it makes what happened right); but their acting out is according to what is
    built up on the insides of them.
    
    The damage that was done in LA, and the lives that was lost - was no
    comparison to what was done and how many lives was lost while coming
    over here, and during slavery.
    
    Some folk may say, "Don't always look to the past!"  Our present and
    future was built on the past. Besides, if we don't know our history, we
    are bound to repeat our past.
    
    I'm not saying that all European Americans are bad; but I do believe
    that we all have a much ignorance about each other, and why we are what
    we are.
    
    Identity/ survival is the name of the game.

    When I was but a lad in Leith, Scotland we only had one Negro in the
    entire town. He walked tall and proud. As he was unique no one ever
    caused him any hassle, mind you the fact that he was built like a brick
    outhouse may also have had some bearing on it.

    Thus being deprived of an ethical minority to despise I was brought up
    to despise Catholics. Well my lot and the Catholics had been at it for
    several hundred years and were very good at it, it was the thing that
    you taught your kids.

    So by the time I reached 15 I *KNEW* that all Catholics were b*st*rds.
    Simple, saved you having to think about it or evaluate the person in
    any way. As all Catholics school uniforms were Green and Gold this
    helped you in your decision.

    So one fine weekend I went off to some Boy Scout competition. Here you 
    were teamed up with a total stranger and had to get through a survival
    course with him. I got landed with a very competent lad and we came
    close to winning.

    Just before we split up I asked what one of the badges on his uniform
    was. When he said that all Catholic Scouts wore them my jaw fell open
    with an audible thud. How could this be? We were good mates and I
    really liked the guy. We had spent the weekend eating, sleeping and
    working together, we made a very good team.

    As I have said I have a logical mind, so I sat down and worked it out.
    I had been fed a load of lies for my *ENTIRE* life. Catholics were
    people, just like me. I was really furious and was quite unreasonable
    at home for several weeks. I decided that in future I would personally
    decide who I liked and who I disliked, and no longer would I blindly
    follow the prejudices of my peers.

    I think that much prejudice is learned early. I also think that
    prejudice is used out of lazyness, it does after all save you having to
    think.

    Jamie.

    re: .12 (Jamie)
    
         Very nice.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Well said, Jamie.
    
    Cindy

    Great story, Jamie!  That made the point more succinctly than my try at
    reasonaing it all out.
    Richard B ,

    Re .13
    
    >-< ...when the heart becomes more than a pump... >-
    
    How could you Frederick?
    
    Jamie.

    re: .16 (Jamie)
    
        How could I *what*?
    
    
    Frederick
    

             
    Re.16
    
    >How could you Frederick?
    
    I concur.
    
    Cindy

    re: .18 
    
        Vintage Cindy...:-{
    
        I complimented Jamie on his words...I emphasized it with my
    title (with words more or less saying that it's nice to see a heart
    that has feeling in it, thereby being more than simply a mechanical
    device.)  You, on the other hand, seem determined, as usual, to find
    some kind of fault with my reply.  
    
    Frederick
    

    Yeah, how could you Frederick?
    
    Laurie.
    
    PS. Think about it.

    Frederick, the heart that I use is just a pump. It has no other
    function.

    Jamie.

    Perhaps Frederick has one of those Swiss Army Knife-type hearts.
    
    :-)
    
    Dave

    
    
    Or perhaps Frederick's comment was 'thought-less', but not meant
    the way everyone is thinking he meant it?
    
    Carole

    Speaking of hearts, it appears now that people are closing their's to
    Frederick.  Geesh, maybe he didn't know or had forgotten that Jamie had
    a heart condition.  Maybe in his enthusiasm of the fact that Jamie had
    finally showed his feelings, some kindness, that he let down his armour
    and Frederick was only responding to that humanness with appreciation.
    
    Ro
    

         You people are unreal, sometimes!   :-{
    
         I know about Jamie's pump.  I was totally aware of it when I
    responded.  In fact, I responded and titled my reply with that 
    specificially in mind.  *YOU* think about it, Laurie, that is, if
    you have any heart of your own--(and most of your entries in DEJAVU
    are cold and distant in terms of humanity towards anyone other
    than Jamie, in my opinion.)  
        Jamie distances himself from feelings, most of the time.  He
    separates himself from emotions and wallows in thought/logic.  Finally,
    in the note I referred to, he shows "the REAL heart," the heart that
    *isn't* a reference to a mechanical device, but the heart that is 
    figurative, spiritual, mystical and genuine.  So, I made a brief
    remark to acknowledge this.
        To take it one step further, I COULD go so far as to suggest that
    perhaps if logic had been replaced with feeling (i.e., *real* heart,)
    then maybe the cold, steel mechanical pump would not have worn itself
    out as it attempted to support a system which clearly overwhelmed it.
    As this may sound harsh, it is also intended to be honest.  If you
    still find fault in my reply, then that's the way it will be.
    
    Frederick
    

    Actually Frederick, it appears more and more, that when dealing with
    one's American cousins, the word 'NOT' has to be appended to anything
    tongue-in-cheek, or ironical. Sad really; you should know us by now.
    
    As for compassion, well, I know and like Jamie. I think you'll find
    that he too, was 'ribbing' you.
    
    Laurie.

                                                                     
    RE.18
    
    If Jamie was ribbing you, Frederick, then I apologize for getting
    in the middle of it.  It didn't appear to be that way to me, however.
    So it seems like there may have been misunderstandings all around.
    
    As a side note, it's unfortunate that you read so much into my 
    writings that just simply doesn't exist.  Therefore, based on your 
    comments in .18, I'll not respond to your notes anymore.  It isn't 
    worth it for either of us.   
    
    Cindy 

But I thought ...

Perhaps TBN should be in here Jamie? Probably the most relevant and all
time stoater of a note is kicking about gathering cobwebs in EF1812 or
thereabouts, when it could be in DEJAVU.

dougie

    Jamie rib someone? Never.
    
    Jamie.