 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / January 2004European
Tony Cooper | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english in <news:k2iovvs372mhiqh8g9bfshm2a71el1g72m@4ax.com> <snip> > There are some - as you - that would quibble and grouch about the > propriety of the statement, but they would not be confused about the > meaning of the statement. In the most far distant land, a statement > that "I am an American" would be instantly understood and probably > elicit a reply like "You are? I have a cousin in Chicago. Do you > know him?" And what about "Europe"? I think it's an entirely new can of worms :) Is "a European" a citizen of the the political Union or an inhabitant of the geographical entity that includes other countries and even parts of Russia and Turkey? AFAIK, I can refer to both things by the same word, depending on the context.  SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker [text irrelevant] Please reply to messages without breaking threads. If you don't know how, the Web is full of advice on the subject. Thank you. SignatureBob Lieblich In article <3FFCC010.9C9C3809@Verizon.net>, Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> posted: >> Tony Cooper | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english >> in <news:k2iovvs372mhiqh8g9bfshm2a71el1g72m@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> elicit a reply like "You are? I have a cousin in Chicago. Do you >>> know him?" >> And what about "Europe"? >> I think it's an entirely new can of worms :) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> AFAIK, I can refer to both things by the same word, depending on the >> context. Compare with the term "Hindu" (pronounced hindoo) which has overlapping spiritual, geographical and political contexts. Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti In alt.usage.english Dr. Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> wrote: > Compare with the term "Hindu" (pronounced hindoo) which has > overlapping spiritual, geographical and political contexts. If there are Hindus are there also Hindonts? > If there are Hindus are there also Hindonts? I think they're called Muslims. :-) ----------- GC In article <btvne6$jdi$5@news1.radix.net>, Jim Ward <tomcatpolka@NyOaShPoAoM.com> posted: > If there are Hindus are there also Hindonts? - Jim Ward If there are Jim Wards, are there also Jim Wardoffs? Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti In alt.usage.english Dr. Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> wrote: > If there are Jim Wards, are there also Jim Wardoffs? The mind boggles! In article <bu0uig$emo$2@news1.radix.net>, Jim Ward <tomcatpolka@NyOaShPoAoM.com> posted: > In alt.usage.english Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote: > > If there are Jim Wards, are there also Jim Wardoffs? > The mind boggles! On a shag carpet. Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti Mufasa: >> If there are Hindus are there also Hindonts? - Jim Ward > >If there are Jim Wards, are there also Jim Wardoffs? That makes NO sense! Even COOPER makes mo' sense than you! "I don't know why you down on yo' knees, because the mo' booty you come across, the mo' problem we see"---Biggie Smalls. >In alt.usage.english Dr. Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> wrote: > >> Compare with the term "Hindu" (pronounced hindoo) which has >> overlapping spiritual, geographical and political contexts. > >If there are Hindus are there also Hindonts? If there are parakeets, are there also metakeets? Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >[text irrelevant] Not to me. >Please reply to messages without breaking threads. Why? What's the harm in changing the subject line? Could be a Good Thing in many cases, no? How does changing it, without reference to another subject line which, when one does so, often results in unwieldy subject lines, differ from initiating a new thread? Could this be one of those foolish consistency thingies? My two cents, by the way, is that "European" is, indeed, a poorly defined term these days. Even before the EU it was, thinking of the reluctance by many, if not most, of the British and Irish to call themselves what they are. Hope saying that pissed no-one off. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > >Please reply to messages without breaking threads. > > Why? What's the harm in changing the subject line? It wasn't that he changed the subject line, it was that his message had no "References" header. It truly wasn't part of the thread. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands |to yourself. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> >Please reply to messages without breaking threads. >> >> Why? What's the harm in changing the subject line? > >It wasn't that he changed the subject line, it was that his message >had no "References" header. It truly wasn't part of the thread. Okay, but where's the harm? He started a new thread referencing, in the body of his post, something or other Lieblich's little buddy, Tony Cooper, wrote. I see little difference between doing that and starting a new thread with no citations. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > And what about "Europe"? > I think it's an entirely new can of worms :) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AFAIK, I can refer to both things by the same word, depending on the > context. Then you're a victim of brainwashing. A European is an inhabitant of Europe. Adrian >> And what about "Europe"? >> I think it's an entirely new can of worms :) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Adrian Define "Europe" :) I can think of at least three or four common meanings 1) Europe as EU, that includes 15 countries and some more to come. 2) Europe as defined by European culture and history. The Swiss are no doubt in Europe, but they are not in the EU. 3) Europe as defined by geography, actually a vast peninsula of Eurasia. Instabul, in Turkey, is split between Europe and Asia. 4) Then, I read that the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the continent except the British Isles SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker > >> And what about "Europe"? > >> I think it's an entirely new can of worms :) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 4) Then, I read that the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the > continent except the British Isles You missed a couple, although I wouldn't call them "common meanings": The second definition below, given in the entry for the noun "European" in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com "*1 :* a native or inhabitant of Europe "*2 :* a person of European descent " And the second definition below, given in the entry for the noun "European" in the _Encarta World English Dictionary,_ North American Edition at http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/european.html "*1. somebody from Europe:* somebody who was born or raised in a European country, is a citizen of a European country, or is of European descent "*2. advocate of European union:* somebody who supports the principles and ideals of the European Union" As an native speaker of American English, I would be unlikely to use the "of European descent" meaning, since I would be much more likely to refer to a "European American," just as I would refer to an "African American" and an "Asian American." But I am quite certain that the dictionaries would not have included these definitions if they did not represent actual usage. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com [Snip] > You missed a couple, although I wouldn't call them "common meanings": > The second definition below, given in the entry for the noun > "European" in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at > www.m-w.com > "*1 :* a native or inhabitant of Europe > "*2 :* a person of European descent " > And the second definition below, given in the entry for the noun > "European" in the _Encarta World English Dictionary,_ North American > Edition at > http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/european.html > "*1. somebody from Europe:* somebody who was born or raised in a > European country, is a citizen of a European country, or is of > European descent > "*2. advocate of European union:* somebody who supports the > principles and ideals of the European Union" > As an native speaker of American English, I would be unlikely to use > the "of European descent" meaning, since I would be much more likely > to refer to a "European American," just as I would refer to an > "African American" and an "Asian American." But I am quite certain > that the dictionaries would not have included these definitions if > they did not represent actual usage. Isn't this an example of the all too common US-centric perspective which fails to see what, to non-USA folk is perfectly obvious? "A person of European descent" is not necessarily an "American" (whether in the sense of being a citizen or resident of the USA or of Peru) but might be anywhere in the entire world. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/ Free Software: !Jack - JPEG repair application > [Snip] > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > in the sense of being a citizen or resident of the USA or of Peru) but > might be anywhere in the entire world. I'm likely less US-centric than the average citizen of the US, given that I speak French and Esperanto, spent my junior year of college abroad, and have done some international travel. What I meant was that I don't have occasion to use "European" in the ethnic sense given in the dictionary definition, which is basically a substitute for the old, discredited term "Caucasian" and the sometimes problematic term "white." The term I usually use, in fact, is "white." "European American" might be a term I would use if I were seeking to emphasize the parallelism with "African American," "Asian American," and "Native American." (And in fact I have on occasion used the term "European American.") My tendency would be, when speaking of matters outside the United States, to use the terms "white" for those once called "Caucasians." I would not, in other words, speak of a white descendent of Europeans as a "European." But I would not be surprised to see others do so and thus the dictionary entry was not unexpected. As I have said before in alt.usage.english , none of these terms are satisfactory. Note, for example, how I just referred to "a white descendent of Europeans." The vast majority of blacks in North and South America are, of course, descended not just from Africans but also from Europeans (and also, in the case of South America, from the indigenous peoples). And the term "Caucasian" does not, historically, simply mean "white," since some of the peoples of India and surrounding areas, closely related to the Europeans, are dark-skinned Caucasians. But the term "Caucasian" did come to mean simply "white." Today in the US the term "Caucasian" seems to be favored only by some police departments (and even they appear to be, slowly but surely, switching over to the use of the term "white"). To summarize: A speaker of American English is much more likely to find occasion to use "European American" than he ever will be to use the term "European" in the sense of "white person." In fact, "American" is a productive term in American English for forming new ethnic terms. Make up a name for a country, such as "Erewhon," with an associated noun for the inhabitant, such as "Erewhonian," and you can immediately form the term for an American who is descended from the people of that country, in this case, an "Erewhonian American." I suspect that "Canadian" is equally productive in Canadian English, but I have not heard of a similar situation with other varieties of English. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com [Snip] > > > As an native speaker of American English, I would be unlikely to > > > use the "of European descent" meaning, since I would be much more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > (whether in the sense of being a citizen or resident of the USA or > > of Peru) but might be anywhere in the entire world. > I'm likely less US-centric than the average citizen of the US, given > that I speak French and Esperanto, spent my junior year of college [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > American," and "Native American." (And in fact I have on occasion > used the term "European American.") > My tendency would be, when speaking of matters outside the United > States, to use the terms "white" for those once called "Caucasians." > I would not, in other words, speak of a white descendent of Europeans > as a "European." But I would not be surprised to see others do so and > thus the dictionary entry was not unexpected. > As I have said before in alt.usage.english , none of these terms are > satisfactory. Note, for example, how I just referred to "a white [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > police departments (and even they appear to be, slowly but surely, > switching over to the use of the term "white"). > To summarize: A speaker of American English is much more likely to > find occasion to use "European American" than he ever will be to use [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > but I have not heard of a similar situation with other varieties of > English. Phew! I meant, of course, that the term "European" meant (in that instance) simply, "a person of European descent" whether he or she was walking and talking in the US, in China, in Asia, in Australasia or in America. I see no reason for you to go into a lengthy apology for the curious terms used in the US for US citizens of different descent. A European who visits the US does not become a "European American". I claimed to spot your US-centric perspective simply because you saw the term only from the condition of the person of European descent being a US citizen. Are we clear yet? Or are you going to write reams telling us the difference between African Americans and Tunisian Americans? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/mavic/0m03-0.htm Crackpot > [Snip] > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > Are we clear yet? Or are you going to write reams telling us the > difference between African Americans and Tunisian Americans? I don't believe we are clear yet, no. The point I was making had nothing to do with what to call an inhabitant of Europe, wherever he might happen to be. Instead, it concerned _what to call a descendent of an inhabitant of Europe._ I was commenting about the Merriam-Webster and Encarta dictionaries' definition of "European" in the latter meaning, which I expect relatively few Americans would have occasion to use. I wrote neither an apology nor a defense: It was simply an explanation. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com [Very Big Snip & Pinch of Salt] > I don't believe we are clear yet, no. The point I was making had > nothing to do with what to call an inhabitant of Europe, wherever he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the latter meaning, which I expect relatively few Americans would > have occasion to use. > I wrote neither an apology nor a defense: It was simply an > explanation. Ah! I'm with you now. A "descendent of an inhabitant of Europe" is called a "European American", even if he (or she) happens not to be a citizen of the United States of America, nor resident in that Empire, nor resident in the American hemisphere; indeed, he (or she) could be nicely settled on a tiny Chinese island, born of parents, grandparents and great-grandparents who themselves had always resided on that same island, they in turn having been born of parents who had emigrated directly from some part of Europe (probably the Netherlands), and still be called a "European American". Yes, got it. As I said, the usual US-centric perspective. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/11-0.htm "I don't remember my death, of course," said the Dalai Lama. Joachim nodded his understanding. > As I said, the usual US-centric perspective. Whereby, "it is the case in the USA" equals "it is the case". -------------------- GC > > As I said, the usual US-centric perspective. > Whereby, "it is the case in the USA" equals "it is the case". Unfortunately, mammon winning, it all too often is. Now, shall we move on to consider what one should call a citizen of the Central African Republic? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/mavic/0m05-0.htm Quintessence Of Poppy In alt.usage.english, David wrote: >Now, shall we move on to consider what one should call a citizen of the >Central African Republic? Good question. The answer appears to be 'Central African'. SignatureMickwick > [Very Big Snip & Pinch of Salt] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > As I said, the usual US-centric perspective. Since it is you who are making the absurd assertion, I will leave to you the heavy lifting to prove that there is even an iota of evidence to back up that assertion. While you're at it, you might also try to demonstrate that "US-centric perspective" has anything whatsoever to do with the matter. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > As I said, the usual US-centric perspective. > Since it is you who are making the absurd assertion, I will leave to > you the heavy lifting to prove that there is even an iota of evidence > to back up that assertion. While you're at it, you might also try to > demonstrate that "US-centric perspective" has anything whatsoever to > do with the matter. I refer you back to the article: <eaadnYSM6LskaGGiRVn-tw@gbronline.com> in which you wrote: <quote> > As an native speaker of American English, I would be unlikely to use > the "of European descent" meaning, since I would be much more likely > to refer to a "European American," <unquote> in response to a dictionary definition of "European" as "of European descent". Where in that definition does it state that the person who is "of European descent" is also a citizen of the USA. It is a general definition applicable to all persons of European descent whether or not they are "Americans". Now, please tell us why a speaker of American English would refer to a person of European descent as a "European American" where a speaker of English would refer to such as a "European"? Is it not truly the case that you did indeed fall prey to the usual failing of the US citizen of seeing all in terms of the USA and read "of European descent" as meaning "A US citizen of European (as opposed to Asian or African, etc.,) descent" even thought the meaning simply wasn't there? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/ Free Software: Hermetic Font - Crosses, Dice, Greek, Hebrew, Music, Stars, Zodiac > > > As I said, the usual US-centric perspective. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > to Asian or African, etc.,) descent" even thought the meaning simply > wasn't there? No, your biases continue to mislead you. The point I have been making all along, in regard to "European" used as an ethnic term, is that an American would tend to avoid that use. If he *were* to use it, it would most likely be in the context of speaking of the descendants of Europeans who are citizens of the United States, and it would be used only in a compound term. I, for example, am a European American. The following is from a subsequent post of mine: See http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=_vadnf81SMm4qGCi4p2dnA%40gbronline.com&outp ut=gplain or http://tinyurl.com/26bmv [begin quote from Usenet post] My tendency would be, when speaking of matters outside the United States, to use the terms "white" for those once called "Caucasians." I would not, in other words, speak of a white descendent of Europeans as a "European." But I would not be surprised to see others do so and thus the dictionary entry was not unexpected. [end quote from Usenet post] It is not just my tendency I am speaking of here, but, as the post you quote should make clear, that of Americans in general. To put it flatly: We don't use "European" to mean "a person whose ancestors came from Europe." When I say "I would not be surprised to see others do so," I meant that I would not be surprised to speakers of varieties of English other than American English do so. Your most bizarre leap of logic is to assume that because Americans do not use "European" as an ethnic term, that we don't discuss the descendants of Europeans who live in other countries. We do. We call them "white," not "European." Now, you might ask *why* Americans would tend to avoid the term "European." I suspect that it is matter of parallelism. The term "African" was once an acceptable term for describing black Americans. But it long ago became just as objectionable as the term "Negro." "African American," however, is acceptable, and so "European American" is also acceptable, if rare. --- Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com [Snip] > No, your biases continue to mislead you. > The point I have been making all along, in regard to "European" used > as an ethnic term, is that an American would tend to avoid that use. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > example, am a European American. The following is from a subsequent > post of mine: That is not the point you made. You made no reference to the person of European descent being necessarily an "American of European descent". That is my point. Had you done so, I would not have questioned your assertion. [Snip] > Now, you might ask *why* Americans would tend to avoid the term > "European." I suspect that it is matter of parallelism. The term > "African" was once an acceptable term for describing black Americans. > But it long ago became just as objectionable as the term "Negro." > "African American," however, is acceptable, and so "European > American" is also acceptable, if rare. And do you also call Americans who hail from some of the North African countries, "African Americans"? I suspect that the term is used as a catch all for black US citizens of African roots because they really don't have any country from which to claim descent. Strange that they don't object to the term "white", though, because by inference, it draws attention to their non-white state. What do you call black Africans (to distinguish them from white Africans, Arabs and the other non-black racial types of African)? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/11-0.htm "I don't remember my death, of course," said the Dalai Lama. Joachim nodded his understanding. Once upon a 1/10/04 1:26 AM, in the land of 4c6e827c88david@dacha.freeuk.com, the very good"David" from <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote: > [Snip] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > And do you also call Americans who hail from some of the North African > countries, "African Americans"? No, they are "Arab-Americans". Though the Christian ones prefer terms like "Chaldeans" or "Marionites". We don't get many Tuaregs. Somewhere I have a cassette of Archie Shepp playing with Tuaregs in Tunisia or Algeria, and somebody's chanting "we have come back". Great music, but it's a bit like some Boston Brahmin going to Ukraine to dance with the Cossacks and singing about being "back in the old country". Except it wouldn't be as good musically as Archie's music. > I suspect that the term is used as a catch all for black US citizens of > African roots because they really don't have any country from which to > claim descent. Well, it's more that they have a distinct culture, that needs a name. Or rather, they are a thread in the larger American culture. A big fat thread that certainly isn't limited to "blacks". > Strange that they don't object to the term "white", though, because by > inference, it draws attention to their non-white state. > > What do you call black Africans (to distinguish them from white > Africans, Arabs and the other non-black racial types of African)? Sub-Saharan Africans. But we don't distinguish the Eastern Sub-Saharan Africans from the Western Sub-Saharan Africans. We do distinguish the !Kung-San, and only occasionally call them "Pygmies". > We do distinguish the > !Kung-San, and only occasionally call them "Pygmies". I can't tell if you mean that we call them by the wrong name. The !Kung San are Bushmen, and the Pygmies are aother people altogether. I'm not aware of what the Pygmies call themselves. Googling indicates that one tribe of Pygmies are the Mbuti. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > [Snip] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That is my point. Had you done so, I would not have questioned your > assertion. Here is the post in question: *** [begin quote from Usenet post] From: "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english References: <1cqsu5jdzndru.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> <KF3Lb.4637$d27.1959@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk> <z0k216opvd0p.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> Subject: Re: European Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 00:15:47 -0600 Lines: 82 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 > Adrian Bailey | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english > in <news:KF3Lb.4637$d27.1959@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > Then you're a victim of brainwashing. A European is an inhabitant of Europe. > > Adrian > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 4) Then, I read that the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the > continent except the British Isles You missed a couple, although I wouldn't call them "common meanings": The second definition below, given in the entry for the noun "European" in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com "*1 :* a native or inhabitant of Europe "*2 :* a person of European descent " And the second definition below, given in the entry for the noun "European" in the _Encarta World English Dictionary,_ North American Edition at http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/european.html "*1. somebody from Europe:* somebody who was born or raised in a European country, is a citizen of a European country, or is of European descent "*2. advocate of European union:* somebody who supports the principles and ideals of the European Union" As an native speaker of American English, I would be unlikely to use the "of European descent" meaning, since I would be much more likely to refer to a "European American," just as I would refer to an "African American" and an "Asian American." But I am quite certain that the dictionaries would not have included these definitions if they did not represent actual usage. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com [end quote from Usenet post] *** What I said was my point is precisely what the post indicates was my point. I was discussing the use of "European" as an ethnic term--one of the meanings which, I pointed out, Enrico C had missed--and I was asserting that Americans would not ordinarily use the term "European" in this way. That you would believe, even for a moment, that I or any other American would think that descendents of Europeans living or visiting in countries outside of the US or Europe should be called "European Americans" is a product of the bizarre processes of your thinking, not the result of anything which I wrote. The person who believes a seeming absurdity--and this one is a whopper!--has the responsibility to provide evidence that his absurd belief may have some basis in truth. You have failed to do so, and failed miserably. But how could it be otherwise? There was no evidence which could possibly support your absurd belief. > [Snip] > > Now, you might ask *why* Americans would tend to avoid the term > > "European." I suspect that it is matter of parallelism. The term [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And do you also call Americans who hail from some of the North African > countries, "African Americans"? No. From a previous post in this thread: "As I have said before in alt.usage.english , none of these terms are satisfactory. " > I suspect that the term is used as a catch all for black US citizens of > African roots because they really don't have any country from which to > claim descent. That is very likely how it started. But today, with "Negro," "Mongoloid," and "Caucasian" having been discredited, "African American," like "Asian American" and "European American," also applies to those US citizens who know exactly from what country their ancestors came. A "Somali American," for example, is equally an "African American." > Strange that they don't object to the term "white", though, because by > inference, it draws attention to their non-white state. Some blacks object to "white," and so do some whites. Some blacks object to "black" and so do some whites. Not enough do so, however, for the words to have been bumped from preferred status, as "Caucasian" and "Negro" have been. (actually, at one point in the past, "black" was an insulting, taboo term in American English, but that was long ago). I doubt that blacks see it as "draw[ing] attention to their non-white state," however, since it really does not do so. Only a person who presumed "white" to be the standard against which other skin colors are judged would believe that. Those people who object to "black" usually do so on the very logical grounds that "blacks" and "whites" are not literally black or white. > What do you call black Africans (to distinguish them from white > Africans, Arabs and the other non-black racial types of African)? In ordinary language, "black Africans," of course. In scientific contexts "Negroes" is still sometimes acceptable--but then are Bushmen "Negroes"?--and certainly some will object to calling the Bushmen "black." "Sub-Saharan Africans" poses its own problems, but it also is used. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > [Snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > descent". That is my point. Had you done so, I would not have > > questioned your assertion. > Here is the post in question: (A reference to the post would have been sufficient but I'll leave it in to try and avoid any further argument.) > *** > [begin quote from Usenet post] > From: "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline> > Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 > > Adrian Bailey | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english > > in <news:KF3Lb.4637$d27.1959@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > 4) Then, I read that the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the > > continent except the British Isles > You missed a couple, although I wouldn't call them "common meanings": > The second definition below, given in the entry for the noun > "European" in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at > www.m-w.com > "*1 :* a native or inhabitant of Europe > "*2 :* a person of European descent " > And the second definition below, given in the entry for the noun > "European" in the _Encarta World English Dictionary,_ North American > Edition at > http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/european.html > "*1. somebody from Europe:* somebody who was born or raised in a > European country, is a citizen of a European country, or is of > European descent > "*2. advocate of European union:* somebody who supports the > principles and ideals of the European Union" > As an native speaker of American English, I would be unlikely to use > the "of European descent" meaning, since I would be much more likely > to refer to a "European American," just as I would refer to an > "African American" and an "Asian American." But I am quite certain > that the dictionaries would not have included these definitions if > they did not represent actual usage. > E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > [end quote from Usenet post] > *** > What I said was my point is precisely what the post indicates was my > point. I was discussing the use of "European" as an ethnic term--one > of the meanings which, I pointed out, Enrico C had missed--and I was > asserting that Americans would not ordinarily use the term "European" > in this way. Please, Raymond, what you wrote is clear in the paragraph beginning, "As an native speaker of American English...." You state that you would be more likely to refer to a "European American", instead of just "European". You did not make it clear that US folk would not ordinarily use "European" in this way for those of European descent *wherever they happened to reside* nor that you were writing only of those of European descent within the USA. My claim -- as to your US-centric perspective -- is precisely that: that you saw only a US view of US citizens and disregarded both the view of non-US folk and of non-US ex-Europeans. Had you made it plain that you were writing of the US view of European immigrants to the USA, there would have been no complaint but that is not what you wrote, even though the definitions made no specific reference to the ex-Europeans being US persons. > That you would believe, even for a moment, that I or any other > American would think that descendents of Europeans living or visiting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it be otherwise? There was no evidence which could possibly support > your absurd belief. I don't. that is why I offered this absurd scene to you -- for it is one which your words conjured up. [Snip] > > What do you call black Africans (to distinguish them from white > > Africans, Arabs and the other non-black racial types of African)? > In ordinary language, "black Africans," of course. In scientific > contexts "Negroes" is still sometimes acceptable--but then are > Bushmen "Negroes"?--and certainly some will object to calling the > Bushmen "black." "Sub-Saharan Africans" poses its own problems, but > it also is used. But not "black Americans". How strange! Don't the black Americans who object to the term "black" object to their cousins in Africa being so insulted? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ Once upon a 1/10/04 4:09 AM, in the land of 4c6e915977david@dacha.freeuk.com, the blond "David" from <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote: >>> What do you call black Africans (to distinguish them from white >>> Africans, Arabs and the other non-black racial types of African)? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > object to the term "black" object to their cousins in Africa being so > insulted? I don't think many in America object to the term "black" being applied to people. It just isn't a very good label for things other than skin color. Using "blacks" or "black Americans" to mean "African Americans" is like using "blonds" to mean "Scandinavian Americans". There are blond Americans who are not Scandinavian, there are Scandinavian Americans who are not blond, there are black Americans who are not African, and yes, there are African Americans who are not black. And I'm not talking about Arab-Americans. > Once upon a 1/10/04 4:09 AM, in the land of > 4c6e915977david@dacha.freeuk.com, the blond "David" from Well spotted! Actually, I haven't been blond since my pre-school Saxon days (see http://www.grough.btinternet.co.uk/david/ ), a phenomenon not uncommon among us English who not only exhibit the usual pre-historical progress from fish though amphibian and reptile to mammal during our pre-natal development but also a recent historical development from blond, curly-haired Saxon Hereward to brunette, straight-haired Norman Wisdom at about the time we move outwards from the family to the world as represented by the school. Sometimes I wonder if the family photographs really are of me or are of some elder sibling who, having realised that the future promised the Internet, decided not to make the effort. > <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote: > >>> What do you call black Africans (to distinguish them from white > >>> Africans, Arabs and the other non-black racial types of African)? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > than skin color. Using "blacks" or "black Americans" to mean "African > Americans" is like using "blonds" to mean "Scandinavian Americans". Yes, well, it would be so since many Africans just ain't black. However, applying the term "black" to those who are of a blackish hue (as "white is so often and apparently without problem applied to those of a whitish tinge -- except, of course, when it comes to such things as an all black/white theatre company [the former being politically acceptable, the latter emphatically not) should not, on the face of it, be a problem. However, I suspect that there exists a vocal minority of negroes who, having originally objected first to "nigger", then to "negro", and to "coloured" (sorry! "colored"), found it necessary to object to "black". To where such a vocal minority will retreat when "African American" is first perceived as a term of racial abuse -- as surely it will be since any such term necessarily separates, differentiates and discriminates --, is certainly a conundrum for the linguistic elite of the USA. Perhaps, perceiving that there is no place further to cringe, the blacks of America will proudly declare themselves "Niggers" (from the Latin for "black", I hasten to add before being accused of racism)? > There are blond Americans who are not Scandinavian, there are > Scandinavian Americans who are not blond, there are black Americans > who are not African, and yes, there are African Americans who are not > black. And I'm not talking about Arab-Americans. Methinks that fear of racism and political-correctness have got you Yanks in a right muddle! Incidentally, how do you Yanks go on "Afro-Caribbean" (the usual term for black folks hailing out of Africa in the UK because most of them got here via the Caribbean)? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/gay/09-0.htm September Song > > Once upon a 1/10/04 4:09 AM, in the land of > > 4c6e915977david@dacha.freeuk.com, the blond "David" from [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > "negro", and to "coloured" (sorry! "colored"), found it necessary to > object to "black". To where such a vocal minority will retreat when Historically, "black" was a taboo term long before the term "colored" became the preferred polite term. Note that in *The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,* in which the word "nigger" is much used, "black" is used in describing race only as an adjective, not as a noun. "Black" was resurrected in the 1960s as a preferred term, chiefly through the actions of black activists, including the Black Panther party. The argument which was made at the time--or one argument, perhaps there were others--was that "colored people" and "Negro" were euphemisms, and blacks had nothing to be ashamed of, and thus no euphemism was appropriate. "Black" is now the preferred term in speech, and both "black" and "African American" are used in both speech and writing, with "African American" having a slight edge in formal writing. > "African American" is first perceived as a term of racial abuse -- as > surely it will be since any such term necessarily separates, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > themselves "Niggers" (from the Latin for "black", I hasten to add > before being accused of racism)? Among themselves, some black Americans do indeed use "nigger" (often spelled, in this use, "nigga") as the preferred term, and that has been the case for many years. The chance of this word being accepted as a preferred term by all African Americans, or being accepted for use as a preferred or neutral term by whites, is, in my estimation, zero. I don't see the slightest chance of "African American" becoming a term of abuse. Your comment that "surely it will be since any such term necessarily separates, differentiates and discriminates" doesn't strike me as an argument with any strength whatsoever. What are the chances, for example, that "a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints," which certainly separates, differentiates, and discriminates, will become a term of abuse? Zero, I would say. > > There are blond Americans who are not Scandinavian, there are > > Scandinavian Americans who are not blond, there are black Americans [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Methinks that fear of racism and political-correctness have got you > Yanks in a right muddle! It's a minor muddle, only. The real problem is the relation between the races, not the terms we use to describe the races. > Incidentally, how do you Yanks go on "Afro-Caribbean" (the usual term > for black folks hailing out of Africa in the UK because most of them > got here via the Caribbean)? I don't know. Terms such as "Afro-American," "Franco-American," "Italo-American," and "Anglo-American," don't seem to be favored particularly, so I would have my doubts about "Afro-Caribbean." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > Incidentally, how do you Yanks go on "Afro-Caribbean" (the usual term > > for black folks hailing out of Africa in the UK because most of them > > got here via the Caribbean)? > > I don't know. West Indian, or Caribbean. Those terms, while broad, are, when used to describe particular ethnic or immigrant cultures and peoples, probably most often used wrt non-Hispanophone black persons. (That's particularly so with "West Indian", which was once the predominant term.) > Terms such as "Afro-American," "Franco-American," > "Italo-American," and "Anglo-American," don't seem to be favored > particularly, so I would have my doubts about "Afro-Caribbean." "Afro-American" had a pretty good run until it was supplanted in the '80s by "African-American", though it never had the success that African-American has enjoyed. At one time, in the '70s, "Afro-American" must have been the preferred term in academic circles. In all complete and total dead seriousness, I have long believed (and I have good anecdotal evidence to back this up) that what did "Afro-American" in was the dramatic fall from fashion grace (to the depths of fashion ridicule) of the "afro" hairstyle. "Franco-American" was probably done in by the association with Spaghettios[TM]. I'll bet you anything that the afro hairstyle was never as influential in Britain as it was in the US. In the US, in the late '70s, afros were becoming a standard mainstream hairstyle in *white* cultures. I would guess that the quintessential white American, Coop, for example, who today dashingly sports the Harry Caul look, once had a 'fro. Meanwhile, in the UK, everyone (well, men at least) just had beards or Mohawks (never both, of course). I can sort of picture Tony Blair with a 'fro, tho'. Given that punks were fastidious about shaving, is it fair to say that the modern British emphasis on the beard is a sort of conservative reaction against the punk movement? (Ducking) "Afro-Cuban" was a common musical adjective back in the late '40s and early '50s, the height of mainstream popularity for Cuban and other Latin Caribbean music in the US. I have several recordings of stuff by Machito, the most important figure in that genre, from that era. (His band was called "Machito and his Afro-Cubans", at least during one stage.) The music today called (miscalled?) "salsa" is basically a Puerto-Rican take on the earlier Afro-Cuban stuff, I think. The whole larger genre has had a productive intertwining with mainstream jazz traditions from the get-go, and continues to (= BrE "to do"). Today, on the jazz side, "Latin jazz" is, I think, the standard term to describe the subgenre of jazz that is influenced by Cuban and Puerto-Rican Latin jazz-influenced music traditions (particularly music featuring _clave_ rhythms). (I wouldn't use "Latin jazz" to describe other stuff like, for example, bossa nova.) In uk.culture.language.english R F <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote: >>> Incidentally, how do you Yanks go on "Afro-Caribbean" (the usual term >>> for black folks hailing out of Africa in the UK because most of them >>> got here via the Caribbean)? >> I don't know. > West Indian, or Caribbean. Those terms, while broad, are, when used > to describe particular ethnic or immigrant cultures and peoples, probably > most often used wrt non-Hispanophone black persons. (That's particularly > so with "West Indian", which was once the predominant term.) While it's still the case that most black people in England came via the Carribean, it's not an overwhelming most. One of the fastest increasing ethinic groups in England is people who came here directly from Africa (mainly Nigeria and Ghana) and their children and grandchildren. In some parts of London there are more of these than there are West Indians, and even in the most West Indian dominated parts of London you will find that something like a third of the black people now are actually Africans rather than West Indians. Matthew HUntbach Once upon a 1/10/04 4:58 PM, in the land of 4c6ed7d51cdavid@dacha.freeuk.com, the very good"David" from <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote: >> Once upon a 1/10/04 4:09 AM, in the land of >> 4c6e915977david@dacha.freeuk.com, the blond "David" from [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > as an all black/white theatre company [the former being politically > acceptable, the latter emphatically not) Well, that's because "black" has been used as a synonym for "African American", while "white" has a more complicated usage. As a mere descriptor of skin color, or even of "race", its use is not problematic. But for cultural entities, its use generally confers overtones of racism. While a "Black Theatre Company" would be synonymous with an "African American Theater Company", a "White Theater Company" would not be synonymous with a "Celtic Theater Company" or an "Italian Theater Company" or an "English Theatre Companye" > should not, on the face of it, > be a problem. I don't believe that it is. > However, I suspect that there exists a vocal minority of > negroes who, having originally objected first to "nigger", then to > "negro", and to "coloured" (sorry! "colored"), found it necessary to > object to "black". I've never heard of any such objections, at least not in the sense you're putting forth. I think you must be taking arguments for the use of the term "African American" as being objections to the term "black". > To where such a vocal minority will retreat when > "African American" is first perceived as a term of racial abuse -- as > surely it will be since any such term necessarily separates, > differentiates and discriminates --, What strange ideas you have. So, "Englishman" is a term of abuse in your estimation, then. Certainly "Yorkshireman" must needs be. >is certainly a conundrum for the > linguistic elite of the USA. Perhaps, perceiving that there is no place > further to cringe, the blacks of America will proudly declare > themselves "Niggers" (from the Latin for "black", I hasten to add > before being accused of racism)? Oh there are those who proudly declare themselves "niggers" or "niggas". Many of them are bored suburban white teenage boys whose parents were hippies back in the day, so they really need to reach for shock value. >> There are blond Americans who are not Scandinavian, there are >> Scandinavian Americans who are not blond, there are black Americans [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Methinks that fear of racism and political-correctness have got you > Yanks in a right muddle! Nah, we're just working it all out. We don't have the benefit of a thousand years of isolation like you Yorkies. > Incidentally, how do you Yanks go on "Afro-Caribbean" (the usual term > for black folks hailing out of Africa in the UK because most of them > got here via the Caribbean)? "Carribean" might be used as a generality; but Jamaican, Haitian, Dominican, Cuban, etc. as appropriate, are more usual. There's at least three different European languages involved, as well as several creoles, so it doesn't make so much sense to lump them all together, does it? By the way, have you ever been to France? [Snip] > What strange ideas you have. So, "Englishman" is a term of abuse in > your estimation, then. Certainly "Yorkshireman" must needs be. It often is! But we grin and bear it. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/11-0.htm "I don't remember my death, of course," said the Dalai Lama. Joachim nodded his understanding. > What strange ideas you have. So, "Englishman" is a term of abuse in your It certainly is such to many Scots, and to "green" inhabitants of NI. > estimation, then. Certainly "Yorkshireman" must needs be. That's _defnitely_ a term of opprobium, when used by a Lancastrian. [Afro-Caribbean] > "Carribean" might be used as a generality; but Jamaican, Haitian, Dominican, > Cuban, etc. as appropriate, are more usual. There's at least three > different European languages involved, as well as several creoles, so it > doesn't make so much sense to lump them all together, does it? Only one of those countries has been the origin of many of the immigrants to the UK; YMOV. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 >> What strange ideas you have. So, "Englishman" is a term of abuse in >> your > > It certainly is such to many Scots, and to "green" inhabitants of NI. We were on a cross channel ferry some years back & a group of young Scots were drinking at a nearby table. I think they were returning from some woeful Scottish Football disaster. They were moody and downhearted and grumbling about everything. Until one of them said ''Aye, well, at least we're no' f**kin' English'' at which everyone cheered up noticeably. >> estimation, then. Certainly "Yorkshireman" must needs be. > > That's _defnitely_ a term of opprobium, when used by a Lancastrian. Though we can show remarkable solidarity on occasion. Neville Cardus recalled a Roses Cricket match where a Southerner sat in the midst of the diehards. He said 'Well bowled Sir' when a Yorkshireman beat the bat and 'Good shot Sir' next ball when the Lancastrian stroked a boundary. At which he was asked 'Where are you from?'. 'Croydon actually'. 'Then this is none of thy concern, Shut thy gob'. As they say in the Middle East - 'Me and my Brother against our cousin. Me and my cousin against a stranger.' -- John 'Although they say it in grammatical Arabic usually Dean Oxford De-frag to reply >> Once upon a 1/10/04 4:09 AM, in the land of >> 4c6e915977david@dacha.freeuk.com, the blond "David" from > >Sometimes I wonder if the family photographs really are of me or are of >some elder sibling who, having realised that the future promised the >Internet, decided not to make the effort. At least one of them looks like someone who decided to grow up to be Stephen Fry, I'm afraid. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > >> Once upon a 1/10/04 4:09 AM, in the land of > >> 4c6e915977david@dacha.freeuk.com, the blond "David" from > > > >Sometimes I wonder if the family photographs really are of me or are > >of some elder sibling who, having realised that the future promised > >the Internet, decided not to make the effort. > At least one of them looks like someone who decided to grow up to be > Stephen Fry, I'm afraid. You don't say which. Is that because of cowardice or sympathy? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/11mp-0.htm Microwave Parkin >> At least one of them looks like someone who decided to grow up to be >> Stephen Fry, I'm afraid. > >You don't say which. Is that because of cowardice or sympathy? Sympathy for Mr Fry, of course! The one I particularly have in mind is the first of the group captioned 1965 - 1969. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > >> At least one of them looks like someone who decided to grow up to > >> be Stephen Fry, I'm afraid. > > > >You don't say which. Is that because of cowardice or sympathy? > Sympathy for Mr Fry, of course! The one I particularly have in mind > is the first of the group captioned 1965 - 1969. The one where I'm wearing the Sub-Prefect badge. Ah! Those were the days! Taking the snotty little tykes to the Head to be caned (we weren't allowed to cane them ourselves, alas!) Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/50-ravens.htm Upon the hill, within the stones, among the scattering of bones... I think it best to leave in all of the text of the previous post. > > > [Snip] > > > [quoted text clipped - 140 lines] > I don't. that is why I offered this absurd scene to you -- for it is > one which your words conjured up. I find it necessary to once again repeat that the burden of proof belongs to the person who asserts a seeming absurdity, which you have done. The assertion which I made was that an American would be unlikely to use "European" as an ethnic term, and not only is this not an absurd assertion, but it is a thoroughly testable one. > [Snip] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > object to the term "black" object to their cousins in Africa being so > insulted? I'm not sure what your reference to "But not 'black Americans'" means. As for your question, I don't know the answer for certain, but I would predict that those black (and white) Americans who object to the term "black" for "Negro" would favor the term "African" for the ethnic term for black Africans and for the descendants of black Africans living outside of Africa, except for those living in the US (where "African American" would be the preferred term) and those living in Canada (where "African Canadian" would be the preferred term). And I would predict that these people, both black and white, would continue to find the word "African" by itself to be an offensive term for American and Canadian blacks. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > I think it best to leave in all of the text of the previous post. Why? [Snip] > > I don't. that is why I offered this absurd scene to you -- for it is > > one which your words conjured up. > I find it necessary to once again repeat that the burden of proof > belongs to the person who asserts a seeming absurdity, which you have > done. The assertion which I made was that an American would be > unlikely to use "European" as an ethnic term, and not only is this > not an absurd assertion, but it is a thoroughly testable one. The assertion you made was that, as a native speaker of American English, you would be unlikely to use the "of European descent" meaning of the term "European", since you would be much more likely to refer to a "European American". I say again, that assertion is totally US-centric in what it says and what it implies. Granted that you probably meant "when speaking of Americans of European descent" but that is not what you said and the fact that you didn't is the reason why I originally brought the evidence of your US-centricity to your attention, basically in order that you might apologise and modify your future behaviour so as not to get up the noses of non-US folk. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y06-0.htm Batty Moss Viaduct (Ribblehead) in the land of sheep, sink-holes and limestone pavements >> I think it best to leave in all of the text of the previous post. > Why? > [Snip] >>> I don't. that is why I offered this absurd scene to you -- for it is >>> one which your words conjured up. >> I find it necessary to once again repeat that the burden of proof >> belongs to the person who asserts a seeming absurdity, which you have >> done. The assertion which I made was that an American would be >> unlikely to use "European" as an ethnic term, and not only is this >> not an absurd assertion, but it is a thoroughly testable one. > The assertion you made was that, as a native speaker of American > English, you would be unlikely to use the "of European descent" meaning > of the term "European", since you would be much more likely to refer to > a "European American". > I say again, that assertion is totally US-centric in what it says and > what it implies. I'm very much inclined to agree with David on this one. I presume that US-centric is derived from egocentric. Perhaps that might help to explain why some left pondians seem to have remarkable difficulty in thinking outside the box that is formed by their own national borders. > >> I think it best to leave in all of the text of the previous post. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > explain why some left pondians seem to have remarkable difficulty in > thinking outside the box that is formed by their own national borders. Again, it is the person who asserts a seeming absurdity who holds the burden of proof. Prove your assertion. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >>>> I think it best to leave in all of the text of the previous post. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> explain why some left pondians seem to have remarkable difficulty in >> thinking outside the box that is formed by their own national borders. > Again, it is the person who asserts a seeming absurdity who holds the > burden of proof. Prove your assertion. You appear to have some difficulty in differentiating between an opinion and an assertion. [Snip various exchanges, but restoring Raymond's remark that provoked this discussion:] > > As an native speaker of American English, I would be unlikely to use > > the "of European descent" meaning, since I would be much more likely [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I say again, that assertion is totally US-centric in what it says and > what it implies. You clearly don't get it. Of course the original remark was "US-centric," not in some sort of shameful unconscious way, but in its content, in what it was trying to tell you. Raymond was saying that when someone lives in the US and is surrounded by Americans, the people of "European descent" that such a person is *most likely* to meet are European-Americans. "European-American" is the most likly label he would have need of. He very plainly spoke of *likelihood*, twice ("unlikely" and "much more likely"), and you chose to ignore it, as if he was giving some sort of biased definition. You told him several times that he must be stupid to think that all Europeans, or people of European descent, everywhere, were European-Americans. I think this scrap would have been avoided if Raymond had thought to say, "As an American living in the US surrounded by other Americans..." instead of the phrase he happened to use, "As a native speaker of American English." It's his location that makes the likelihood large, not his mother tongue. But apparently some readers find it easier to make this charitable interpretation than others. Oh, would you please remember that everyone is culture-centric, including you? It's a silly sort of accusation. I admit some people are more aware of the effects of varous cultures, more worldly and tolerant, than others. Living abroad is one way to gain perspective on other cultures, but so is living in a multi-cultural society. SignatureAn American of European descent -- Donna Richoux > [Snip various exchanges, but restoring Raymond's remark that provoked > this discussion:] > > > As an native speaker of American English, I would be unlikely to > > > use the "of European descent" meaning, since I would be much more [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I say again, that assertion is totally US-centric in what it says > > and what it implies. > You clearly don't get it. Of course the original remark was > "US-centric," not in some sort of shameful unconscious way, but in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > several times that he must be stupid to think that all Europeans, or > people of European descent, everywhere, were European-Americans. > I think this scrap would have been avoided if Raymond had thought to > say, "As an American living in the US surrounded by other > Americans..." instead of the phrase he happened to use, "As a native > speaker of American English." It's his location that makes the > likelihood large, not his mother tongue. But apparently some readers > find it easier to make this charitable interpretation than others. > Oh, would you please remember that everyone is culture-centric, > including you? It's a silly sort of accusation. I admit some people > are more aware of the effects of varous cultures, more worldly and > tolerant, than others. Living abroad is one way to gain perspective > on other cultures, but so is living in a multi-cultural society. I do get that a US perspective (good - because it helps us all to understand each other and ourselves much better) is not at all the same thing as a US-centric perspective (bad - because it suggests that anything non-US is of no importance). But do you get that? It seems not. Indeed, few Americans seem to realise just how US-centric their posts occasionally are, even when it is pointed out by several different folk. Even if Mr Wise had thought to say, "As an American living in the US surrounded by other Americans...", it would not have altered the sense of what he subsequently wrote. Had he written something like, "As far as Americans go...", that would have been an entirely different kettle of fish for it would indeed have indicated that he was writing only about Americans of European descent. But not only is the US-centricity evident in the words used, it is that very fact that he did not think that they were US-centric which made it even more so. My initial response to Mr Wise was quite moderated -- surprisingly so, given that diplomacy is not one of my better traits. Mr Wise's reply was also quite moderated in its tone compared to his later efforts but, although he sought to explain himself at great length, it seemed to me that he was denying that his original statement was in any way, however unintended, US-centric. His later posts simply added to that apparent perspective. I'm quite happy to drop it now but I do so without changing my claim by one iota. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/1ari-0.htm Aries (March 21st - April 20th) Images, Associations, Qualities, Careers, Health > > [Snip various exchanges, but restoring Raymond's remark that provoked > > this discussion:] [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > I'm quite happy to drop it now but I do so without changing my claim by > one iota. I was *not* writing only of Americans of European descent. I was writing about the American English use of the word "European" as an ethnic term (*not* the usage of Americans living in America, which is not quite the same thing), saying that it is basically not used as an ethnic term in American English. Even when speaking of people of European descent in other countries, an American would be unlikely to use "European." The only time that an American would be likely to use "European" as an ethnic term would be in the compound form "European American." There is nothing US-centric in this: It is simply a matter of usage. "European" is not used as an ethnic term in American English, "European American" occasionally is. Once upon a time, "Caucasian" would have been used with the same sense in question. Since it is rarely used now, "white" is used instead, and is, indeed, the preferred term. And, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, I would not be surprised if speakers of other varieties of English other than American English used "European" as an ethnic term. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > [Snip various exchanges, but restoring Raymond's remark that provoked > this discussion:] [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > not his mother tongue. But apparently some readers find it easier to > make this charitable interpretation than others. Note, however, that it is because I am a speaker of American English that I would tend not to use "European" as an ethnic term even if I were abroad and *not* surrounded by Americans. Nor would I tend to use "African" as an ethnic term either. I'd use "white" for the first and "black" for the second. That doesn't mean that I could not adapt if necessary. If I were to move to South Africa, I would presumably eventually become comfortable with using the word "colored" as it is used there--with, of course, a different meaning than it once had here--while I would never use it here in the US when speaking of ethnicity. And of course my usage has changed over time: Once upon a time "Negro" and "Caucasian" were generally acceptable terms, and I used them, but I rarely use them now--in fact, about the only use I put them to now is when discussing other racial terms such as "black" and "white." > Oh, would you please remember that everyone is culture-centric, > including you? It's a silly sort of accusation. I admit some people are > more aware of the effects of varous cultures, more worldly and tolerant, > than others. Living abroad is one way to gain perspective on other > cultures, but so is living in a multi-cultural society. And there is plenty of opportunity here to meet people from other cultures and other ethnicities. In my French conversation groups alone, I have met and spoken with people belonging to the following ethnicities: French, Palestinian, Iranian, Russian, Sikh, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Egyptian and other North Africans, Côte d'Ivoire and people from other West African countries, Spanish, Hmong, Vietnamese, German, Rumanian, Swiss, Dutch, Mexican, and English. This is not even mentioning white, black, and Asian Americans which I have met in the same groups, nor people of ethnicities not mentioned here who I have met outside the French conversation groups. I'm an odd person to be calling "US-centric." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com In alt.usage.english, Raymond S. Wise wrote: [...] >Your most bizarre leap of logic is to assume that because Americans do >not use "European" as an ethnic term, that we don't discuss the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >"African American," however, is acceptable, and so "European American" >is also acceptable, if rare. You are doing it again, Raymond. That doesn't explain why Americans steer clear of 'European' as a descriptor for people of European descent who don't live in either Europe or the USA. It explains why 'European' might be an unacceptable stand-alone descriptor for people of European descent living in the USA. It would be parallelism if it is now unacceptable in AmE to apply 'African' to people of African descent living anywhere other than Africa or the USA - which it may well be. I don't know. SignatureMickwick > You are doing it again, Raymond. That doesn't explain why Americans > steer clear of 'European' as a descriptor for people of European descent > who don't live in either Europe or the USA. It explains why 'European' > might be an unacceptable stand-alone descriptor for people of European > descent living in the USA. To me, a European is someone who lives in Europe. If I were in, say, Taiwan, and saw someone of European descent, I would not call him "European" because he might be Australian, Canadian, South American. or something else other than European by my definition. If I were to hear him speak and determine that he was not an English or Spanish speaker, I would probably leap directly to "Eastern European", "Italian", "German", or whatever, bypassing the "European" category. If I couldn't identify his language, I might call him a generic "European" but would more likely assume he was Portuguese or Brazilian since their language is so nondescript. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. In alt.usage.english, John Varela wrote: >To me, a European is someone who lives in Europe. But not always (see below). >If I were in, say, Taiwan, and saw someone of European descent, I would not >call him "European" because he might be Australian, Canadian, South American. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >language, I might call him a generic "European" but would more likely assume >he was Portuguese or Brazilian since their language is so nondescript. There we are then - when specific knowledge is absent, you *might* use 'European'. (Personally, I think Portuguese sounds a bit like mangled Dutch. Nothing to do with the words, it's the chewing and squelching. And I think you would be wiser to label all mysterious white expatriates as 'Europeans' rather than assume some sort of default Portuguesity. Many different Europeans produce weird and unplaceable noises: Hungarians and Welshmen, for example.) SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, John Varela wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Many different Europeans produce weird and unplaceable noises: > Hungarians and Welshmen, for example.) I *might* use European, but (and I should have said this) like Raymond I would be far more likely to call him "white". "Who is that white man over there?" Portuguese has too many nasal sounds to be confused with Dutch, doesn't it? SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. [...] > Many different Europeans produce weird and unplaceable noises: > Hungarians and Welshmen, for example.) What the ell do you mean? Mike. > In alt.usage.english, Raymond S. Wise wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 'African' to people of African descent living anywhere other than Africa > or the USA - which it may well be. I don't know. That is, indeed, what I believe to be the case, that "African" would almost never be used by an American to mean "a Negro" when referring to people living outside of Africa. This is another of those cases where the racial terminology is problematical. Not only could "a person whose ancestors came from Africa" apply to Bushmen, who have been identified as a different ethnicity than black Africans, it can apply to "Caucasians" of north Africa, to "Caucasians" of South Africa, and, logically, it can apply to all human beings. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com In alt.usage.english, Raymond S. Wise wrote: >"Mickwick" <mickwick@use.reply.to> wrote in message >> In alt.usage.english, Raymond S. Wise wrote: >> >Now, you might ask *why* Americans would tend to avoid the term >> >"European." I suspect that it is matter of parallelism. [...] >> It would be parallelism if it is now unacceptable in AmE to apply >> 'African' to people of African descent living anywhere other than Africa [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >never be used by an American to mean "a Negro" when referring to people >living outside of Africa. I am even more confused now. In another post in this thread, made at about the same time as the one I am replying to, you seem to directly contradict the above, viz.: As for your question, I don't know the answer for certain, but I would predict that those black (and white) Americans who object to the term "black" for "Negro" would favor the term "African" for the ethnic term for black Africans and for the descendants of black Africans living outside of Africa, except for those living in the US (where "African American" would be the preferred term) and those living in Canada (where "African Canadian" would be the preferred term). You are one of AUE's clearer thinkers; I am not. Help me out here, Raymond. Where is my misunderstanding? >This is another of those cases where the racial terminology is >problematical. Not only could "a person whose ancestors came from Africa" >apply to Bushmen, who have been identified as a different ethnicity than >black Africans, it can apply to "Caucasians" of north Africa, to >"Caucasians" of South Africa, and, logically, it can apply to all human >beings. Agreed. 'African' can't provide an exact parallel to 'European' when talking about things racial because Europe is too small and, historically, was too racially homogenous. SignatureMickwick In alt.usage.english, Mickwick wrote: > ... and, historically, was too racially homogenous. I withdraw that and say 'Hello, UCLE!'. SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, Raymond S. Wise wrote: > >"Mickwick" <mickwick@use.reply.to> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > You are one of AUE's clearer thinkers; I am not. Help me out here, > Raymond. Where is my misunderstanding? My guess is that you think the number of those black and white Americans who object to the term "black" for "Negro" are a significant number. They are not. As far as I can tell, they are a tiny number. "Black" is, in fact, as I pointed out in one of my posts, the preferred term in speech in American English ("African American" being the preferred term in formal writing, with "black" being not far behind). I made a prediction in the passage you post because I don't really know the answer to the question, and my prediction seemed to be the likely answer according to the logic of the situation: I haven't actually met anyone, black or white, who had such a dislike of the term "black"--or "white" for that matter--that he refused to use the term. > >This is another of those cases where the racial terminology is > >problematical. Not only could "a person whose ancestors came from Africa" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > talking about things racial because Europe is too small and, > historically, was too racially homogenous. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > This is another of those cases where the racial terminology is > problematical. Not only could "a person whose ancestors came from Africa" > apply to Bushmen, who have been identified as a different ethnicity than > black Africans This is weird. How can Bushmen be anything other than "black Africans" whatever their ethnicity? They certainly are not white Africans or brown Africans. SignatureRob Bannister > > This is another of those cases where the racial terminology is > > problematical. Not only could "a person whose ancestors came from Africa" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whatever their ethnicity? They certainly are not white Africans or brown > Africans. They are typically described as having yellow skin and as having an epicanthic fold in the upper eyelid. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >>>This is another of those cases where the racial terminology is >>>problematical. Not only could "a person whose ancestors came from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > They are typically described as having yellow skin and as having an > epicanthic fold in the upper eyelid. I've only seen them on film, and, if we must use a skin colour word, then I would use 'black'. Of course, as has been pointed out many times, 'black' people range from an almost shiny blue/purple (W Africa) or an almost matt black (Australian. Aborigines) through brown, yellow and as white as any 'white' person. 'White' people also range from sickly white, through pink, brown to blacker than many 'blacks' (many Australian truck drivers). Many 'black' people also get darker in the sun, though the 'pure black' people do not seem to even though they may display a reddish tinge of sunburn occasionally. SignatureRob Bannister > Of course, as has been pointed out many times, 'black' people range > from an almost shiny blue/purple (W Africa) or an almost matt black [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 'pure black' people do not seem to even though they may display a > reddish tinge of sunburn occasionally. See _Withit's Collegiate Dictionary_ in _There Will Be Time_[1]. It defines (among other words, of course) "black", "white", "brown", "yellow", and "red", giving as the etymology for each "From the skin color, which ranges from black to ivory". [1] That's a fictional book (a pamphlet, really) inserted as part of a novel. I think that's the correct way to punctuate it. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |_Bauplan_ is just the German word 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for blueprint. Typically, one Palo Alto, CA 94304 |switches languages to indicate |profundity. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard Dawkins (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Is it not truly the case that you did indeed fall prey to the usual > failing of the US citizen of seeing all in terms of the USA and read > "of European descent" as meaning "A US citizen of European (as opposed > to Asian or African, etc.,) descent" even thought the meaning simply > wasn't there? Have you forgotten the bit in Raymond's following post, in which he said: [quote] >> My tendency would be, when speaking of matters outside the United >> States, to use the terms "white" for those once called "Caucasians." >> I would not, in other words, speak of a white descendent of Europeans >> as a "European." But I would not be surprised to see others do so and >> thus the dictionary entry was not unexpected. [end] -- Regards John > > Is it not truly the case that you did indeed fall prey to the usual > > failing of the US citizen of seeing all in terms of the USA and > > read "of European descent" as meaning "A US citizen of European (as > > opposed to Asian or African, etc.,) descent" even thought the > > meaning simply wasn't there? > Have you forgotten the bit in Raymond's following post, in which he > said: > [quote] > >> My tendency would be, when speaking of matters outside the United [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> not unexpected. > [end] No. As you so succinctly state, it was in his *following* post. In his original post, to the US-centricity of which I drew attention, he did not make clear that he was writing only of US citizens, nor that he would not use the term "European" for "folk of European descent" if they were not "US citizens of European descent". Nor, I hasten to add, has he subsequently acknowledged the fact of his US-centricity which, in all probability, being so US-centric, he has not even recognised even when it is pointed out to him. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/wfolly/ The Wentworth Follies: Needle's Eye, Hoober Stand, Keppel's Column, Rockingham Mausoleum > > > Is it not truly the case that you did indeed fall prey to the usual > > > failing of the US citizen of seeing all in terms of the USA and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > US-centricity which, in all probability, being so US-centric, he has > not even recognised even when it is pointed out to him. That's because there is no US-centricity to acknowledge. My point was that an American is unlikely to use "European" in the sense of "Caucasian" except in the compound term "European American," and Americans *are,* in fact, unlikely to use "European" in the sense of "Caucasian" except in the compound term "European American." We would tend to use the word "white," not European, for the ethnic term--both in *and* outside the US, and that includes when speaking about the white people of Europe! You keep repeating an absurdity, presumably because you continue to believe it. That's just sad. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com [Snip] > You keep repeating an absurdity, presumably because you continue to > believe it. That's just sad. If anything is sad, it is your inability to recognise what you did when it is pointed out to you, not just by me, either. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/ Free Software: !Jigwas - JPEG merger - e pluribus unum > >> And what about "Europe"? > >> I think it's an entirely new can of worms :) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 1) Europe as EU, that includes 15 countries and some more to come. Nope. That is only a "common meaning" in the minds of the brainwashed and of those who are doing the brainwashing. > 2) Europe as defined by European culture and history. > The Swiss are no doubt in Europe, but they are not in the EU. OK > 3) Europe as defined by geography, actually a vast peninsula of > Eurasia. Instabul, in Turkey, is split between Europe and Asia. = 2 > 4) Then, I read that the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the > continent except the British Isles Not by all of us (it certainly isn't a recommended usage), and when it is used in this way it is in limited contexts. Adrian > 4) Then, I read that the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the > continent except the British Isles As in the [apocryphal?] newspaper headline "Fog in Channel: Continent isolated"? SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 >> 4) Then, I read that the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the >> continent except the British Isles > > As in the [apocryphal?] newspaper headline "Fog in Channel: Continent > isolated"? LOL :) Well, in the old times of the British Empire that might even have been true, perhaps! Wasn't it England that tried to defeat Napoleon by cutting off the continent from maritime trades? The famous naval blockage of European ports... :) SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker >>> 4) Then, I read that the British use 'Europe' to refer to all of the >>> continent except the British Isles [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >continent from maritime trades? >The famous naval blockage of European ports... :) Yes. The thing which is sometimes not realised about this is that, unlike 20th century blockades, it was *exports* not imports which were intended to be cut off. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". > Wasn't it England that tried to defeat Napoleon by cutting off the > continent from maritime trades? Waddya mean, *"tried"*? We succeeded. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Don't you just hate rhetorical questions? >> And what about "Europe"? >> I think it's an entirely new can of worms :) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Adrian You are not much of a Europhile, are you? ^__^ SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker On 08 Jan 2004, Enrico C wrote -snip- > And what about "Europe"? > I think it's an entirely new can of worms :) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AFAIK, I can refer to both things by the same word, depending on the > context. Nobody can stop you from doing that, but I'd say you'd be dead wrong to do so. Why not keep things simple, straight and non-antagonistic by saying "an EU citizen" when you mean that, and "a European" when you mean an inhabitant of the geographical area? Claiming the term "European" for an exclusive sub-category of the geographical area -- one which excludes not only the farther-flung reaches like Turkey but also Norway, Switzerland and (still) the whole of the former Eastern Bloc -- seems unnecessarily antagonistic and EU- colonial. SignatureCheers, Harvey Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years; Southern England for the past 21 years. (for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs) > On 08 Jan 2004, Enrico C wrote > -snip- > > And what about "Europe"? I think it's an entirely new can of worms > > :) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > AFAIK, I can refer to both things by the same word, depending on > > the context. > Nobody can stop you from doing that, but I'd say you'd be dead wrong > to do so. > Why not keep things simple, straight and non-antagonistic by saying > "an EU citizen" when you mean that, and "a European" when you mean > an inhabitant of the geographical area? > Claiming the term "European" for an exclusive sub-category of the > geographical area -- one which excludes not only the farther-flung > reaches like Turkey but also Norway, Switzerland and (still) the > whole of the former Eastern Bloc -- seems unnecessarily antagonistic > and EU- colonial. Some tongue! Some cheek! ;-) Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/3gem-0.htm Gemini (May 22nd - June 21st) Mithuna - the Pair Sam-taui In article <ZKRm3c4Ddl7U-pn2-zgL0dNt6sBdZ@dialup- OLDlamps@earthlink.net "John Varela" writes: > he was Portuguese or Brazilian since their language is so nondescript. You call a language with more "shushes" than almost any other nondescript? SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.