"A black child who experiences being treated black, then becomes a black person rather than a human person." A rather loaded statement, to say the very least. Being familiar with your writing, I am most certain that you tend not to infer that "black persons", as you put it, aren't human. As you know I am a supporter of your work and would never "troll" you but I am intrigued by the statement.
Further, what do you mean by "being treated black?" By no means am I disagreeing with you, but I would like to know what do you mean and what is your personal frame of reference?
I meant to infer that when a child is born he is human because he is unaware of his skin color, and he is human when he becomes aware of his skin color and then he is treated inhumanely and realizes he is a black person. It is not that I believe he becomes unhuman, but he becomes a black person instead of a human because he is treated inhumanely. When he becomes aware that he is blackness is subjecting him to not being treated as a human person but are lessening him because of his skin color. It is not that he becomes unhuman but that he begins to realize he is seen less than human. In the context of the article, I was attempting to suggest that a child is not born "black or white" but it is the experience of being treated "black" that he becomes aware he is not defined as human, but as a black "human" and that very designation pushes him through his experience to viewing himself as black and viewing others as seeing him not fully human, but some sort of subset-black.
If you feel that is not true, I would defer. But I don't really believe anyone is born "black" and when they realize they are treated as "black" that they to begin to define themselves as black. It doesn't mean they are not human, and perhaps I should have used an adjective qualifier, but I couldn't think of one. "Mere" human I think could lead to the same criticism you suggested.
I guess what I am trying to say a child experiences being defined black and is no longer permitted to define himself as anything other than black. Kind of (in reverse) when Huck Finn discovers Jim is not black, but a man. I do not believe any black person should like to be seen as, or defined by the color of his skin.
I once commented (absurdly) to someone who was expressing a derogatory comment about people defined as black that if people were all blind no one would ever know the color of anyone's skin and then no one would be able to feel superior, or be made to feel inferior because of his skin color.. I don't really think (or at least I've never met any) black person who feels inferior because of his skin color, but I do not know of any who have never experienced being inferiorized because of his skin color.
So Huck has to learn to define Jim as human and not black, and less human. If people did not (white people) define black people to be black then the color of one's skin wouldn't be a factor and all would be seen as human. I could have just as well say white children experience being white (& superior to blacks) and become white instead of human. Because that was also how Huck defined himself when he defined Jim as black. It is the defining of any human by his color that changes a human into a color of humanity, rather than as a mere human, or all of the same species. I mean some people have blue eyes. I guess because it is fairly rare it stands out and is noticeable but I've never heard of anyone being treated "blue-eyed", differently, other than some may find it an attractive feature, so why is eye color not a definition and skin color is? And my wife has blue eyes which attracted me, but she is black by defintion but she's paler than me, so why is she defined black? Her mother was black, and very black, that I've seldom seen amongst those with American heritage. But why do I need to define my wife as black, why do I need to define her mother as black? Or why do you define yourself as black for that man? Is there a difference between you and any other human that you define yourself that way, or is it because your experience as being defined black that makes you black. If we are defined as a color it is through experience and that definition becomes what we are instead of being human. It is just as true for whites who when defining themselves as such no longer define themselves as humans. Geneticists say skin color is as irrelevant as attached or unattached earlobes,. but we don't go around calling each other detachees and attachees do we? And yet genetically they have the same effect.
But why didn't I then say "black and white persons become black and white instead of human. I didn't because it is the black child's experience that is intended to make him feel less human. And the white child who learns through his parents to define the black child as black doesn't even realize that by defining himself as white he is now white and not black. Whites are too dumb to realize that if they define others by color to lessen their humanity they also define themselves by their color instead of as human.
"A black child who experiences being treated black, then becomes a black person rather than a human person." A rather loaded statement, to say the very least. Being familiar with your writing, I am most certain that you tend not to infer that "black persons", as you put it, aren't human. As you know I am a supporter of your work and would never "troll" you but I am intrigued by the statement.
Further, what do you mean by "being treated black?" By no means am I disagreeing with you, but I would like to know what do you mean and what is your personal frame of reference?
I meant to infer that when a child is born he is human because he is unaware of his skin color, and he is human when he becomes aware of his skin color and then he is treated inhumanely and realizes he is a black person. It is not that I believe he becomes unhuman, but he becomes a black person instead of a human because he is treated inhumanely. When he becomes aware that he is blackness is subjecting him to not being treated as a human person but are lessening him because of his skin color. It is not that he becomes unhuman but that he begins to realize he is seen less than human. In the context of the article, I was attempting to suggest that a child is not born "black or white" but it is the experience of being treated "black" that he becomes aware he is not defined as human, but as a black "human" and that very designation pushes him through his experience to viewing himself as black and viewing others as seeing him not fully human, but some sort of subset-black.
If you feel that is not true, I would defer. But I don't really believe anyone is born "black" and when they realize they are treated as "black" that they to begin to define themselves as black. It doesn't mean they are not human, and perhaps I should have used an adjective qualifier, but I couldn't think of one. "Mere" human I think could lead to the same criticism you suggested.
I guess what I am trying to say a child experiences being defined black and is no longer permitted to define himself as anything other than black. Kind of (in reverse) when Huck Finn discovers Jim is not black, but a man. I do not believe any black person should like to be seen as, or defined by the color of his skin.
I once commented (absurdly) to someone who was expressing a derogatory comment about people defined as black that if people were all blind no one would ever know the color of anyone's skin and then no one would be able to feel superior, or be made to feel inferior because of his skin color.. I don't really think (or at least I've never met any) black person who feels inferior because of his skin color, but I do not know of any who have never experienced being inferiorized because of his skin color.
So Huck has to learn to define Jim as human and not black, and less human. If people did not (white people) define black people to be black then the color of one's skin wouldn't be a factor and all would be seen as human. I could have just as well say white children experience being white (& superior to blacks) and become white instead of human. Because that was also how Huck defined himself when he defined Jim as black. It is the defining of any human by his color that changes a human into a color of humanity, rather than as a mere human, or all of the same species. I mean some people have blue eyes. I guess because it is fairly rare it stands out and is noticeable but I've never heard of anyone being treated "blue-eyed", differently, other than some may find it an attractive feature, so why is eye color not a definition and skin color is? And my wife has blue eyes which attracted me, but she is black by defintion but she's paler than me, so why is she defined black? Her mother was black, and very black, that I've seldom seen amongst those with American heritage. But why do I need to define my wife as black, why do I need to define her mother as black? Or why do you define yourself as black for that man? Is there a difference between you and any other human that you define yourself that way, or is it because your experience as being defined black that makes you black. If we are defined as a color it is through experience and that definition becomes what we are instead of being human. It is just as true for whites who when defining themselves as such no longer define themselves as humans. Geneticists say skin color is as irrelevant as attached or unattached earlobes,. but we don't go around calling each other detachees and attachees do we? And yet genetically they have the same effect.
But why didn't I then say "black and white persons become black and white instead of human. I didn't because it is the black child's experience that is intended to make him feel less human. And the white child who learns through his parents to define the black child as black doesn't even realize that by defining himself as white he is now white and not black. Whites are too dumb to realize that if they define others by color to lessen their humanity they also define themselves by their color instead of as human.
I simply sought further elucidation for the sake of my own clarity, Mr. Taylor. And you provided exactly that. Thank you.