Many coloured Dutch, a.o. Sylvana-stemmers and Sunny Bergman, find that in the footsteps of the American ‘ black people ‘ and ‘ white People ‘, and because the Dutch often have ‘ black folks ‘ when, for example, Surinamese Creoles and Africans Mean, you should also be talking about ‘ white Dutchmen ‘.In Sunny Bergman’s documentary ‘ Wit is also a colour ‘ she also always appoints that. I see it again as an ‘ Americanism ‘. A term from the US, which needs to be implemented here if necessary. I don’t like it, the US has a very own history between its black and white population and it also uses terms like ‘ Caucasian ‘, which are not actually correct. You don’t really want to enter this in the Netherlands.
I myself do not feel it as racist as someone would call me ‘ white ‘, but I would improve her or him and say that I see myself as ‘ blank ‘.I find that more fitting, I do not find myself white. Snow is white, but I’m more pink, sometimes pale grey, or bluish (if I’m cold). I am white when I am dead. 😉
I find ‘ blank ‘ better than ‘ white ‘.Paper is white. When you’re sick they say what you’ve turned out. Pale is white eh.
In white and black you really have a contradiction.You are either white or black. Everything with a tan is black.
Blank is also a color.Many people cannot tell if they are white or brown. We are just all colorings and need to see along with each other to shoot. So I see it.
Racists can claim both terms.‘ Blank ‘ has more associations with ‘ good ‘. The boreal man is still quite white. If you attract this then you can say very politically that you are white, but then you come into the opposition white vs black.
Sociological seen are black and white collectable notions, well regards it includes two groups that do not exist, but which do not regard as equivalent.
Racial and racist thinking makes you no longer see a person, but only racial traits.Sometimes properties are even wrongly attributed, blacks as more aggressive and criminally, while they are rather more helpful and friendlier.
In itself, there are all racist discriminatory ideas that we are all influenced by.It seems to me the art of freeing you from it and in all contacts with others unbiased to see the other as he is. Not that it always succeeds, but practice makes perfect.
If you read the reaction of C茅line D茅camps, you realize that blank is simply synonymous with white.It is the French term for ‘ white ‘. All my feelings around it have to do with it that is blank-sheeler than white. In that sense, my answer is a nonsense answer. It just doesn’t matter, white or blank is the same.
I find Niek Holzappels answer the most sensible.He says (in a nutshell): I just use the name that my interlocutor prefers.
That is always the best in cases where people feel discriminated against.Why would you increase that pain?
I find “white” as an indication for a human being just as weird as “black”.But blank also has its drawbacks. There are really Italians who are darker in skin color than some people of African descent.
My dark-colored friends from Mali and Senegal describe themselves as Africain and indigenous Dutch as Blanc.Obama was almost always referred to as African-American or black, while his mother, the 1995 d. Ann Durham, was blank. I mean, let us not fixate on the differences. Where it is sensitive, don’t hurt needlessly, that’s it.
To date, no one has seen any linguistic, historical, sociological or other evidence that “blank” would be a colonial term that has certain connotations that “white” does not have, nor that blank implies that white is the standard skin color. It is merely a matter of sentiment.That being said, it is natural that white, pale skin color-whatever you call it-is still considered the normal colour today. All other shades are, by way of speaking, deviations (and that people think about it, themselves people who are not blank/white/pale, have already been shown repeatedly in several studies). A white man to call it, will not change anything. White also has the connotation of purity, purity, innocence, virginity, uncleanness, cleanliness… Maybe even much more than blank. In my opinion-that I have not investigated-these connotations (certainly originally) have nothing to do with “race” or better skin color and these connotations go back much further than colonialism. Also in the Old and New Testament (written by people we describe today as Middle Eastern or brown and therefore certainly not as blank) white is associated with, for example, light and peace, while black is associated with darkness, night, Death and mourning. In several cultures that are much older than colonialism, darkness (black) was seen as something negative and light (white) as something good. That is not so strange, nor problematic at all… But of course that image fits perfectly with the stupid and problematic ideas of racists: white = good, Black = bad, to say it very briefly. The term blank replaced by white, will not make any difference in the mentality of racists nor in the unconscious racism. It is a wafer-thin cloth for bleeding. What is needed is a serious change of mentality. That starts with recognizing that racism occurs daily, explicitly and implicitly. One example is that we refer to white people (in ordinary everyday language) as “people” (those people there…) and to non-white people as “tinted/colored/black/Getaande people” although that given is totally irrelevant. It seems to me better to make a conscious effort to stop it, instead of replacing blank with white. Despite all this, I will also do my best to use the term white, especially when I am in company of people who experience blank as problematic. It will not affect my life in any way-blank and white are synonyms-but if others feel hurt because they feel that the terms are not synonyms and without any evidence claim that they have different connotations, I would like to meet them. Just don’t call me a racist if I say blank instead of white, because that is just what feeds racism and hatred.
“White” and “blank” are synonyms.In the current (anti) Racist discourse, however, “white” is preferred to indicate the skin color of whites. Actually this is an anglicism, in English is “white” namely the word for blank. This will undoubtedly have a cause in the fact that the disputes over racism in the US have been much longer felt that racism is much more structural there. The English language and the jargon surrounding it has been exported to foreign countries. In particular to the Netherlands because (broken) English became there the language of the languages at universities, thus also on the sociology faculties.
“White” and “black” are not even used so much to denote skin color but as a social construct where the white has more power and privilege.For instance, a well-tanned white man can be darker than a Turkish woman. However, the first will be referred to as “white” and the latter as “black”. In Turkey itself, this woman can suddenly be “white” while her Kurdish neighbor will be “black” again.
I use “blank” or “white” as it comes out.It is up to my interlocutor. This is to avoid oeverless semantic discussions as they derive from the subject.
Nowadays I find the political correctness exaggerated.The right word is white man. Nowadays, you cannot speak of blacks anymore either. It is now rather about a person with a darker skin tone.
The most famous and absurd prebeels are that of demonising the term “disabled”: Suddenly certain people decided that the word was offensive and there had to be a different denomination.The very best that one could find was ‘ less valid ‘. When that was almost established, discussion arose again: certain people found that the prefix was ‘ less ‘ offensive because it could be the idea that those people were called inferior.
So we had to look for something else.The best thing one could think of was the term ‘ otherabled ‘. You guessed it: again objections, because, we said: if we call them other than valid, then it clashes with the principle that everyone is equal.
One was so tired of searching, that, they decided that disabled was still the most neutral term.
In Dutch in blank the usual term.Wit is a literal translation from English, and is seen as kromnederlands.
It is not rascistic, and is used to describe a person’s skin tone, just as there are words to describe her color and eye color.There are also terms to describe one’s body figure, their length, etc. We all look different once, and since we use language, we need terms to describe those differences.
Let us not make it more complicated than it is.
White, you know, not colored, unpainted, unpigmented… Mind you, this is the word of which a version is used in French, Italian and so to indicate just white, but in Dutch you think of white face to unhealthy pale, violently startled, dead, not to the normal skin color of most Europeans.
That seems pretty straightforward to me.The white man is not white, the brown man is not black, there are no also no yellow people and also no red skins.
You cannot literally describe people with a color.Of course, metaphorical intentions and poetic freedom are not to be considered literal.
When you describe someone using natural traits of a breed, you are actually discriminative based on that breed.And that is nothing wrong with that. You can do that quietly, as long as you set the breed as a whole but not negatively in the daylight. You do not, because you describe only one person.
The mention of “the white man” is therefore rather racist than “the Whites man” but is not negative and therefore cannot be seen as offensive.
But write what you want, someone is always kicked on his or her dick.