I work with a lot of people from California, and they told me something that simply did not seem true. They said in California that race is not used to describe someone. Example: If there are 6 people in a room, 5 are white and one is black. They said they wouldn't say "the black guy" if looking/asking about him(assuming they didn't know that person or their name). They said they would just say "that guy." Same goes for those of other races(Asian, etc). I find this hard to believe on AT, because I've seen plenty of people from all over the country describe someone as that "black guy" that "Asian dude" or that "white guy." I have a feeling they were blowing a bunch of crap up my ass.
It isn't as if it is being done in a racist manner. Let's say someone is looking for a guy name James. They said that saying "James the black guy" is something that wouldn't be said in California. Their premise is that he would simply be called James, even if there were 4 white people named James, and 1 that was black. I've never seen this in practice. When it comes to describing someone I've always said their height or weight etc. Example: That heavyset black guy, or that large black guy, or that huge white guy. I've never thought of using someone's race when describing them as being racist. I'm speaking of a situation when it is obvious it isn't being used to degrade someone or single them out. Simply as a manner of identification. Several of them said they were "shocked' to see that. I didn't call BS because they are co-workers, but there seemed to be the insinuation that it was racist to do so, and that in California it was looked down on.
The thing that got me going further was that someone said that the OJ trial wasn't racial in nature out in LA, but they read an article in the paper here(no doubt an AP article, and not an actual article written by a staff reporter for the paper) that was talking about the racial tension regarding the OJ. Maybe I'm totally high, but i seem to remember that Mark Furman and the LAPD were branded as racists, and that it was a huge part of OJ's defense, and a reason for the jurors to vote not-guilty. I always thought that Furman's racist remarks impeached his testimony in the eyes of the juror. Is smoke being blown up my ass, or is it really like that?
It isn't as if it is being done in a racist manner. Let's say someone is looking for a guy name James. They said that saying "James the black guy" is something that wouldn't be said in California. Their premise is that he would simply be called James, even if there were 4 white people named James, and 1 that was black. I've never seen this in practice. When it comes to describing someone I've always said their height or weight etc. Example: That heavyset black guy, or that large black guy, or that huge white guy. I've never thought of using someone's race when describing them as being racist. I'm speaking of a situation when it is obvious it isn't being used to degrade someone or single them out. Simply as a manner of identification. Several of them said they were "shocked' to see that. I didn't call BS because they are co-workers, but there seemed to be the insinuation that it was racist to do so, and that in California it was looked down on.
The thing that got me going further was that someone said that the OJ trial wasn't racial in nature out in LA, but they read an article in the paper here(no doubt an AP article, and not an actual article written by a staff reporter for the paper) that was talking about the racial tension regarding the OJ. Maybe I'm totally high, but i seem to remember that Mark Furman and the LAPD were branded as racists, and that it was a huge part of OJ's defense, and a reason for the jurors to vote not-guilty. I always thought that Furman's racist remarks impeached his testimony in the eyes of the juror. Is smoke being blown up my ass, or is it really like that?