West Indian Day parties

I understand that people from the "West Indies" are called "West Indian" because of the whole Columbus is an idiot thing. My family is Pennsylvania Dutch. Are we Dutch? No. We are German. But when other white people in PA asked my ancestors where they came from they said "Deutschland" which sounded to the dumb white people as "dutch land" and so they called them Dutch. They are NOT Dutch but that's what they were called. They continue to call themselves that. People NOW know that they are actually German, but the term "Pennsylvania Dutch" tells you about the culture of the people NOW. They are different from Germans who continued living in Germany, or the Germans who moved to areas more like Michigan and whatnot. They have their own culture AFTER leaving their original culture.

I see it the same way here. I ask a friend "where is your family from?" they say "Trinidad". That's the culture they identify with. That's the land they see as home, the music they identify with, the food they love. Certainly they know that their ancestors even further back probably came from somewhere else -- much like my Pennsylvania Dutch family came from Germany .... and I KNOW that before that they came from other places.

I mean, should WhyNot's St. Patty's parade and the West Indian Day Parade all march together under the name "African Parade" because ALL PEOPLE are from Africa if you go back far enough?

It IS your opinion that that is what the parade should actually be called. The people who organized it apparently see it otherwise. You can't say that your opinion is truth and other people's aren't. It's a matter of opinion what to call the parade depending on how far back you think the parade should look when defining the cultures it celebrates.

MHA wrote: Is IS my opinion that it is a west African parade

MHA wrote: I said what the parade actually IS.

How is it both your OPINION and the actual "is" (as in an actual fact)?

MHA wrote: Is IS my opinion that it is a west African parade because the people who comprise the celebrators are celebrating their west African Heritage. I never said that is what the parade should be called. I said what the parade actually IS.

I find it somewhat difficult to believe that someone who is as particular as you are about the use of capitalization (and the lack thereof) would capitalize West African Day parade unintentionally. It sure sounded like a title the way you wrote it, which would belie your claim that you never said this is what the parade should be called. If you want to backtrack from that, I actually agree with most of the rest of what you say, but don't act like you were never trying to rename the parade.

As in it IS my OPINION......

What posed questions? I've answered everything you guys said.

Once you have Black skin like I do, then you can call yourseleves African. Once you stop 'being white', and reaping the privileges of the skin you are in, then talk to me about everybody being African.

Comparing of all the things the history of Germany 'Deutchland' to Africa has to be one of the biggest ironies here. Thanks for the laugh.

I've bolded this one from xlizelx

xlizellx wrote: I understand that people from the "West Indies" are called "West Indian" because of the whole Columbus is an idiot thing. My family is Pennsylvania Dutch. Are we Dutch? No. We are German. But when other white people in PA asked my ancestors where they came from they said "Deutschland" which sounded to the dumb white people as "dutch land" and so they called them Dutch. They are NOT Dutch but that's what they were called. They continue to call themselves that. People NOW know that they are actually German, but the term "Pennsylvania Dutch" tells you about the culture of the people NOW. They are different from Germans who continued living in Germany, or the Germans who moved to areas more like Michigan and whatnot. They have their own culture AFTER leaving their original culture.

I see it the same way here. I ask a friend "where is your family from?" they say "Trinidad". That's the culture they identify with. That's the land they see as home, the music they identify with, the food they love. Certainly they know that their ancestors even further back probably came from somewhere else -- much like my Pennsylvania Dutch family came from Germany .... and I KNOW that before that they came from other places.

I mean, should WhyNot's St. Patty's parade and the West Indian Day Parade all march together under the name "African Parade" because ALL PEOPLE are from Africa if you go back far enough?
It IS your opinion that that is what the parade should actually be called. The people who organized it apparently see it otherwise. You can't say that your opinion is truth and other people's aren't. It's a matter of opinion what to call the parade depending on how far back you think the parade should look when defining the cultures it celebrates.

You have not answered our questions, and instead merely attacked the way in which they were reposted. They were reposted because you did not answer them when they were FIRST posted.

Clearly you are unable to explain your position in a way that it will change minds. Instead, you simply continue to posit that people must remain true to their heritage; a heritage that you feel they deny.

You have yet to acknowledge that others can fully understand the historical facts as you present them, yet reach a different conclusion about they should live their lives, or how they should view themselves and others. This ability is crucial to becoming perceived as a thoughtful, intelligent leader that can cause intelligent people to adapt your point of view.

Now for the rest of your post.....

MHA wrote:
Once you have Black skin like I do, then you can call yourseleves African. Once you stop 'being white', and reaping the privileges of the skin you are in, then talk to me about everybody being African.

You are again trying to change the subject, and again claim authority.

The fact that you are claiming this authority in response to a thread in which we are questioning where you get the authority is completely amazing!

Let's review: We are questioning your authority to state that the participants of a recent "festival weekend" must go around referring to themselves and the events as being "African".

The mere fact that you are black and believe they should, doesn't cut it.
Why can't they adopt other terms?
...terms of their own choosing?

Why can't anyone, regardless of the color of their skin and the privileges it provides (or, for that matter, discrimination it causes) have the ability to choose how they describe themselves?

In the past, you have accused white people of being opposed to people ascribing an identity of their own to themselves.

Yet, here are a few presumably white people (admittedly bored ones who should likely be working....) telling you that they support people referring to themselves in any terms they choose, and assuring you that we will even adopt those terms to refer to them.

....I have yet to hear anyone on this thread tell anyone how they can and should identify themselves except for you.

How do you reconcile this with your claim that such actions are taken mostly by culturally imperialist, assimilation-loving, white people, when here you are -a self proclaimed "My Heart is African" man- doing it?

Right here.

Right now.

....your arguments have failed to sway me.

I have so far heard only you state "those are their historical roots" over and over.

I will not adapt a position that undermines the ability of persons and organizations to describe themselves without you answering the basic questions we have put forward.

As a result of the history racism in this country, and my commitment to equality, I am concerned that you seem to be applying these expectations exclusively on a group (actually several groups...) of people whom have long struggled for basic rights.

In addition, by asking myself and others to simply adapt your view, it has become clear to me that you are asking us to assume (....as you do...) that the parade organizers and attendees are somehow "stupid" and/or "misinformed".

I do not perceive them in this manner, and am in fact confident that many, if not most, of the attendees at the parade are in fact smarter and more informed than myself.

whynot_31 wrote: here are a few white people (admittedly bored ones who should likely be working....)

Hey now. It's a 4-day weekend for Rosh Hashanah right now, thankyouverymuch!

xlizellx wrote: But also, under that thinking, shouldn't ALL parades be called the West African Parade? The Puerto Rican Day Parade. The St. Patrick's Parade. ....if you go back far enough aren't they all West African then?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1885586220070718

Pretty sure that would make those *East* African Parades.

sweet tea wrote: [quote=xlizellx]But also, under that thinking, shouldn't ALL parades be called the West African Parade? The Puerto Rican Day Parade. The St. Patrick's Parade. ....if you go back far enough aren't they all West African then?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1885586220070718

Pretty sure that would make those *East* African Parades.

For those to lazy to click on the above link:

"We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa," said Andrea Manica of the University of Cambridge's Department of Zoology.

.....The highest level of variation in skull types was seen in southeastern Africa, the generally accepted cradle of mankind.

.....Chris Stringer, a palaeoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London, said the new research was important for indicating that modern human diversity was derived entirely from Africa rather than coming from inter-mixing elsewhere.

Damn, MHA can not get a break! ....if he is going to make us be true to our historic roots, he should be going around stating that all parades and events should be called "South East African" and not "West African".

The man was off by 1000s of miles and 1000s of years.

....not only that, the events should consist of us all!

BTW, I think another gathering of Southeastern African descendents may be rapidly, ......dare I say it ....."evolving"! http://brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=59217

Let us come together and celebrate our shared heritage, as well as the cultures, attributes and affinities that make us unique!

Forgive me people, my lack of response is due to being under the weather. Briefly, I will say that it's obvious that all people have ancestry in Africa, as that is where life began. However claiming African ancestery is akin to claiming stellar ancestry. Meaning, yes, technically our genetic code can be traced to the one place on the planet Earth, and that place happens to be in sub-saharan Africa.The fact is that we are all shaped by social constructs, however. My usage of the term African, denotes this.

My usage of the term 'West African day parade' is NOTto state that the day ought to be called the West African Day Parade, but to bring focus to the predominating genetic and cultural roots of the participants of the parade. And those roots are west African. Therefore, for the record, despite what this parade is called, these are West African descendant people doing the parading.

I recall controversy over the term 'American Indian'. Quite a large number of people who are described as such take issue with the term. They neither see themselves as 'American' nor 'Indian'; they prefer to be called 'Native People', or by the name of the indigenous ethnic group they belong to (Sioux, Lakota, Apache, etc.

Someone said that 'history belongs to the victors', and no truer words have ever been spoken. Despite whynot's blathering, his rhetoric reveals his ignorance about the Caribbean, and the ongoing battle over the people of the Caribbean preferring to name themselves. As a matter of pragmatism, most defer to the term 'West Indian' as it avoids conflict and it avoids controversy. We know that whitefolks don't like to be corrected, so we Caribbean people keep our mouths closed when we are called West Indian. We recognize that whitefolks like us to have names that they give us, and many of us placidly accept them. I do not. I am not a West Indian. The term 'West Indian' is a misnomer -- a placard imprinted upon Caribbean people by the British and other whitefolks who in their arrogance prefer to live through their errors and not cede ground even for the sake of accuracy.

So this man wants to tell me that the 'West Indians' in the Caribbean prefer to be called 'West Indian'. Fine. I am not going to argue with him. He wants to particularize the issue, as to make it seem as if MY taking issue with the term 'West Indian' is anomaly and not commonality. Fine, I am not going to argue with him. He wants to ignore the predominating African influences in the Caribbean and focus on the marginal European, Indian and Chinese influences, as if African people didn't know how to cook, clean, dance, sing, or wear clothes before any of these other people came into the area. Fine -- Mee nah go argue wid im. A wha im know? Im nuh av notin bettah fi se' dan to criticize an fi tek issue where there is none.

IF I were to lobby for a name change, I would prefer that the day that we know as the 'West Indian Day Parade' be altered to respect the fact that we are a Caribbean people, and that there were no Indians in the Western hemisphere -- until the European brought them via indentured servitude to the region. Therefore were I to argue for a name change, the name of the parade would be the 'Caribbean Day Parade', as all of the nations who participate are located in the Caribbean Sea. There is no 'West Indian Sea'.

What bothers me about Whynot's responses is that he fixates on what the name is, but not the elements of my argument. He asks that I answer questions which I have, if you read what I have written.

So this man wants to tell me that the 'West Indians' in the Caribbean prefer to be called 'West Indian'. Fine. I am not going to argue with him. He wants to particularize the issue, as to make it seem as if MY taking issue with the term 'West Indian' is anomaly and not commonality. Fine, I am not going to argue with him. He wants to ignore the predominating African influences in the Caribbean and focus on the marginal European, Indian and Chinese influences, as if African people didn't know how to cook, clean, dance, sing, or wear clothes before any of these other people came into the area. Fine -- Mee nah go argue wid im. A wha im know? Im nuh av notin bettah fi se' dan to criticize an fi tek issue where there is none.

No, I have made it quite clear that I do not speak for people from the West Indies. So, we agree on that. However, if you were to argue with me, it would be on my point that YOU do not speak on behalf of them either.

No, I do not minimize any of their influences. We agree that the history is full of oppression, and that history is not yet over. However, if you were to argue with me, it would be on my point that one can fully understand one's influences and history, yet choose a different name than you believe they should. ...any name that they choose.

No, I do not give any weight to whether your view is in the majority or not. You are entitled to call the parade anything you choose, regardless of whether anyone agree with you. Please note, that I have this same entitlement. However, if you were to argue with me, it would be on my belief that you have no right to tell OTHERS that they may not give themselves an identity of their choice.

I do not dispute that the name was originally a misnomer. ....this is about the ability of people to take a name that was mistakenly ascribed to them, and overtime, redefine it to themselves.

You seem to believe that by doing so, they are ignorant or (to use a term loved by Malcolm X) "bamboozeled". I do not disagree with Malcolm X. I disagree with you.

If you were to argue with me, it would be on my assertion that when the attendees and organizers continue to call themselves West Indian, they are not perpetuating that history. They are instead redefining it, by their lives and successes. They are stating to the world that:

"I am me. I will make what used to be an insult, into a term that I define. This term is no longer yours. It is mine. You will use this term to describe me, out of respect for me ...not because you like or own the term."

Using this same logic, you wish for people to refer to you as African. Ok, I'll do that.

Using this same logic, others have decided they want the world to refer to them by different terms. Ok, I'll do that too.

So, you are correct, you not arguing with me.

But if you'd like too argue with me, I've bolded the items where we disagree, and will fill some more free time arguing with you.

I believe that you should give them the same respect that I do, and call "them" (and "their events") by the name they chose.

Your fundamental assumption seems to be that anyone that does not continue to primarily identify themselves as you choose to identify yourself (i.e as "African") denies or ignorant of the past.

I argue that your assumption has no proof.

I argue that they are intelligent, informed individuals who have made a choice.

....of course, you are free to call yourself African.

If we go back far enough, I am free to call myself that am too.

If I spend any real time in the West Indies, I would be entitled to call myself West Indian if I choose.

Yes, identity is an individual choice.

MHA is merely an individual.
And, -despite his assertions to the contrary- I would point that out to anyone who tried to speak on behalf of any race.

MHA is experiencing, over and over, me single him out as having "no right to speak on behalf of a group of people" because I don't encounter anyone else who claims such power.

I expect (and hope) that MHA will let me know if I ever claim to speak on behalf of anyone but myself.

Ishtar wrote: [quote=MHA]
Someone said that 'history belongs to the victors', and no truer words have ever been spoken.

This is why I think you're crazy for even engaging them on this. I check out of these types of convos as soon as "they" try and tell me about "us" (us=black descendants of the diaspora/slave trade).

I agree. It is crazy to try to have this kind of discussion on the internet.

If folks were to meet in person, or have the advantages of a medium that provided intonation, I am confident that no one would believe that I am trying to define black people, or restrict the way in which they define themselves. .....but somebody else is.....

....instead I'll just point out that everyone is feel to define themselves, and only themselves, over and over here. ....at least until I find a another hobby.

Cool The Kid wrote: MHA I think you make some good points, but ultimately I think if it were that much of an issue for everyone else involved it would not be called the 'West Indian Day Parade'. Do you think it would be much trouble for the organizers to change the name, or are you just discounting the possibility that rather than them not wanting to make a fuss, they just don't care?

I take the position that they care very deeply about how they are known, and don't want others telling them they are ignorant of their history simply as a result of their choice of terms.

I agree with CTK, and argue the organizers have the power to change the name of the parade, as do the attendees. I argue that folks wouldn't show up to attend an event that described them in terms they felt insulted them on an ongoing basis; that have concluded the attendees must have have been successfully "owned and redefined" by the attendees.

Basically, when looking at the name of the parade, I see "power and pride".

MHA seems to see only "oppression and ignorance".

Cool The Kid wrote: I understand the importance of the West African roots and influences, MHA, and that people should know where West Indian cultures truly spring from... but why get angry at white folks for that? Shouldn't that be the job of those in control of the event?

If I read MHA (and Istar) correctly:
MHA believes there is no way you could fully understand the history and use a different name for the event.

MHA seems to believe that the name of the parade not only justifies anger at white people, but also (and perhaps even more so) its attendees and organizers. ....because they (in his view) play a role in allowing this "stupid, ignorant name" to continue. They have adopted the "white man's name" for themselves.

So, he is very angry at the attendees and organizers, not just white people.

Because they are "ignorant of their past", he views the attendees and organizers as being complicit in allowing the cycle of oppression to continue not only against themselves, but also all "black people".

(I'd use the terms "people of African heritage", but it seems silly in light of evolution).

MHA (and Ishtar), do I read you correctly?

Perhaps needless to say, I do not share these viewpoints.

[I expect to be accused that I will never understand these viewpoints as a result of not being black. ...which is a return to the "I can speak on behalf of blacks because I am black" argument. ....an argument that I believe has no foundation.]

Eastbloc has a good point.

MHA, you seem to be going through a process.

When you are finished, please let me know how you would like me to refer to the parade and its attendees when I speak to you.

....Should the occasion arise that I am only speaking to you, I would like to know whether I should refer to it as the "West African" or "Caribbean Day Parade".

I try to behave in this manner to you and everyone I come in contact with, because I believe issues of identity are sensitive and it is important that listener know that you have respect for their terms and identity.

....Is it reasonable for me to expect you to extend this same courtesy to others?

xlizellx,

If you were speaking to someone and they told you that they found the terms you were using to describe them (or their event) as offensive, would you change the terms to theirs?

i.e. If you were only speaking to MHA, would you use his terms ("West African" or "Caribbean") to convey respect to him?

Note: You could use other terms to describe the event to other people, as long as the listener did not find the terms offensive. If they did find your terms offensive, you would simply need to be willing try find a term the listener would be comfortable with.