It’s one of those questions I have been thinking about for ages. I personally don’t like being referred to by skin colour (except in jokes, like “I’m so white” when I explain away my lack of basketball skills). I am hesitant to refer to others by skin colour (eg. black), and usually only do it in a context when it’s been established as the polite norm terminology to use in a particular conversation (eg white issues vs black issues).
Having said that, I have cringed even more when being referred to as “Aussie” by people who have been here their whole lives like me (I don’t know what the schoolyard terminology is in Melbourne, but if you are a “white” guy in a multicultural Sydney suburb high school or workplace, that’s what you get referred to as). I mean I like the term Aussie, but in a nationality sense, not an ethnicity sense.
And as much as I’d rather not be called English, “Anglo” or “Euro” is better in my books. Having said that, context of a word is at least as important as the word. So I can’t remember anytime I’ve actually been offended by being called white. It’s just strange.
I am mixed, mum is French European, dad is like mainly African descent but also Caraibe native Indian from Dominica and European.
In Europe, I am more and more referred as “metis”, “mulatto”, mixed, in the true multicultural countries, like France, the Netherlands or UK. In others, like in Italy, I am “black”.
In south America and Caribbean, I am very at home. People are very open on this.
In the USA, I have not much choice. I am inside the “black” cohort although I don’t consider myself as black (not as white).
Finally, I live in Africa. That’s like Europe. Some countries like Angola, Senegal or Cote d’Ivoire (basically, the non-English countries) have understood that a human is not defined by the amount of melanin in skin or the flatness of hair. Others, like Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Gambia, are still stuck on old racial bias, actually worst than Europe. My daughter, who is double-mix (her mum is Nigerian), was told by Nigerian immigration when asking a passport, that she is a “foreign element”.
Ghana is another story. Ghanaians are giving an image of very open to foreigners. In reality, especially among Ashanti dominant group, there is very xenophobic tendencies, things that no one could ever say in Europe openly without being sued, are common here. I am 53. In other African countries, children and young adults will greet me “hello papa” in the street (although I don’t feel old). In Ghana, I recently learned that it’s the foreigner to greet the Ghanaians first, as they allow him to live there… It passes the respect for seniority which is very odd in Africa. My kids are born in Ghana. When we tried to get them the nationality, it was made impossible to us… despite the law.
In Liberia, it’s even worst as they have an explicitly racist nationality law as “The applicant must be a Negro or of Negro descent”… Yep ! In 2017 !
That’s, btw, one of the reasons why I want to leave Ghana and move to Senegal. I don’t like this exacerbated race/ethnic climate in most anglophone countries. I don’t want to raise my kids in such place.
That’s a remarkable survey of attitudes Olivier Malinur I’m not surprised in a way that the most regressive attitudes to race are in the Anglophone countries although it is disappointing. The colonial past continues to live on in the present day.
It has to do with protestant/catholic cultures and the puritanism wave and with the moral/economic justification of colonialism.
Traditionally catholic nations have less taboos on sex. So, when they were in colonies, they fucked a lot, especially Portuguese and Spanish. Maybe also because Portugal was poorer and these colonies was population colonies, not indirect rule colonies. So, it brought a lot of mixed people.
Secondly, the economy/moral colonialism. English didn’t hide their intentions to economically exploit the colonies. And for that, they used a minority of local people, through the indirect rule. The “bringing civilization” was secondary.
French claimed to bring “civilization” first and then, exploited (usually at loss) their colonies.
Consequences: “civilization” means a lot of Europeans civil servants. And at the end, more sex.
Penis and vagina are not very regarding when it comes to colour.
In America we’re trained that if you ignore race the racism problem *POOF* goes away like magic. I’m white. I fit into the parameters of standard “white” behavior. I’m not offended as long as no offense was intended.
You have to be able to juggle two ideas simultaneously:
1. The idea of race is bullshit, biologically. You can’t use it to explain or predict how people will behave, what their capabilities, are, etc. There’s no such thing as race…
2. …unless you face discrimination (or worse) because of the race that your particular society assigns to you. Then race is very real, sociologically.
So yeah, there’s no such thing as “race” until I’m driving at night and see police lights flashing in my rearview. Then there definitely is such a thing, because I know that once the police shine a flashlight in my window and see my face, they’re going to call me “sir” and politely mention that my tail light is out.
John Hardy Turnbull delenda est wrote “The British certainly ruled along racial lines.”
For sure, and it’s interesting to look at how different their ideas of “race” were in the 18th and 19th centuries, just to remind ourselves that it’s a human construct (with real harm, of course). They considered the Irish to be a separate race, for example, and even more so, people living in southern Europe. Almost everyone further afield was just “black,” whether from Arab lands, Subsaharan Africa, India, Pacific islands, etc. etc. (except for “red indians” in some adventure stories).
There’s a famous court martial (too lazy to look it up) that shows one shift in the idea of “race”. In the late 18th century, two warrant or petty officers on a Royal Navy ship were charged with “buggery,” which carried a death penalty. The witness was another petty officer, who happened to be “black” by modern standards.
The accused argued that the witness’s testimony shouldn’t count, since he wasn’t a “Christian” (meaning roughly “white”), but the presiding officer simply asked the witness if he believed in Jesus and the apostles, then declared that he was “Christian” (deliberately using the different meaning of “person of the Christian faith”). It’s a sad story from an LGBTQ rights PoV, of course. We don’t use “Christian” that way any more, but we still do use “Jewish,” “Hindu,” and “Muslim” as demonyms as well as claims of actual religious affiliation.
Never Stop Posting 
It’s one of those questions I have been thinking about for ages. I personally don’t like being referred to by skin colour (except in jokes, like “I’m so white” when I explain away my lack of basketball skills). I am hesitant to refer to others by skin colour (eg. black), and usually only do it in a context when it’s been established as the polite norm terminology to use in a particular conversation (eg white issues vs black issues).
Having said that, I have cringed even more when being referred to as “Aussie” by people who have been here their whole lives like me (I don’t know what the schoolyard terminology is in Melbourne, but if you are a “white” guy in a multicultural Sydney suburb high school or workplace, that’s what you get referred to as). I mean I like the term Aussie, but in a nationality sense, not an ethnicity sense.
And as much as I’d rather not be called English, “Anglo” or “Euro” is better in my books. Having said that, context of a word is at least as important as the word. So I can’t remember anytime I’ve actually been offended by being called white. It’s just strange.
LikeLike
I am mixed, mum is French European, dad is like mainly African descent but also Caraibe native Indian from Dominica and European.
In Europe, I am more and more referred as “metis”, “mulatto”, mixed, in the true multicultural countries, like France, the Netherlands or UK. In others, like in Italy, I am “black”.
In south America and Caribbean, I am very at home. People are very open on this.
In the USA, I have not much choice. I am inside the “black” cohort although I don’t consider myself as black (not as white).
Finally, I live in Africa. That’s like Europe. Some countries like Angola, Senegal or Cote d’Ivoire (basically, the non-English countries) have understood that a human is not defined by the amount of melanin in skin or the flatness of hair. Others, like Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Gambia, are still stuck on old racial bias, actually worst than Europe. My daughter, who is double-mix (her mum is Nigerian), was told by Nigerian immigration when asking a passport, that she is a “foreign element”.
Ghana is another story. Ghanaians are giving an image of very open to foreigners. In reality, especially among Ashanti dominant group, there is very xenophobic tendencies, things that no one could ever say in Europe openly without being sued, are common here. I am 53. In other African countries, children and young adults will greet me “hello papa” in the street (although I don’t feel old). In Ghana, I recently learned that it’s the foreigner to greet the Ghanaians first, as they allow him to live there… It passes the respect for seniority which is very odd in Africa. My kids are born in Ghana. When we tried to get them the nationality, it was made impossible to us… despite the law.
In Liberia, it’s even worst as they have an explicitly racist nationality law as “The applicant must be a Negro or of Negro descent”… Yep ! In 2017 !
That’s, btw, one of the reasons why I want to leave Ghana and move to Senegal. I don’t like this exacerbated race/ethnic climate in most anglophone countries. I don’t want to raise my kids in such place.
LikeLike
That’s a remarkable survey of attitudes Olivier Malinur I’m not surprised in a way that the most regressive attitudes to race are in the Anglophone countries although it is disappointing. The colonial past continues to live on in the present day.
LikeLike
It has to do with protestant/catholic cultures and the puritanism wave and with the moral/economic justification of colonialism.
Traditionally catholic nations have less taboos on sex. So, when they were in colonies, they fucked a lot, especially Portuguese and Spanish. Maybe also because Portugal was poorer and these colonies was population colonies, not indirect rule colonies. So, it brought a lot of mixed people.
Secondly, the economy/moral colonialism. English didn’t hide their intentions to economically exploit the colonies. And for that, they used a minority of local people, through the indirect rule. The “bringing civilization” was secondary.
French claimed to bring “civilization” first and then, exploited (usually at loss) their colonies.
Consequences: “civilization” means a lot of Europeans civil servants. And at the end, more sex.
Penis and vagina are not very regarding when it comes to colour.
LikeLike
I don’t think “Aussie” has quite the same racial aspect in Melbourne Joseph McDermott although I may be wrong. The word I hear more often is “skip”.
LikeLike
The British certainly ruled along racial lines. I guess that’s why Hitler admired them so much.
LikeLike
In America we’re trained that if you ignore race the racism problem *POOF* goes away like magic. I’m white. I fit into the parameters of standard “white” behavior. I’m not offended as long as no offense was intended.
LikeLike
You have to be able to juggle two ideas simultaneously:
1. The idea of race is bullshit, biologically. You can’t use it to explain or predict how people will behave, what their capabilities, are, etc. There’s no such thing as race…
2. …unless you face discrimination (or worse) because of the race that your particular society assigns to you. Then race is very real, sociologically.
So yeah, there’s no such thing as “race” until I’m driving at night and see police lights flashing in my rearview. Then there definitely is such a thing, because I know that once the police shine a flashlight in my window and see my face, they’re going to call me “sir” and politely mention that my tail light is out.
LikeLike
John Hardy Turnbull delenda est wrote “The British certainly ruled along racial lines.”
For sure, and it’s interesting to look at how different their ideas of “race” were in the 18th and 19th centuries, just to remind ourselves that it’s a human construct (with real harm, of course). They considered the Irish to be a separate race, for example, and even more so, people living in southern Europe. Almost everyone further afield was just “black,” whether from Arab lands, Subsaharan Africa, India, Pacific islands, etc. etc. (except for “red indians” in some adventure stories).
There’s a famous court martial (too lazy to look it up) that shows one shift in the idea of “race”. In the late 18th century, two warrant or petty officers on a Royal Navy ship were charged with “buggery,” which carried a death penalty. The witness was another petty officer, who happened to be “black” by modern standards.
The accused argued that the witness’s testimony shouldn’t count, since he wasn’t a “Christian” (meaning roughly “white”), but the presiding officer simply asked the witness if he believed in Jesus and the apostles, then declared that he was “Christian” (deliberately using the different meaning of “person of the Christian faith”). It’s a sad story from an LGBTQ rights PoV, of course. We don’t use “Christian” that way any more, but we still do use “Jewish,” “Hindu,” and “Muslim” as demonyms as well as claims of actual religious affiliation.
LikeLike