Racism and Sexism at Baker Botts?
Hmm, not sure that we agree; it may be something of an overstatement. But that's the allegation made in this posting from last week over at Infirmation / Greedy Texas:
Sexism and Racism synonomous [sic] with Baker Botts
The weekend before last was the annual "Baker Weekend" where summers get to listen to several speeches, etc. about BB and it's [sic] inner-workings. [Former Secretary of State James] Baker says in his speech that this is an "unusual" election year because we have "a Black" running for president and he went on to refer to Obama [as] "a Black" at least three more times.
After that, a woman got up to ask a question and he attempted to brush her off, thinking that she was merely a member of attorney recruitment and not an associate. When Secretary Baker finally realized that the woman was in fact a summer associate with a question, he remarked "Oh, now I see why Hillary Clinton lost."
Anyone surprised? Of course, a partner has apologized to all African-American and female summer associates but why has Secretary Baker not been the one to apologize?
Personally we prefer the term "African-American." But is using the term "black," while perhaps old-fashioned, really that offensive? People refer to Barack Obama all the time as the first black presidential nominee of a major political party. E.g., the New York Times (referring to Senator Obama as the "first black candidate to lead a major party ticket "). Is that problematic?
Does the addition of the indefinite article and use of the word as a noun rather than an adjective -- i.e., "a black" vs. "black" -- make such a big difference? One can think of other examples: "he's an Asian" vs. "he's Asian," "he's a gay" vs. "he's gay," "he's a Jew" vs. "he's Jewish," "he's an Italian" vs. "he's Italian," etc. The latter may sound better in each of the foregoing cases, but is the former actually offensive?
As for the Hillary quip, sure, it might have been somewhat un-PC / rude. But we're talking about Jim Baker here. We've all seen Recount, right? Great performance by Tom Wilkinson, by the way.
We contacted Baker Botts for comment. They haven't gotten back to us as of the time of this posting.
Some other posters' reactions to the original item, plus a reader poll, after the jump.
We tend to agree with some of the posters who had a "no big deal" reaction to this item. Here's one:
Jim Baker didn't apologize because ... he's Jim Freakin' Baker.He's got sheiks and presidents on his cell phone's speed dial--and they return his calls. He's the current familial representative of his family's firm, BAKER Botts. He's the former Secretary of State AND Secretary of the Treasury. He's a former WH Chief of Staff, and ran the campaign of the man (Reagan) who won in the greatest Presidential landslide of all time (Mondale only won his home state of Minnesota--and that he only won by 3,800 votes).
So yeah, he's not going to apologize to some whiny budding SA who's greatest professional accomplishment is clerking for a firm they now deride as "laughable."
And here's another:
If 40-something attorneys were staying things like that, I'd be concerned. An old fart like Jim Baker didn't apologize because:1) In his mind he said nothing wrong. In fact, he'd be confused if you even suggested to him that what he said was wrong.
2) To the extent he may have had some awareness that what he said could be considered a little controversial, be advised - Jim Baker doesn't give a f*ck what his associates think. As far as he is concerned, he can talk to you however he pleases. He owns you.
What do you think? Take our poll:
Sexism and Racism synonomous with Baker Botts [Infirmation / Greedy Texas]
(224) Comments
TTT firm of the highest order.
does one expect any better from baker?!
Black is the preferred term because it distinguishes African-Americans that were in the United State before the 1960s from recent immigrants from Africa. At least, it is the preferred terminology in the South.
enjoy the knife wound after you call a Dominican an "african-american" by mistake. better stick with "black."
Eh...I would give the edge to Washington for greatest Presidential landslide(s) of all time.
there is a HUGE diff btw "Obama is a black man" and "Obama is a black".
I met a partner from this firm who thought he was hot shit. He kept bragging about all these small-time deals he'd done. It was hard enough to keep from laughing when he said he was named a "Texas Super Lawyer" (wtf?), but I could no longer silence my guffaws when he revealed that he was educated at "Texas Tech."
I see Loyola 2L got an offer!
if it weren't for jim baker, we wouldn't be saddled with the disaster that was bush v. gore.
as soon as shit in FL started to hit the fan, who'd W's dad call to clean it up? jim baker.
The correct term is 'Halfrican'.
I'm "a Black" and I've always been under the impression that its improper to refer to someone as "a Jew." I think focusing on if something is or should be "offensive" is somewhat misguided. I think what people should consider is "if it is NOT my intention to offend people, what term should I use?" It's not about whether or not people mean to offend, it's that they don't even seem to care if they do or not. If he cared, the maybe he would have chosen his words (including that Hillary remark) more carefully.
4:44(1) is exactly right. HUGE difference between "He's black" and "He's a black"...
Personally, I hate the term african-american. It is underinclusive and overinsclusive as a racial classification. For example, John Kerry's wife, born in South Africa, is African-American. But black people from England are definitely not African-American. That term is worthless.
"black" is acceptable; one needn't use "african-american," which can be cumbersome if used repeatedly.
but yes, there's a difference between "black" and "a black." can't really defend the distinction logically, but it just makes me cringe. maybe because the indefinite article makes it sound as if the speaker has just spotted some rare bird, as in, "Look, Ethel, I think I see me a yellow-bellied bananaquit."
4:48 - What about "she's a Catholic" or "she's a Muslim"?
Those sound ok to me.
Didn't CNN once describe black rioters in Paris as "African-American"? Classic.
"black" is acceptable; one needn't use "african-american," which can be cumbersome if used repeatedly.
but yes, there's a difference between "black" and "a black." can't really defend the distinction logically, but it just makes me cringe. maybe because the indefinite article makes it sound as if the speaker has just spotted some rare bird, as in, "Look, Ethel, I think I see me a yellow-bellied bananaquit."
As someone of Egyptian descent, I am offended that black people have commandeered our entire continent to describe only themselves.
Jim's a nazi wannabe. Why is this a suprise?
I think you know where Frat Stud stands on this.
4:53- I don't know if you intended that to be funny, but I laughed regardless for some reason.
repeatedly referring to obama as "a black" is also like repeatedly bringing up obama's middle name hussein.
in both cases what the speaker says may be true, but the speaker is trying to make a larger point: don't vote for this man because he is not like us.
regardless of how little jim baker's shit stinks, it's a lame comment to make.
I think the actual diff is whether you are using an adjective to describe a person - as in, "Obama is a black man." Or if you are using black as the definition of the person - as in "Obama is a black" - then it is offensive. Obama is not "a black." He is a person who happens to be black. Thus, "Obama is a black man" is acceptable; whereas "Obama is a black" is not.
jim baker called obama "a black"???
cue the fake indignation by the hyper sensitive liberal PC police and the ignorant retorts by the closet racists.
I agree "black" is generally considered offensive when used as a noun. But I think Baker qualifies for the grandpa's exception where you let some things slide that weren't offensive in his day but have become somewhat offensive, though not very offensive. I would put it in the same category as "Oriental".
"it's that they don't even seem to care if they do or not"
Yeah, the potential offensiveness of my words to the most thin-skinned among us is surely at the forefront of my mind 24/7. Really, that's just part of doing the right thing every moment.
The point the first commenter is missing that it doesn't matter who Jim Baker is. He can have all the accomplishments in the world, but when he makes mistakes, he needs to apologize.
Shouldn't "black" refer to those whose ancestors endured slavery and segregation in the United States? Obama's ancestors suffered through neither. He's also half white. I think he's more properly categorized as "Kenyan-Kansan."
African Amercian is not what you mean.
Technically, white kids born to american parents in zimbabwe are african american.
When americans use that term, they are inevitably referring to people who are black. That's like using irish american as a proxy for all pasty white red haired americans.
5:03--i think you are referring to "leprechauns"
"It doesn't matter who Jim Baker is; he can have all the accomplishments in the world, but when he makes mistakes, he needs to apologize."
Or fucking what?
I second the use of Kenyan-Kansan (or Kansan-Kenyan) for Obama. We know enough about his background not to place him in an overly general category. Plus, unlike Kenyan-American, Kenyan-Kansan gives some indication that he's not simply a Kenyan immigrant in America, but someone who is truly "half American."
Obama's not black, he's muslim.
But seriously, for all those people who have a problem with the use of the phrase "a black," does the use of the plural suddenly make it OK?
That is, are you still offended when you hear that "blacks favored Obama over Clinton by 25% in yesterday's primary" or "Blacks are 3 times less likely to be approved for mortgages."
Wait, wait, don't use logic when it comes to purely subjective notions of "offense"!!!! Offense is in the eye of the beholder.
:-P
5:03 means gingers.
I think its time we referred to Jim as an Obomination American, just to be PC.
4:50 - yes that cnn thing was hilarious
Calling someone "a black" is clearly offensive. That's ridiculous. Its one thing if you say we have "a black man," or "a black woman" running for president. Its a whole other thing to say just "a black." The only explanation I have is that it gives the listener the sense that you are referring to someone as something other than a human being. Like all they are is an adjective that describes them. Similar to if you called someone "a gay."
5:10--the test for if someone is gay or not is found here:
http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/G/gayometer/gayometer.html
The plural thing made me go "hmm."
5:07 makes a good point. Why is it OK in the plural but not the singular?
*yawn* everyone knows how racist and sexist Baker Botts is. I have two friends who summered there and provided endless stories of how many sexist and racist comments the partners made, not to mention the outright sexual harassment going on there.
If it wasn't a law firm, my friends would sue, and would probably win. definition of a hostile workplace if you heard what they said. Unfortunately, no SA in their right mind would sue their firm b/c you'd kill your career before it even started.
in other news... the earth revolves around the sun. way to go on the cutting-edge reporting Lat!
Newspaper headlines mislead clueless old-timers by frequently using black as a noun, e.g, Obesity Among Blacks Soars, Blacks Receive Less Screening for Disease-of-the-Month, Blacks Overwhelming Support Obama, etc.
Since when is "Oriental" offensive!?
Only *people* are generally Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Asian, even Italian. Many things are black, however, of these, many things that are black are deemed negative.
Because of this tension (and the fact that US law considered black people "things" for 400 years) the considerate thing to do is to make that distinction in reference to black people as "black people." Note: "people" can be replaced by a term reserved for reference to people -- i.e. "candidate," "athlete," "professor," "plumber," etc.
You can certainly call black people "blacks" or a black person "a black;" but consider why this comment sounds so awkward when replaced with the groups above ... or the word "white."
Also know, that when you call a black person "a black" you create a significant marker regarding your class, education, and sophistication. The same people I know who call black people "blacks" call
*Asians "Orientals" (or just "Chinese"),
*all middle-easterners "Arabs,"
*Jewish people "Jews" (pronounced "Jooz")
*all of Central/South American decent "Mexicans,"
*themselves "poor."
While not overtly offensive, Mr. Baker's language calls into question his ability to spot social trends most obvious. If he does not apologize, he confirms this fact.
Overwhelmingly, my bad.
I'm the one who posted at 5:07. I forgot to add that this is one of the reasons so many people have such visceral reactions to claims of "offensiveness". Because it is (to borrow some admin lingo) arbitrary and capricious.
I've had this discussion with blacks in the past, and basically argued that the ground is continually shifting. Some terms become acceptable to use (and even minority groups will embrace it) but over time, in order to keep the issue at the forefront of people's minds, the term becomes dated and somehow connotes offensiveness. Black is a good example. Somehow it's become offensive to use? It makes people want to put in NO effort to think about what they're saying if groups will continually move the goalposts.
i hear that blacks don't like the word "colored".
but then i thought, why isn't the NAACP the NAAAAP? or the NAABP?
5:10(2)- no it isn't, unless you're offended by the following sentence:
"The Democratic nominee for president will either be 'a' woman or 'an' african-american."
Now substitute "black" for "african-american." No big deal.
I'm Black and I prefer to be called Black. While I don't take offense to being called African-American, I find the term rather annoying. So, I don't see anything wrong with Baker referring to Obama as "a Black."
However, I do think the quip about Hillary Clinton was sexist.
I agree with the distinction between "a black person" and "a black."
I noticed this recently when playing the original 1984 edition of Trivial Pursuit. Several of the cards used the term "black" as a noun. For example, "Who was the first black to win an Oscar?"
It struck me as odd at the time, bu this phrasing may not have been so offensive 25 years ago.
Lat doesn't understand why it's offensive because he's A chubby, insensitive, self-hating gay.
Guys at my high school used to say inappropriate things and behave badly at functions organized by Texas TTT firms all the time. It was no big deal.
Ugh . . . student loan rates are spiraling out of control, the economy is falling, and gas prices are rising.
Respond to 5:07's point regarding plural usage being OK, cowards!!
obviously it's deeply offensive to refer to anyone as "a black." i assume it's because that's what racists switched to when "colored" and "n***er" were no longer acceptable.
linguistic comparisons to other groups are simply not relevant since it's a question of the likely subjective meaning of the speaker.
Jim Baker once drank a keg of LSD. He woke up three months later and replied that he prefered gin. He can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
5:17(3) Exactly. And why is it OK for minorities to call themselves "People of Color" but not OK to be called colored people? I understand that every person, whites included, are "colored," but then why call a group "people of color" if the term is objectionable?
the point here is not whether "black" on its own is offensive.
what is annoying or mildly offensive is if "black" is continually used in a way intended to highlight a characteristic that the speaker wants to disparage, without openly saying so.
5:27--5:17(3) here. Thanks.
If the NAACP is supposed to help "colored" people, how come you don't hear much about them helping hispanics, asians, native americans, etc.
as dan quayle once said "it's a terrible thing to lose one's mind"
"'It doesn't matter who Jim Baker is; he can have all the accomplishments in the world, but when he makes mistakes, he needs to apologize.'
Or fucking what?"
...ah yes. the "you only apologize if not apologizing will harm you in some way" school of thought.
stay classy, 5:06.
5:27 -- "People of Color" was never found on top of water fountains
5:17(3) -- the organization is almost 100 years old (and the first of its kind). the nomenclature is anachronistic to make that point.
My spellcheck says that I'm wearing African-American pants today
I summered at Baker Botts in Houston. This doesn't surprise me at all. There's a lot of great attorneys there and obviously most of them aren't racist or sexist, but I was stunned at the number of racist/sexist comments I heard while there. On the very first day of my summer stint, I was at a reception and an associate used the n-word as part of a joke. I also saw a male partner inappriopriately touch a female summer associate at a summer event.
Dude, chinaman is not the appropriate nomenclamenture..
Why is it OK for black comedians to make fun of white people by affecting a nasal voice, uptight attitude, and poor dance technique? I see that all the time, yet it's quite rare to see a white comedian speaking in ebonics and eschewing work and child-care responsibilities.
I am not sure why the black thing was such a big deal, particularly given Baker's age. The Hillary Clinton thing was much more offensive imo
5:23 is right.
5:35, it hasn't always been rare.
What about people whose last name is "Black." Is it ok to refer to a member of that family as "a Black"?
"A black" is not ok, "Black" is.
Why? Pretty simple in my mind. "A black" gives the impression an object, and item, an "it" as it were.
"Black" has a more personal, individual, human tone to it.
In short "A black" = a thing, "Black" = a person.
Has this even been substantiated? Or are we assuming this occurred based on a single post on Greedy Associates?
"A black" is not ok, "Black" is.
Why? Pretty simple in my mind. "A black" gives the impression of an object, an item, an "it" as it were.
"Black" has a more personal, individual, human tone to it.
In short "A black" = a thing, "Black" = a person.
5:32(1)--anachronistic? organizations and companies (even those with a great deal of goodwill/recognition attached to their names) change their names regularly to keep up with the times.
my point is, if blacks/AA don't like being called "colored" anymore, they should probably try and change the name of an organization that represents their interests
When has anyone ever used "a black" to refer to a thing? Please provide an example.
The assertion that US law considered anything for 400 years is laughable. STFU.
5:41 yes and stop calling themselves people of color. Can't monopolize words for one race to use alone.
Sounds like someone isn't getting an offer.
5:45--or at least expand the group of people they seek to assist to include non-blacks/AAs
Everyone needs to chill and watch this video:
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=11906
Chappelle is awesome
Saying "a black" makes you think of "an object, an item"? Why? What objects and items do people refer to as "a black"? I've never heard such a usage.
I don't think "blacks" or "whites" is okay either. We are not our races. We are people who are black or white.
5:41
"my point is, if blacks...."
yup.
"While not overtly offensive, Mr. Baker's language calls into question his ability to spot social trends most obvious. If he does not apologize, he confirms this fact."
Yeah, it couldn't possibly call into question his interest in conforming to some asinine social trend, despite his having spotted it.
ehhh, who cares. soon enough there will be so many interracial relationships that we'll all look like Filipinos anyways. It wont matter what you call people.
This is the dumbest string of posts I've seen in awhile. I used to work in Houston. Is it really surprising that people are closet (or open) racists. To be honest, black folks were just as bad to whites when I lived there.
I have a better idea. Why don't black or african american or whatever they want to be called stop whining. It is getting old. Blacks are rather quick to crucify whites for racism, when blacks openly do the same things.
Get over it.
I think the term "black" is arguably preferable, as African American fails to distinguish between people who come from other places in the world, such as the carribean. Having worked in politics in black neighborhoods, I can tell you that unfortunately there is a great divide between communities who are recent carribean immigrants and the people who would typically be considered African American. These groups, such as Haitians, Jamacians, do not like being called "African American" as it does not accurately capture their background at all, as they are not African, nor American necessarily, but they are black.
However, I do think the term "a black" is probably offensive. As a jewish person myself, I know I dislike the term "jew." And I know that for my it is partially due ot the Nazi's use of the term during WWII as a derogative, I think that is still largely true of the use in general. Although, his comment about HIllary Clinton was undeniably off-color and in poor taste.
"A fag" vs. "faggy." Discuss.
5:35 obviously a racist
the term "a black" is racist. it's a complex issue that people with limited multicultural experience would find hard to comprehend and probably label as another piece of evidence of the ever increasing pc country we live in. but Jim's an old fart and just like he probably doesn't understand the hoopla over going green he wouldn't understand pc topics either. the sexist thing is pretty blatant. but again he's old and stubborn. he won't apologize unless they twist his arm. let the old man be!
5:42/5:49 -- The point isn't that you refer to things as "a black," but that you refer to things as "a ____," like "a chair" or "a tree."
5:35 obviously a racist
the term "a black" is racist. it's a complex issue that people with limited multicultural experience would find hard to comprehend and probably label as another piece of evidence of the ever increasing pc country we live in. but Jim's an old fart and just like he probably doesn't understand the hoopla over going green he wouldn't understand pc topics either. the sexist thing is pretty blatant. but again he's old and stubborn. he won't apologize unless they twist his arm. let the old man be!
5:35 obviously a racist
the term "a black" is racist. it's a complex issue that people with limited multicultural experience would find hard to comprehend and probably label as another piece of evidence of the ever increasing pc country we live in. but Jim's an old fart and just like he probably doesn't understand the hoopla over going green he doesn't understand pc topics either. the HC comment is blatantly sexist. but again he's old and stubborn. he won't apologize unless they twist his arm. let the old man be!
I was there for Baker's comments. I think my outrage came from two places: my upbringing in the South and Secretary Baker's career.
In terms of my upbringing, I have experienced certain things that I find offensive that others may view as "not a big deal" and a lot of that has to do with context. For instance, if a white guy calls another white guy "boy" it isn't a big deal. Change the situation to a white guy calling a black guy "boy", the situation is entirely different. That difference is due to the history behind the word and the subsequent implications. (For those who don't know, just trust me on this. Don't call a black guy "boy". Not cool.)As stated before, being called "a black" is demeaning in my opinion becuase it limits me to one aspect of my overall persona and in some ways reminds me some of the bigoted viewpoints people may have towards me. While "African-American" does the same to a certain extent, there isn't a negative connotation to that word. A lot of this came from my upbringing in the South, and may not be true for everyone.
My other point is that Mr. Baker should know better. I heard people at the firm sing his praises as an accomplished statesman who has been around the world. He should be held to a higher standard because of it. I'm not suprised he did not apologize, however.
Again, I do not speak for all people, only myself. Mr. Baker ruined what was otherwise an enjoyable weekend.
Remeber the episode of Will & Grace where Jack thought he was black because his father was a "black boy," but then it turned out it was really just one of the "Back boys."
Leave it to the gays!
5:35 obviously a racist
the term "a black" is racist. it's a complex issue that people with limited multicultural experience would find hard to comprehend and probably label as another piece of evidence of the ever increasing pc country we live in. but Jim's an old fart and just like he probably doesn't understand the hoopla over going green he doesn't understand pc topics either. the HC comment is blatantly sexist. but again he's old and stubborn. he won't apologize unless they twist his arm. let the old man be!
"Always bet on black"
-W. Snipes
don't tell me something i do is wrong!
I've got a white "African American" in my office. He's from South Africa.
5:40(1)/(3) I pray for your clients' sake you're not a litigator.
I was a research assistant for a critical race theorist who explained that the proper term is "black," not "african american." As that professor would be the one to lambast anyone for their unconscious racism, I'm going with "black."
But 5:58, you also refer to people as "a _______," like "a lawyer" or "a racist."
Sirs, what is the proper manner in which to describe a gentleman from the Orient?
My dad calls them colored. As he reminds me, its the NAA*C*P, not the NAA*AA*P. Moreover, when I was booklearning in school, the PC Police taught us to call them black. African American was invesnted in the early 1990s I think. Next we'll have to call them some other made up name. We're always "white" though, even though I am not "white". "White", to me, is the color of marshmallows or aspirin, not of human skin.
6:08 - Asian.
6:08: Oriental = goods or things from that part of the world. Asian = people.
In the Soviet Union, it was acceptable to say "chernokozhiy," but not "chernomaziy," and if you said "chernozhopiy," you had better been talking about Chechens.
Those crazy Soviets...
6:09 -- source?
"Sirs, what is the proper manner in which to describe a gentleman from the Orient?"
Definitely not an Oriental. Asian is the current politically fashionable term. Indians are now asians as well, no longer Indians or "sub-Asians". This occurred when they couldn't get enough Indians or Asians to form a larger Indian or Asian sociaety so they teamed up for the forces of good.
I thought law firms were supposed to be racist and sexist? Thats what the taught me at UVA anyway.
Point of clarification: The reported events leading up to the HC comment were not what I saw. He didn't stop her mid question or anything, he just didn't see her until people pointed her out to him. I'm not sure how the reporter figured out that Baker thought she was not an associate because I did not pick up on that.
6:11, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental
Here's a novel idea: let's just call each other "people"
Personally, I'm fond of "that dude." If necessary, I'll expound: "the tall dude," "the black dude."
Yes, I'll call a woman dude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental
Holy shit people, I was clearly trolling. I am aware of what is and what is not the preferred nomenclature, dudes...
6:08
5:35 - Post of the Year!! Well done, Well Done!
6:07 -- True, I was primarily trying to explain why the comments at 5:42 and 5:49 were idiotic.
There is a distinction, however, between your examples and the phrase "a black." In the examples you give, the context is usually such that the speaker means to define the person by their occupation or other characteristic. Given the context, thsi is usually okay.
But the point is that society doesn't generally believe, or maybe certain people want to believe, that there is no context in which it is okay to define someone by their race.
Minorities are usually funny looking and often smell a little.
Is there anything that blacks DON'T see as racist? Frankly, if one truly understood the history of this country, blacks should hate only those whites who caused the enslavement of their ancestors. Those include other blacks in Western and Central Africa and numerous European countries, such as France, England, Spain, Portugal and Holland who, today, scold us for our treatment of blacks. Those funny Europeans.
There should be a website, maintained by the government or by Al Sharpton, that lists the current acceptable word for dark-skinned people whose ancestors came from Africa.
And Al Sharpton or the government should send out a notice when the word changes.
Because people who aren't up-to-speed on the latest trends in racial nomenclature tend to be labeled as racists...
6:12, I thought the term was "South Asians," not "sub-Asians." Perhaps there should be a website for that, as well, maintained by either the government or by that guy who went to White Castle and Guantanamo with Harold
6:00, If a few comments from Baker ruined your whole weekend, you have some issues.
with regard to black vs. african-american that he prefers black because if he went to africa, he wouldn't be an african-american but rather "a black american in africa taking up space"
Suggestion to everyone vying to be the most outraged and righteously indignant over use of the term "black:" Shut up. Seriously. Do you need to grasp at straws this hard to support your 1960's worldview of mean old whitey keeping the black man down?
Why is everyone so quick to cave to this PC extortion crap? Oh, you're offended that I'm not jumping through linguistic hoops to conform to your arbitrary standard of propriety? Too bad. Get thicker skin or stay in your enclave of leftist fantasy in academia.
Don't waltz into an environment where people are trying to be productive and expect them to waste effort, time, or resources in kowtowing to your stupid ideas. There are real, actual problems that need attention before it's wasted on this paper tiger nomenclature nonsense.
6:19: Perhaps I confused "sub-continent" with "sub-asian". I am not Indian but I have slept with two Indian chicks and own Indian porn. Does that qualify?
6:16 -- I'm not sure what you mean by "defining" people. When someone refers to someone else as a lawyer, they typically do not "mean to define the person" as a lawyer. Typically, they are simply trying to identify the person as someone who practices law. Likewise, when Baker refers to Obama as "a black," perhaps he is simply identifying Obama as someone who is black.
6:24: you're ignoring things like "unconscious racism" and other PC idiocies that 6:16 buys into unquestioningly.
And by the way. i think its racist that porno producers are allowed to peddle their filth in racially denominated segments, such as "Me So Horny", "Littlest Asians" or, "Girls of the Taj Mahal" or "Black Chicks with White Dicks". I think the ACLU should set up a class action against the like sof Vivid, Adam and Eve, Anabolic, Penthouse and other smut peddlers. I mean, smut is one thing, but racism is something else entirely.
People who don't think that blackfricanientals is a proper way to refer to people are obviously not Cravath material.
As an Asian person, I always thought the term "Oriental" being offensive was stupid. Why can't a word that can describe objects also describe persons using the exact same meaning? It's like saying that it's ok to say "European chairs" but not "Europeans."
Furthermore, the term is only offensive in areas of US influence (see, e.g., School of Oriental Studies).
And the fact that the term is Eurocentric is irrelevant since people seem to have no problems with terms like "Westerner" or "Middle Eastern."
Cravath loves blackiental lesbians.