• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'I'm either too black or not black enough': One teenager's experience

Mumbles said:
At the most, I recall a few studies that suggest that certain hormonal changes common among PTSD sufferers also show up in their offspring. This is a far cry from showing that trauma actively changes a victim's (survivor's, whatever) DNA, however. The researchers seem to point towards epigenetics - changes to how genes are *expressed* - rather than genetic changes themselves.

Also, these studies only looked at parent-child pairs, and any black American currently in school is *extremely* unlikely to be the child of a person who was enslaved in the US Civil War era (illegal modern slavery does occur, for example sex trafficking rings and the like, but that's not what the writer is discussing).
Click to expand...

By "*extremely* unlikely" you mean currently there are exactly 0 children whose parents were enslaved during the US Civil War era. Because they all died a long, long time ago.
 
But it's very easy to find still living relatives who experienced Jim Crow.
 
Mumbles said:
It's a theory that I've heard every now and then. I'll even agree that there are *some* areas where slavery in the US may have somewhat distorted genetics - such as sensitivity to salt intake or lactose (in)tolerance being affected by inclusion of European ancestry - but I don't know of any strong studies on these matters, and definitely nothing about "trauma" being encoded in DNA.



It's more likely the effects attributed to this "genetic trauma" are actually due to environmental factors - pollution, relatively poor prenatal care for the US (which is terrible even for white Americans, compared to other wealthy countries and quite a few relatively poor countries), higher stress due to dealing with racism, and so forth.
Click to expand...
I think they were just being poetic in their use of language. That aside it is possible for *epigenetic inheritance to happen in humans. So offspring could still reflect the impact of slavery on a population for generations not directly effected by the stressors of slavery. Add in the societal issues directly caused by slavery long after it being abolished, especially poverty then it is possible for the descendents of slaves to still be effected by that slavery on a genetic level.

Please note the use of possible, *epigenetic inheritance does happen of that there is no doubt, that it happens to a significant degree in humans is not yet proven.
 
Meh, it's not a bad essay overall for a teenager.

She's probably wrong about why her family name is Brown, but again, she's a teenager.
As noted, there are lots of white people named Brown too. In fact it is one of the most common surnames in English-speaking countries according to Wikipedia.
 
Information Analyst said:
The only real outlier is Washington. The rest simply seem to reflect the fact that slaves often ended up with the surnames of their owners, and thus reflect their prevalence amongst them. The idea that Brown is common for blacks the reason stated seems to be unsupported.
Click to expand...

And George Washington owned a lot of slaves. Perhaps that's why the name Washington is so common among African Americans.
 
Puppycow said:
And George Washington owned a lot of slaves. Perhaps that's why the name Washington is so common among African Americans.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, unless Washington was the biggest slave owner ever, which doesn't seem to be the case. Wikipedia reckons that Washington was "a favored assumed name of freed slaves," which makes far more sense.
 
"When I hear students giggle while watching a kid with a heavy Hindu accent say the N-word."
Click to expand...

The interesting thing is how in an article about stereotyping she/he stereotypes. What does one's religion have to do with one's accent? There is not a Hindu accent. Perhaps the author thinks that using the term Indian would be confusing for readers, that all Indians are Hindus? Or that Indian is an inappropriate term to use for native-americans?

Does the author not realise that
"Speaking in ebonics"
Click to expand...
is just a heavy American accent. That the person with the 'Hindu accent' may be subject to racism, possibly attacked or murdered just because of their racial origin. My guess she/he never thinks of the pyjamas he wears to bed as cultural appropriation; nor the algebra she/he learns at school.

If in Eastern Europe perhaps the author should have contemplated about how far more recently than the nineteenth century some ethnic groups had been turned into slave labour and worse. That these countries had been occupied until recently and the freedom to print this article did not exist. That the people of these countries did not have the freedom to vote. Perhaps she/he should read about the rape of Berlin. There are people alive who have personally suffered these crimes not just 'in their DNA'.

"I know this is just the beginning of my own fight against racism. There will always be people who just don't get it. But this is the first step of many. I'm finally putting my foot down on the ground and it's going to stay there."
Click to expand...
I think a good start would be recognise that he is viewing someone else's culture as somehow secondary to his own. That his view point is superior, his peoples suffering greater. Once her/his own racist attitudes are recognised then it will be easier to address those of others.
 
Planigale said:
The interesting thing is how in an article about stereotyping she/he stereotypes. What does one's religion have to do with one's accent? There is not a Hindu accent. Perhaps the author thinks that using the term Indian would be confusing for readers, that all Indians are Hindus? Or that Indian is an inappropriate term to use for native-americans?
Click to expand...

Does it still say that on the bbc.com version? It says "heavy Indian accent" on bbc.co.uk. I see that some secondary reporting still says "hindu."

Does the author not realise that "Speaking in ebonics" is just a heavy American accent.
Click to expand...

I think it's more simply the case that she's outraged that kids listening to a certain type of music have picked up the street slang used in them. Well, duh! No doubt if she visited some more run-down parts of the UK's capital, she would get outraged by what she would assume is "linguistic appropriation," when really she'd just be ignorant of Multi-Cultural London English.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I think they were just being poetic in their use of language. That aside it is possible for *epigenetic inheritance to happen in humans. So offspring could still reflect the impact of slavery on a population for generations not directly effected by the stressors of slavery. Add in the societal issues directly caused by slavery long after it being abolished, especially poverty then it is possible for the descendents of slaves to still be effected by that slavery on a genetic level.

Please note the use of possible, *epigenetic inheritance does happen of that there is no doubt, that it happens to a significant degree in humans is not yet proven.
Click to expand...

As far as her assertion goes - no I mean it when I say that I've heard it quite a few times before, likely distorted to "slavery trauma is encoded in our DNA" due to people's misunderstanding of what studies *actually* say. Much like, say, the assertion the doctors *injected* black men with syphilis in the Tuskeegee Experiment (the reality is that they simply did not treat syphilis in black men who showed up - which is clearly bad enough), or Elon Musk's more goofball ideas. It's disturbingly common even among college graduates who haven't actually studied biology, and largely due to a combination of (justified) wariness and poor science reporting - and simple fallible human memory.

Information Analyst said:
I think it's more simply the case that she's outraged that kids listening to a certain type of music have picked up the street slang used in them. Well, duh! No doubt if she visited some more run-down parts of the UK's capital, she would get outraged by what she would assume is linguistic appropriation, when really she'd just be ignorant of Multi-Cultural London English.
Click to expand...

There was a recent "blackface" blowup on either Twitch, involving a Lithuanian cosplayer who colored her skin brown to cosplay as an Apex Legends character. In short, she was banned for a month, which likely affects her income. Full story, and a photo of her in cosplay, here.

Had she been an American adult, I'd expect her to know better (it's worth noting that black cosplayers in the US almost never lighten their skin just to look like a white American or an anime character - unless the character is actually, like, #FFFFFF on the usual RGB scale). However, she has stated outright that she had no idea that this was considered offensive, that she was simply doing her best to look like the character. I think it's reasonable to let her off the hook at least this once, especially looking at the photo of her in Cosplay, which is *clearly* not historical blackface. You have to allow for these misunderstandings when going between such far-flung cultures. And while I'm okay with a teen being extra sensitive - they're teens, of course they'll be like that - it would do everyone well to discuss the matter rather than venting in some newspaper article.
 
Mumbles said:
As far as her assertion goes - no I mean it when I say that I've heard it quite a few times before, likely distorted to "slavery trauma is encoded in our DNA" due to people's misunderstanding of what studies *actually* say. Much like, say, the assertion the doctors *injected* black men with syphilis in the Tuskeegee Experiment (the reality is that they simply did not treat syphilis in black men who showed up - which is clearly bad enough), or Elon Musk's more goofball ideas. It's disturbingly common even among college graduates who haven't actually studied biology, and largely due to a combination of (justified) wariness and poor science reporting - and simple fallible human memory.



There was a recent "blackface" blowup on either Twitch, involving a Lithuanian cosplayer who colored her skin brown to cosplay as an Apex Legends character. In short, she was banned for a month, which likely affects her income. Full story, and a photo of her in cosplay, here.

Had she been an American adult, I'd expect her to know better (it's worth noting that black cosplayers in the US almost never lighten their skin just to look like a white American or an anime character - unless the character is actually, like, #FFFFFF on the usual RGB scale). However, she has stated outright that she had no idea that this was considered offensive, that she was simply doing her best to look like the character. I think it's reasonable to let her off the hook at least this once, especially looking at the photo of her in Cosplay, which is *clearly* not historical blackface. You have to allow for these misunderstandings when going between such far-flung cultures. And while I'm okay with a teen being extra sensitive - they're teens, of course they'll be like that - it would do everyone well to discuss the matter rather than venting in some newspaper article.
Click to expand...

If this comes off as a jab it isn't.

I pretty much 100% agree with your post. I'd debate a little if doing a race bent cosplay is wrong in premise ( if this was a thread about that. ) , and id like to see you broaden the easy going stance a bit, but of all threads we are pretty much on the same page.

I'd bitch about this being news, but I already have and if it wasn't I wouldn't be starting this day very presently surprised.
 
Information Analyst said:
Does it still say that on the bbc.com version? It says "heavy Indian accent" on bbc.co.uk. I see that some secondary reporting still says "hindu."
Click to expand...

Do you suppose that someone at the BBC edited it?

Let's all remember that this is a high-school student.

Seems a bit like saying "oriental" when what you mean is "Asian". I know better now, but when I was a high-school student it probably would not have occurred to me that "oriental" is not a good word.

Oh, I did a text comparison and the only difference between the BBC version and this one is the word "Hindu/Indian". Everything else is the same.
 
Puppycow said:
Do you suppose that someone at the BBC edited it?

Let's all remember that this is a high-school student.

Seems a bit like saying "oriental" when what you mean is "Asian". I know better now, but when I was a high-school student it probably would not have occurred to me that "oriental" is not a good word.

Oh, I did a text comparison and the only difference between the BBC version and this one is the word "Hindu/Indian". Everything else is the same.
Click to expand...

I would suspect that she wrote "Hindu" in ignorance, but it was changed for the .co.uk version, either initially or in reaction to complaints. Religions obviously don't have accents. That said, ISTR that historically all Indians in the US were once referred to Hindus, even if they were Sikh, Muslim, Christian, or whatever.
 
Information Analyst said:
I would suspect that she wrote "Hindu" in ignorance, but it was changed for the .co.uk version, either initially or in reaction to complaints. Religions obviously don't have accents. That said, ISTR that historically all Indians in the US were once referred to Hindus, even if they were Sikh, Muslim, Christian, or whatever.
Click to expand...

Perhaps to avoid confusion with the unfortunate misnomer for Native Americans.

 
Information Analyst said:
A hundred years ago, maybe, but in 2019? How does US media usually refer to people from India, anyway?
Click to expand...

Indians. Of course, Native Americans are sometimes called "Indians," as well, but people writing in a formal context are pretty good these days about using the proper labels.

I would imagine that in the UK, where there isn't a Native American population that was mistakenly labelled as "Indian," there wouldn't be a reason to call Indians anything other than Indians in formal writing.
 
Information Analyst said:
A hundred years ago, maybe, but in 2019? How does US media usually refer to people from India, anyway?
Click to expand...

Personally I don't think I've ever heard someone use "Hindus" to refer to Indians (or if they did, I didn't understand it that way). As xjx388 says, nowadays people usually use the correct terms, but there are still a few vestiges of the former. There's a Bureau of Indian Affairs and a baseball team called the Indians, whose mascot is a rather offensive Native American stereotype.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom