The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago • Hacker News Board

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#141

Post by thaumasiotes » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 5:48 AM UTC

nkingsy wrote: post #133

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the popular imagination, there was nothing except Greece, Rome and Egypt until this side of 1 AD. Really? The Romans are known for their expansionism. Who were they conquering? Who was everybody fighting against in 300 ?

The Persian and Macedonian empires both reconquered what had been conquered by the Assyrian empire, and likely others before.

No, the Persian empire was much, much larger than the Assyrian empire.

The Macedonian empire was technically larger, including Persia, except it was never administrated as a whole and fell into pieces just a few years after coming into existence.

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#142

Post by michannne » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

earthboundkid wrote: post #116

Natsu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just the euphamism treadmill in action. The name for an outgroup becomes a slur over time because it refers to an outgroup.

The treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes. African American/Black have been the main terms in American language for 50 years now, with some back and forth between the two, but no further replacement.

What makes you think that won't change? As a Jamaican American, I look forward to the day when people stop referring to me as "black"

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#143

Post by michannne » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

legerdemain wrote: post #99

ROARosen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>t's a bit like calling someone a "chinaman." The Talmud speaks of an Etrog "Hakushi" to describle a black Etrog (Jewish ritual fruit). Not necessarily one that comes from "Kush". "Kushi" is not more a slur than "Black". That is to say it is NOT a slur, although it CAN be used in a negative fashion when used in a sentence in conjunction with stereotypes associated with the black community. It all depends on the conte…

Yes, I am aware of the fact that some people are adamant that the word "kushi" is harmless and wonderful, and that black people shouldn't feel hurt when this word is used to disparage them.[1] http://www.jewishmag.com/180mag/kushi/kushi.htm

You're missing the point spectactularly. Words do not exist in groups of "These are always ok to say" and "Never say these", their meaning depends entirely on context. You should be aware of this considering the main derogatory term for African Americans and other black people is also used as a synonym for "brother" depending on the context it is said. If you're saying that Jewish people should phase out this word because some people use it in a negative way, that's a flawed argument, it's akin to saying we should ban anything that can be used a weapon - meaningless considering anything can be used as a weapon.

Rather than trying to convince people that certain words are always ok or not ok to use, you should give reasons for others to reconsider their usage of the word and prompt them to think of the context before using the word. Then you let them make the choice of when to use it.

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#144

Post by earthboundkid » Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

michannne wrote: post #142

earthboundkid wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes. African American/Black have been the main terms in American language for 50 years now, with some back and forth between the two, but no further replacement.

What makes you think that won't change? As a Jamaican American, I look forward to the day when people stop referring to me as "black"

Because you prefer “Jamaican”? Or “African American”? Or nothing? I can’t tell what you mean from context.

I don’t think “black” “white” and “brown” can go away as descriptors like “blond” and “redhead”, but maybe someday they will stop being identity categories. America already has large non-native black populations in certain areas (West Africans, Somalis, West Indies, etc.), but I think the country still thinks of Black = African American = descendent of U.S. slaves for now, because the non-native blacks are still mostly focused regionally, like Somalis in Minnesota.

I guess this is another reason for the treadmill: distinctions that were implicit before maybe need to be made explicit as different things become salient.

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#145

Post by michannne » Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

earthboundkid wrote: post #144

michannne wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that won't change? As a Jamaican American, I look forward to the day when people stop referring to me as "black"

Because you prefer “Jamaican”? Or “African American”? Or nothing? I can’t tell what you mean from context. I don’t think “black” “white” and “brown” can go away as descriptors like “blond” and “redhead”, but maybe someday they will stop being identity categories. America already has large non-native black populations in certain areas (West Africans, Somalis, West Indies, etc.), but I think the country still thinks of…

You said the treadmill stops when you change public attitude, and you imply the terms Black and African American used to refer to black people are acceptable designations for groups of people as of now. I'm making the point that that is completely subjective, as in my case I don't like being referred to as an African American, because I'm not, and black is basically a synonym for "Not african american", yet these are the default terms and you say that there is "no further replacement". My point is that words change meaning all the time, we are not heading into some inevitable singularity where all of these words over here are objectively good in all situations and all of those words are objectively bad in all situations and this will remain so for eternity - language is not that stagnant nor black and white, and for me that is a good thing. It is 100% your personal opinion that you find the terms Black and African American acceptable designations for groups for the foreseeable future, but don't project your personal opinion onto others - I personally look forward to the day where people refer to me as Jamaican and not just "black" or mistakenly, African American, and in the same way there are those who hold the opposite opinion and those who don't want to be generalized at all. That you personally like or dont like a particular label has no bearing on whether or not everyone else agrees with your opinion.

Tl;dr your statement "The [euphemism] treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes" actually means "The euphemism treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes in such a way that I am personally comfortable with it's final state", because in reality the treadmill will never stop, someone will always push to keep it going, it's the reason why language shifts and changes over time.