Qwark said:
If you call them blacks (zwarte) it is racist in The Netherlands perhaps the same counts for the US |
I wrote my thesis on roman perceptions of blacks and whether or not racism exists in roman society. I refered to black people as "zwarten", it's not racist.
Romans had many different ways of refering to black people. One term is Aithiopes which comes from ancient Greek and litteraly means "burned face". Another is melanogaetuli which means "black Gaetuli" (Gaetuli were an ancient Berber tribe in modern day Morocco). Egyptian was often used as a synonym for black as well. And yes, ancient Egyptians were considered black by Romans and Greeks. The people of the ancient kingdom of Mauri were called Mauros in Latin, which comes from the ancient Greek word for black, dark. The english word Moor has its origins here.
Describing someone by his skin color is not racist by itself.
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Just like the term "race" amongst humanity, the term African-American is a social construct. Let me prove this to you. What happens if a natural born person from Africa who isn't black moves to America and decides to become a citizen....wouldn't you still call that non-black person African-American...if the term is being used correctly? Thats the problem...there is a flaw with labels. They arent as fluid as one might think. When we can accept that we're human with different ethnic backgrounds and cultures, we can sooner move forward into the future. |
Yep, I spent a whole chapter in my thesis defining terms as race (which is a social construct as you say). Instead of using "race" in my thesis I decided to opt for "somatic type" which I think is a much more neutral term.
