Why can't a black kid who was born in Chicago, with a mother from Philadelphia and a father from Queens, just be considered an American, without the need to hyphenate it with his ancestry? Why the need for added description, only when referring to blacks?

What do they call blacks in England? Do they call them African-Englishmen or whatever? In Canada, I'm pretty sure I've never heard the term African-Canadian. It's dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, and stupid. What would TV news anchors call a black guy from Canada? A Canadian, or an African-North American?

I mean seriously, why do we single out blacks that way, but don't really do that with any other culture? People with Greek ancestry that are American, are just... American. People from England who become American are not English-Americans, they are just accepted as Americans.

Hi Daniel,

After reading your blog, I was wondering what your thoughts were on the term French-Canadian. In your blog, you asked how an anchorman would call a black guy from Canada in a news broadcast. I'm 100% sure he would call him a Canadian. What about Ron Maclean on HNIC talking about Simon Gagné, Vincent Lecavalier or Martin Brodeur. Or what about Peter Mansbridge talking about Mario Lemieux on the National. Don't tell me you've never heard these anchormen call Canadian hockey players born in the province of Québec French-Canadian.

Also, since you've opened the door a little bit, I would be curious to know your opinion on the status of Québec in Canada. I'm aware it tends to be a touchy subject but I'm confident it would be an interesting read no matter what your opinion is.


P.S. Québecois > French-Canadian > Canadian imo

Not all Québecois are French Canadians and not all French Canadians are Québecois

Obv!

What about the 4 hockey players I specifically named in my post though? Weren't they all born in the province of Québec and have french ancestors? Therefore, in my humble opinion, a news anchor should call them Québécois > French Canadian > Canadian

I'm actually "ok" with those references because they aren't based on race at all, simply your native tongue. I'd still call them Canadian, but being more specific by saying French-Canadian isn't offensive I don't think.

Daniel "the thinker" Negreanu.


When we start asking about Negreanu's approval on this type of issues is what it tell us how bad we r actually. Let's discuss poker with Daniel not this type of controverted stuff, it's kinda ridiculous. It's like discussing about economy with a lawyer. Cmon. He is a poker player, not an intellectual man.

Better to discuss it with a lawer then turn the entire economy over to one...

We are happy to discuss any subject with Daniel including politics here. You don't have to if you don't want to but we aren't particularly interested in what you deem appropriate to discuss with Daniel or anyone else for that matter. Most of us consider Daniel to an interesting person outside of his career as a poker player.

dude u can discuss whatever u want with whoever u want. Im just saying some guys that admire Negreanu from his off table activities think that because of that he's got some kind of superior perspective on some issues. I dont agree with that, but still I dont think he is a bad person or with an inferior intelligence. But I think it's better specially for the young men that we pay more attention to other people opinion, could be any scientist, economist, or anybody with a remarkable past. I and many people would pay much more attention if some recognized man for really admirable activities says his opinion on a controverted stuff than a poker player, and im not trying to be mean at all. But if we start admiring poker players and giving extra importance to what they say I strongly believe we r going the wrong direction.

And let me tell you there is no poker player I like most than Daniel Negreanu. I learned a lot from his advises and poker lessons, I totally agree with the flat payout structure and the shootout tournament system for the Main Event, two great ideas I absolutely share. But im not asking Negreanu what he thinks about the financial crisis or about the US politic relation with south american countries, cus it has no sense!

thats all folks im not replying anything else. I've said what I wanted to say.

First take a look at my avatar. I'm NOT a dude! Next I'd say you don't discuss much with anybody then if the only people you want to discuss politics and business with are experts. And third, taking a look at where the so-called economic experts have gotten us, I'd rather hear from people other than experts. You are welcome to disregard non-poker topics in Daniel's Blog. We only choose to discuss politics here because we don't have a political forum on here.
I don't consider anyone on here including Daniel to have superior knowledge on the subjects outside poker that we discuss. It's JUST a discussion with many points of view. I will say that it's probably the most intelligent political forum I've ever found. The people on here have taught me a lot and even changed some of my views on government and the economy.
Try participating if you wish but be aware that you might even find some of your cherished beliefs challenged and even changed as a result.

indeed...

Pics or it didn't happen.

Lol I'm an old lady grandma and don't possess any pics worth looking at.

Even if you were into fat granny porn you wouldn't get any from me. Pity my poor husband though.

i think this ******* should be banned and sent back to Quebec. His name is extremely offensive and racist.

DN, while I appreciate that you opine on these issues where most in your shoes would consider it taboo, I think in this instance if you'd considered what you were writing for a few extra minutes you'd perhaps not have posted this.

The obvious, glaring difference between these groups you mention is that the ancestors of black people in this country were brought here against their will, in unspeakably awful conditions, with a lifetime of slavery awaiting upon their arrival here. These aren't people who came over on the Mayflower or people who were fleeing religious persecution or people who were seeking economic opportunity. These people were treated as subhumans, separated from their families, tortured, and then worked literally to death. I, for one, can understand why their modern descendents feel they can label themselves with a hypenated word which indicates that their progenitors were effectively forced to become 'American' at gunpoint. But you know, maybe that's just me...

if calling somebody canadian doesn't pass for offensive anymore then i just don't know what does.

Slaves were also brought to England against their will in the same time period you are talking about here. They also suffered the same horrible conditons you have described in your post and were also worked to death. So why is it that the English "modern decendants" of these slaves don't call themeselves "African-Englishmen"? It just seems strange does it not?

Having said that, I dont necasrily agree with DN. I disagree with his statement "I'm actually "ok" with those references because they aren't based on race at all, simply your native tongue". The refrences are not based on race or native tounge imo, they are based on where your ancestors came from. African-American people are the decesndants of people who were slaves in America brought from Africa. That does not necasarily mean they are black, but because esentially all these ancesotors were black, it has in effect become a racial term which really, if you think about it, it is not. It is in fact a term that was meant to refrence American people who's ancestors came from Africa, (most but not all of whom are black). The same thing happend here in New Zealand when the land was colonised by forein settlers in the 19th century. The native Maori refered to these invaders as Pakeha which essentially means: "non Maori". But over time this term started being used only when refering to white Europeans, because most of the settlers were in fact European. But the word Pakeha can refers to anybody who is not a maori, not just Europeans. "French-Candadian" people are people who's ancestors came from were French and came to settle in Canada. It has nothing to do with their native tounge or their race and the same can be said for any other refrence like this. These are just terms that have been confused and misinterpreted over time.

IMHO.

Is any1 gonna reply to this or am i completely right?

First of all, I just learned a bunch about New Zealand and the Maori. Thank you.

To your point about English slavery and the perception of black people in England vs. America.

First of all, there are hyphenated terms for British subjects. I believe Anglo-Indian is a term used for British people originally from India. I think there's even a term for "Anglo-African" but these are far less used. In the U.S., "African-American" is actually out of fashion for the exact reason you gave. "Black" is the prevailing term.

But your point is still relevant. Why is there a difference between referencing someone's race and their cultural heritage, don't they both have to do with where you're from?

First of all, the big reason that there isn't the same distinction between the races in England is that British slavery was never as prevalent as American slavery (or slavery in other colonial countries) because there wasn't the same amount of land that needed to be cultivated. England was pretty well taken care of in terms of having people to work the land by the time that black slavery started. This is the case in all European countries. There wasn't any excess land, so they didn't need huge populations of slaves to work it. Additionally, when they were asked to give up slavery, they weren't going to suffer any economic hardship because slaves weren't central to their economy, so they didn't experience a backlash (like the Civil War).

In the American South, slavery was essential to the economy, so they had enormous populations of slaves, which were very difficult to give up. The monetary value of slaves in the south at the time of the Civil War was greater than any other "commodity" in the country, and that includes real estate. As a result, there was a huge issue with slavery. People understood it was unethical, but they couldn't afford to give it up. So Americans (Northerners and Southernors alike) found ways of making blacks different enough that they could excuse slavery. For that reason, a racial distinction still exists in ways that are more obvious than other countries. And more loaded with meaning.

Because the history of black slavery is loaded with so much baggage, there is a difference between indicating someone's race, especially if someone's black, and indicating their cultural heritage (which has more to do with language, country of origin, etc.) that has a lot less tied into it, even for the Quebecois.

So DN's right that referencing factors that are connected with things like language, cultural origins, etc. don't have the same significance and weight as race. Although, I don't think this means we shouldn't reference someone in terms of their race. It's still a relevant context to consider when framing someone's accomplishments.

Or at least that's how I think about it. But I'm not an expert.

I don't know if that answered the question.