Then maybe a better question would be, "What if Blacks protected themselves with said guns?"
I don't think it's fair to assume rd95 disagrees with something in particular. Rather, I read it as, "I am uncomfortable with this conversation and could it see going very poorly, so I will not be participating." And, I mean, it really hasn't been superb thus far.
Can you tell us why? Also: thank you very much for the information -- I figured that may be the case, but wasn't sure. After all, I haven't heard of any such black people being gun downed.
Ooooookaaaaaay...? I'm sorry you do not feel comfortable in discussing America's (and other countries') bigotry against people of color -- specifically blacks.
Man, you know what they say about assumptions.
...
"Do that shit all the time, it always works 10/10"
To be fair the initial question and the OP responses appear to be inviting that civil war. I'm out as well. He can tell other people and start his war.
That's exactly what I want to discuss. Solutions for making sure that doesn't happen. There is a huge international discussion going on about the oppression of colored people and their colonization by whites as well as subsequent affects. What can we do to make sure the world isn't destroyed while we are throwing off such shackles?
People use People of Color.. how is that different than colored people? Ignorance isn't bliss, it's just ignorance.
you're probably long gone now but PoC was chosen by PoC and not assigned to them by white folx so it's different by orders of magnitude
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. What, did every colored person in the world go up to the Un and demand that they be referred to as "People of Color"? Otherwise you have no clue if it was" assigned" or not. Whether you put the adjective before are after the noun makes no difference.
Welcome to hubski. Try being less antagonistic if you want to have a conversation. Words and their order absolutely matter, especially in the context of identities. Via textual analysis, you can trace the usage of terms. Here is a good NPR article that summarizes how the terms have changed. "People of Color" connotates a community, which is why many PoC prefer to use it. Obviously it's not without criticism.
Okay that article says nothing about the term "colored people" being assigned to them. Nor does it say anything about what the difference is. And how does "People of Color" connotate a community while "colored people" doesn't? You can describe baseball fans as "baseball fans" or "fans of baseball" and it still has the same meaning.
last quote of the article:
"Colored people" was used to degrade and ostracize PoC by white people. There is something to be said about putting the noun before the adjective because it brings the definition back to being about the person, not their attribute (ex. person with Autism rather than autistic person is another one I've seen argued). It's about self-designation and reclaiming personhood. eta: this wound up in my drafts for a long time and goo hit the point pretty well"People of color explicitly suggests a social relationship among racial and ethnic minority groups. ... [It is] is a term most often used outside of traditional academic circles, often infused by activist frameworks, but it is slowly replacing terms such as racial and ethnic minorities. ... In the United States in particular, there is a trajectory to the term — from more derogatory terms such as negroes, to colored, to people of color. ... People of color is, however it is viewed, a political term, but it is also a term that allows for a more complex set of identity for the individual — a relational one that is in constant flux."
Salvador Vidal-Ortiz, Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society
The way I've been taught is how the words define you. There is a similar discussion about whether to say "disabled people" or "people with a disability." The idea is, "people of colour" indicates you are a person first, and being coloured is a secondary feature. "Coloured people" indicates you are first defined as coloured, and as a person after the fact.
Because those who are a part of the oppressing class shouldn't have this discussion? Are you not interested in learning why some of these people are like this and what you can do to be a part of a positive change? Why is it that when someone -- anyone -- brings this up, the first thing you think of is "race war"? No one wants that. Don't forget the history. It was your people who did this. We ALL have to fix it now.
The oppressing class has no place in telling the oppressed why they shouldn't revolt. Why is the first thing we think of "race war"? Because we are recognizing the history. Of course nobody wants it, but there is every reason for there to be a race war. And it's a miracle there hasn't already been another. Yes, we do all have to fix this. But believe me, white people telling black people how to refrain is sure as hell not the way to do it.
I'm not telling you to tell us how to react--which I think you could have figured out, what with all this information going around. I'm asking you why you all seem to think when we say, "You should be accountable" you immediately think of how you should tell US what to do, instead of how to tell YOURSELVES what to do.
Well are blacks in America with guns getting together and making plans on how to protect themselves? If there is no major organization, then it's not going to be seen as a major threat. Unorganized fighting can be quickly taken down. A good amount of violence and killings happens in America each and every day but it doesn't really affect the grand majority of the country because it's so isolated to the point that it's impact is so minimal to a lot of people.
Exactly what would be a better way to defend ourselves against a force which is neither there to protect or serve us? It's worse for black people but it affects ALL of us under tyrannical governments..which is all of us.
I don't know. I know that collecting guns to protect yourself from the police is not a good way to not get shot by the police. Any kind of antiauthoritarian politics in the US is crippled by being spread over too many mutually contradictory ideologies. Get the libertarian left to stop fighting primarily with itself, the libertarian right to let go of enough racism to see that the jackbooted thugs are still jackbooted thugs when they're stomping on brown people, the techies to start noticing that people who aren't their fellows get mistreated by the law too, ... , and get them to come to similar understandings with each other, and you have a coalition that can do things. This does not seem very likely.
I try to make one point from time to time. I feel there's too much focus on distinctions that make a difference. I think the great problem with our current society is not racism, nor is it sexism, or class; consumerism or denialism. Those are all, rather, manifestations of one thing. Assholes. Too many assholes. Or, Authoritarian Personalities, if you prefer. But I think "Asshole" is a better word - it's more difficult to argue that it's a feature instead of a bug.