I'm tired of talking just politics,...

[Yonivore]

…let’s talk racial politics.

In the “Yo’ Teabaggers” thread Shastafarian posted this comment:


Yeah I mean playing "Barack The Magic Negro" on air wasn't even the least bit racist.
As a matter of fact, it wasn’t…not in the least. If you knew the story behind that parody, that the term “Magic Negro” was first coined by a liberal newspaper, you would know this. But, your post raises an interesting topic for discussion which is why I’ve started a new thread based on this; the left’s ever morphing, and unpredictable sense of racial indignation.

What I would like to know is, when did “negro” become pejorative? And, if it is, why is there a United Negro College Fund? Why is “negro” not considered an insult in that context? Also, when was the memo issued to stop using “negro” and start using “colored?” Is there some movement, of which I’m unaware, to force anthropologists to quit using the term “negroid” when referring to physical features normally associated with persons of Sub-Saharan African descent? I’m not offended by the use of the term “Caucasian” when referring to my physical features…indicative of European or North African descent.

And yes, I know, “colored” eventually fell out of vogue, as well. When was that? Can you provide a copy of the memo, please? Because, again, no one bothered to tell the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Why is “colored” not offensive in that context?

I believe, in both cases, it goes back to the time-honored liberal concept of offense being solely defined by the offended – context be damned. And, in the case of African-Americans being called “negro” or “colored” or, in some cases “black,” a hyper-sensitivity to perfectly legitimate terms [widely used by their own cultural, racial, or ethnic groups] has resulted in much confusion over how one should refer to African-Americans. I’m reminded of that poor bean counter in Washington D.C. that was raked over the coals of national media embarrassment – damn near losing his job or worse [based on some of the threats he claimed to have received] – because he dared to use the term “niggardly,” [meaning stingy and completely unrelated to the term “######” or “negro” both in origin and etymology], while discussing fiscal matters before a group of managers, one of whom was African-American.

Christopher Hitchens once said, in an article titled, “The Pernicious Effects of Banning Words,” for Slate.com in December of 2006:

"It was while giving a speech in Washington, to a very international audience, about the British theft of the Elgin marbles from the Parthenon. I described the attitude of the current British authorities as 'niggardly.' Nobody said anything, but I privately resolved—having felt the word hanging in the air a bit—to say 'parsimonious' from then on."

While the term “black,” when referring to persons formally known as “colored,” and before that, “negro,” is, apparently, marginally acceptable – depending on the company in which you find yourself; the apparent term of choice, these days, is “African-American.” The application of which has been the source of much confusion for liberal applicators of liberal policies such as affirmative action. Why do we call dark-skinned immigrants from, say Haiti, African-Americans? And, why are we precluded from calling light-skinned immigrants from, say South Africa, African-Americans?

Frankly, I’d be satisfied with dropping racial labels altogether but, alas, liberal identity politics require the labels so liberal programs aimed at rectifying past wrongs, when we now find ourselves in an era of equitable laws, demands such racial identification. Unfortunately, as our nation has progressed beyond its racist past – and, no I’m not pretending racists no longer exist – the liberal left has found it necessary to perpetuate a sense of disparate treatment so they can prop up the mechanisms, born during the legitimate civil rights era of Martin Luther King, Jr. and before, because they don’t know what else to do. What would Al Sharpton do if suddenly he realized there are no racial barriers to achievement in America? Jesse Jackson? Racial politics is big business and a foundational pillar of Democrat ascendancy in the political landscape. I find that ironic since racism has, historically, been a liberal-left sin.

There’s probably a book out there somewhere, but I think it would make an interesting treatise for someone to explore just how the party of Robert “Sheets” Byrd was able to hoodwink a near unanimous racial sector of the population into voting for them time after time. A party that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A Party that countenanced, encouraged, and perpetuated Jim Crow and other horrible racial injustice. A Party, I believe, now takes that political coup for granted and does the African-American race no service by fomenting racial animosity in this country.

Thus, we’re subjected to persistent efforts to institute reparations for insults, the origins of which, can no longer be attributed any person now living in America. Reparations that would, in some cases, be awarded to persons whose ancestry was involved in perpetrating the offenses ostensibly being repaired. And, Reparations that, to a large extent, would benefit persons who can lay claim to neither side of the argument.

And, worse, reparations that punishes and harms people whom have already been harmed and injured by racial injustice in this country. Think of all the whites that stood up for racial equality through the centuries. Who fought a civil war, and shed their blood, for racial equality. Do they not have ancestors? Did they not start enterprises that have grown and will now be punished by the cost of what is being proposed? Frankly, it’s silly and any self-respecting person would be ashamed to support such a proposition but, of course, it’s racist to object.

For the love of Pete, an African-American has just achieved the pinnacle of power in America and still, they harp about racial discrimination. And harp they do! To the point that it is now racism to lodge legitimate criticism over his policies and manner of governance.

I honestly think Obama needs to hire a Moniker Czar whose sole responsibility is to issue the memoranda that let Americans know what they should be calling one another…in racial terms.

If there’s something I’m missing here, set me straight.

This is a completely serious thread but, nonetheless, I predict I will be tagged as a racist for even starting it – in less than 10 posts [and, that’s a conservative estimate], and probably by clambake.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I honestly think Obama needs to hire a Moniker Czar whose sole responsibility is to issue the memoranda that let Americans know what they should be calling one another…in racial terms.

your not serious and this turned into a political post. nice try.

[Yonivore]

Sorry, I just noticed the other "Rush is a racist" thread. Some of the commenters are right...

It was tongue-in-cheek; just as his firing over McNabb was motivated by his calling the press's undeserved adoration of McNabb racially motivated.

This attempt at stifling legitimate debate over racism in America is, itself, a form of invidious racism.

[Yonivore]

your not serious and this turned into a political post. nice try.
How else are we going to get safe direction on what the politically-correct term of the day is for the different races?

[clambake]

it's all about race?

don't say i haven't tried to help you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

How else are we going to get safe direction on what the politically-correct term of the day is for the different races?

You are the only one here caught up in the race issue.

[hater]

stop obsessing with race.

hopefully you will get over race at some point in your life.

[LnGrrrR]

Context is important, Yoni. Words can change meaning depending on the way they're uttered. For instance...

After a friend helps you with homework - "Boy, you're smart!"

After a friend makes an obvious, simply-corrected error on his homework - "Boy, you're smart!"

Does the word "smart" mean the same thing in both instances? Of course not.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.slate.com/id/2154854/

[LnGrrrR]

Also, no one's saying you can't use those words Yoni. You're obviously free to state them. You are merely complaining about changing standards in society, something similar to, "In my day we did X thing, and everyone thought it was fine!"

Heck, look at this forum. Nearly all the conservatives refuse to define themselves as "Republicans." Yet they are quick to sling the "liberal" or "Democrat" label on anyone disagreeing with a conservative/Republican standpoint.

[in2deep]

sad that some ppl still can't get over the fact Obama is black

[Yonivore]

Context is important, Yoni. Words can change meaning depending on the way they're uttered. For instance...

After a friend helps you with homework - "Boy, you're smart!"

After a friend makes an obvious, simply-corrected error on his homework - "Boy, you're smart!"

Does the word "smart" mean the same thing in both instances? Of course not.
Well, that’s partly my point and thanks for the analogy.

Is anyone suggesting the word “smart” be stricken from the English language? No. So, why should be words “negro,” “colored,” or “black” get tarred as racist simply because a racist inflection is offensive? Racism is racism is racism. Do you not believe a racist will find a way to express his racist sentiments without being allowed to use certain words or just because certain words fall out of favor with the racial identity crowd?

This notion that racism can be fixed by prohibiting certain words from being uttered is silly. Not only that, it is dangerous for people who have absolutely no racial motivation behind their use of them.

[Yonivore]

sad that some ppl still can't get over the fact Obama is black
I agree. Someone should tell that to Jimmy Carter.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I agree. Someone should tell that to Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter voted for Obama

[in2deep]

I agree. Someone should tell that to Jimmy Carter.

and Joe Wilson, and Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck, and Fox News, and half of the Republican party, and most ppl at the tea parties/town hall meetings.

[spursncowboys]

Also, no one's saying you can't use those words Yoni. You're obviously free to state them. You are merely complaining about changing standards in society, something similar to, "In my day we did X thing, and everyone thought it was fine!"

Heck, look at this forum. Nearly all the conservatives refuse to define themselves as "Republicans." Yet they are quick to sling the "liberal" or "Democrat" label on anyone disagreeing with a conservative/Republican standpoint.
Conservative and Republicans are completely different. Republicans have turned into liberal light. 40% of Americans consider themselves conservatives. A Conservative will be offended if you call him a Republican. However the us liberals try not to be called Liberal. My associates like Charlie Gibson, Wolf Blitzer, Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell, Chris Mathews, Brian Williams, etc. all say that we are not liberals. This is to sneek in with all our progressive ideas.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, that’s partly my point and thanks for the analogy.

Is anyone suggesting the word “smart” be stricken from the English language? No. So, why should be words “negro,” “colored,” or “black” get tarred as racist simply because a racist inflection is offensive? Racism is racism is racism. Do you not believe a racist will find a way to express his racist sentiments without being allowed to use certain words or just because certain words fall out of favor with the racial identity crowd?

This notion that racism can be fixed by prohibiting certain words from being uttered is silly. Not only that, it is dangerous for people who have absolutely no racial motivation behind their use of them.

There's a clear distinction you're missing. There's a difference between actually outlawing a word on one hand, and then simply rendering it impolite to say on the other.

No one is suggesting that racism will disappear if the word disappears. (Except maybe George Orwell heh.)

However, the point is in self-definition. If I was a black man, and I objected to being called the N-word, am I not within my right to say so?

Am I also not within my rights to choose how I define myself, and how others define me? Am I not within my rights to try to convince others to stop using words to define me that I do not like?

I am against OUTLAWING words as much as anyone. However, CULTURAL battles happen all the time. It's much like a war, where one side develops a weapon, and the other must find a counter for it. If a certain culture convinces the majority that a word is offensive, and can bring pressure to bear on others, they will. Then the other side will come up with a new term to insult them.

Linguistics is a fascinating field, and change happens. Look at slang. How many kids today use the term "fly" to refer to something good? How about "phat"? Or "the bomb"?

[LnGrrrR]

Conservative and Republicans are completely different. Republicans have turned into liberal light. 40% of Americans consider themselves conservatives. A Conservative will be offended if you call him a Republican. However the us liberals try not to be called Liberal. My associates like Charlie Gibson, Wolf Blitzer, Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell, Chris Mathews, Brian Williams, etc. all say that we are not liberals. This is to sneek in with all our progressive ideas.

Thank you for the perfect example of how words change. Nowadays, people run away from the 'liberal' label, because it has a negative connotation. Younger left-leaning people choose to use the term progressive in many cases because of it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Conservative and Republicans are completely different. Republicans have turned into liberal light. 40% of Americans consider themselves conservatives. A Conservative will be offended if you call him a Republican. However the us liberals try not to be called Liberal. My associates like Charlie Gibson, Wolf Blitzer, Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell, Chris Mathews, Brian Williams, etc. all say that we are not liberals. This is to sneek in with all our progressive ideas.



Main Entry: 2liberal

Function: noun

Date: 1820

: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

Count me in as a liberal..

[Marcus Bryant]

Thank you for the perfect example of how words change. Nowadays, people run away from the 'liberal' label

Not if you're a classical liberal.

[johnsmith]

Count me in as a liberal..

Yeah, we know.

[Yonivore]

Also, no one's saying you can't use those words Yoni.
The hell they aren’t. Implying I’m racist simply for using a word – perfectly acceptable in the ethnic group being described – is worse than telling me I can’t use it. It’s harmful.


You're obviously free to state them. You are merely complaining about changing standards in society, something similar to, "In my day we did X thing, and everyone thought it was fine!"
I don’t think that’s true, LnGrrrR.

African-Americans still use the words “black,” “colored,” and “negro” in contemporary contexts – including in the name of venerated organizations – and without any admonition from society or their own culture.

This is not a matter of my complaining that I can’t refer to African-Americans in the terms used “in my day.” This is a matter of witnessing societal acceptance of certain terms shift for one racial group but not for another. It’s a matter of being on the receiving end of racial animosity when these references change [for some but, not others in a particular racial group] and I’m caught unaware. The transition between “negro” and “colored” wasn’t overnight – it took years – yet, those who chose to make the change felt justified in haranguing me over my use of the term when I was totally unaware of the shift. It also led to confusion when, later, I would encounter African-Americans who continued to refer to their race as “negro,” and would rib me over my “social conformity.”

Same phenomenon when the shift was made from “colored” to “black” and, I am experiencing some of that in the company of African-Americans that now want to be called “African-Americans” instead of “black.” I mean, where does it end? This constant off-balance relationship between races, over labels, is – I believe – a large reason racial division persists. It’s not because I’m a racist. It’s because I’m sick and tired of constantly being told I’m a racist because I’m not up on the “cultural acceptability” of certain terms.



Heck, look at this forum. Nearly all the conservatives refuse to define themselves as "Republicans." Yet they are quick to sling the "liberal" or "Democrat" label on anyone disagreeing with a conservative/Republican standpoint.

Sorry, your analogy doesn’t translate in this context.

[Yonivore]

There's a clear distinction you're missing. There's a difference between actually outlawing a word on one hand, and then simply rendering it impolite to say on the other.

No one is suggesting that racism will disappear if the word disappears. (Except maybe George Orwell heh.)

However, the point is in self-definition. If I was a black man, and I objected to being called the N-word, am I not within my right to say so?

Am I also not within my rights to choose how I define myself, and how others define me? Am I not within my rights to try to convince others to stop using words to define me that I do not like?
Absolutely. It’s just unreasonable to expect everyone to implicitly know that. Particularly when not everyone of your race is offended. And, it’s bigoted to use that unfamiliarity with your personal preference as a pretense to label others racist.


I am against OUTLAWING words as much as anyone. However, CULTURAL battles happen all the time. It's much like a war, where one side develops a weapon, and the other must find a counter for it. If a certain culture convinces the majority that a word is offensive, and can bring pressure to bear on others, they will. Then the other side will come up with a new term to insult them.
Kracker doesn’t seem to have been forced from usage.

My point being, your premise only actually works from some cultures…the two most prominent being African-American and Hispanic.


Linguistics is a fascinating field, and change happens. Look at slang. How many kids today use the term "fly" to refer to something good? How about "phat"? Or "the bomb"?
I agree, unfortunately, some terms are so immediately attacked, the interesting aspects to linguistic use is lost. I’m back to my hypersensitivity argument.

African-Americans – certainly not all but, in large part – have a hair-trigger on such issues and rarely consider context or inflection before hurling the racist label at someone who, in many cases, meant absolutely no offense.

[Yonivore]

and Joe Wilson, and Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck, and Fox News, and half of the Republican party, and most ppl at the tea parties/town hall meetings.
None of whom interjected race in any of the issues over which they've discussed it.

They're just as sick as I am of being accused of being a racist simply because they object to something done by someone that happens to be African-American.

[Yonivore]

Jimmy Carter voted for Obama
So?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You are the only one here caught up in the race issue.

now that's comedy

[nkdlunch]

None of whom interjected race in any of the issues over which they've discussed it.

They're just as sick as I am of being accused of being a racist simply because they object to something done by someone that happens to be African-American.

:lmao at Limbaugh/Beck/Fox/tea partiers/town hallers not bringing up race

[Winehole23]

As a matter of fact, it wasn’t…not in the least. If you knew the story behind that parody, that the term “Magic Negro” was first coined by a liberal newspaper, you would know this.I'm assuming you mean this: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story

I find it odd that you assume the "liberal" coining of "magic negro" immunizes it from charges of racism. Of late, you have argued the opposite.

from the Wiki:


The magical negro is a recurring theme in Chinese literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_literature) from the Tang Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Dynasty) (618–907 AD).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro#cite_note-snow-8) Known as "Kun-lun" (崑崙, an ancient Chinese term that denoted all dark-skinned races), these African slaves were portrayed as having supernatural strength and the power to invade people's dreams to reveal great knowledge. One tale known as the Kun-lun slave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunlun_Nu) mentions a slave leaping over high walls while laden with the weight of two people in order to rescue his master's lover.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro#cite_note-9) Other tales mention them swimming to the bottom of raging rivers to retrieve heavenly treasures for their lord. The color of their skin was believed to be a medicinal balm that could be wiped off and used to cure a person's illness.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro#cite_note-snow-8)"numinous":

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_16_53/ai_76915717/

cf.: Leslie Fiedler's "Come back to the raft agin, Huck honey"

Papa Legba:

http://www.planetvoodoo.com/images/legba-kit1.jpg

At any rate, the stereotype predates the specific coinage, so arguing for the innocuousness of the neologism is moot and a bit misleading.


which is why I’ve started a new thread based on this; Yonivore's ever morphing, and unpredictable sense of racial indignation.Fify.


yet, those who chose to make the change felt justified in haranguing me over my use of the term when I was totally unaware of the shift. It also led to confusion when, later, I would encounter African-Americans who continued to refer to their race as “negro,” and would rib me over my “social conformity.”Oh, the agony.

Social proprieties changes over time. Adapt, or continue to be yourself: I don't care which you do, Yoni.

Nomenclature is a bitch. Sorry it troubles you so, Yoni. Bad conscience is a bitch too.


I’m reminded of that poor bean counter in Washington D.C. that was raked over the coals of national media embarrassment – damn near losing his job or worse – [B]because he dared to use the term “niggardly,” [meaning stingy and completely unrelated to the term “######” or “negro” both in origin and etymology], while discussing fiscal matters before a group of managers, one of whom was African-American.Hysterical hypersensitivity and ignorance are a bitch too. That was dumb, but the non-existence of any actual slur didn't make the outrage any less real.

Fake umbrage sucks, and you're a serial purveyor Yoni. Where do you get off telling other people off about it? The frequency of bogus outrage is about every other post for you.


Why do we call dark-skinned immigrants from, say Haiti, African-Americans? And, why are we precluded from calling light-skinned immigrants from, say South Africa, African-Americans?You are apparently far more attuned to the racial niceties than I. I wasn't aware any such restriction existed.


Thus, we’re subjected to persistent efforts to institute reparations for insults...True, but slightly misleading. Surely slavery was more than a racial slur, and no one has suggested to my knowledge that mere racial insults are amerceable offenses.


the origins of which, can no longer be attributed any person now living in America. Reparations that would, in some cases, be awarded to persons whose ancestry was involved in perpetrating the offenses ostensibly being repaired. And, Reparations that, to a large extent, would benefit persons who can lay claim to neither side of the argument.You're forgetting yourself. I think you mean that those who seek reparations are the true racists, and that they persecute and repress white people. They lay claim to the racist side of the argument, in your view, as you've stated many times.

You argue that whoever points the finger of accusation first is wrong, but you seem to forget that has been your primary role in this forum for months.


Think of all the whites that stood up for racial equality through the centuries. Who fought a civil war, and shed their blood, for racial equality.Boo hoo.


For the love of Pete, an African-American has just achieved the pinnacle of power in America and still, they harp about racial discrimination.They should shut up, and be content we finally elected a n*****r to be President. So ungrateful.


And harp they do! To the point that it is now racism to lodge legitimate criticism over his policies and manner of governance.
You seem to think that all racial beefs but yours are in bad faith. Funny.

It's like you want to own PC for yourself and regulate access to it.

I remember when conservatives scorned and opposed PC. Now they internalize it, invert the hierarchy of victims, and reimpose it in on the world.

[Yonivore]

:lmao at Limbaugh/Beck/Fox/tea partiers/town hallers not bringing up race
Okay, tell the forum an instance in which Limbaugh, Beck, Fox, Tea Partiers (and I notice and appreciate that you forewent the pejorative and vulgar term, “tea bagger”), and town hall attendees have first mentioned race – and, not in response to rhetoric from the left.

[LnGrrrR]

Not if you're a classical liberal.

Yes, but how many pundits/columnists/etc refer to themselves as classical liberals? I don't think you can deny that the term "liberal" has become a perjorative as much as a self-defined label.

[LnGrrrR]

The hell they aren’t. Implying I’m racist simply for using a word – perfectly acceptable in the ethnic group being described – is worse than telling me I can’t use it. It’s harmful.

Ohhh no it's HARMFUL! My goodness.

Are you still legally able to use the word? That's what matters. If you want to use the word, then use it. It's your choice to accept the consequences of the words you use.

Tell me Yoni, how would you 'fix' the problem?


African-Americans still use the words “black,” “colored,” and “negro” in contemporary contexts – including in the name of venerated organizations – and without any admonition from society or their own culture.

Because, for all intents and purposes, you're not part of the 'tribe', as it were.

Again, let me rephrase it. Have you ever called a loved one stupid? Does that automatically give me the right to call them stupid as well?

We are willing to accept things from friends, colleagues, etc etc that we would not accept from those outside that circle of trust. My friends and I occasionally make jokes about my wife's heritage; that doesn't mean it would be acceptable from an outsider. My friends know my wife, and I understand that the meaning behind their jokes is not threatening or harmful in any sense.

[LnGrrrR]

Kracker doesn’t seem to have been forced from usage.

My point being, your premise only actually works from some cultures…the two most prominent being African-American and Hispanic.

Hm... could it perhaps be related to the fact that hispanics and African-Americans have been on the lower rungs, economically and socially speaking?

What about Jewish people? Is "kike" an acceptable term now? How about "wop", "dago" or "mick"?

It's not about race. It's about status within society. And saying something like, "There's now a black president, why are they complaining?" is silly. Blacks just got the right to vote less than a half a century ago, correct? Do you think that you can overturn a social ladder structure that quickly? Of course not.


African-Americans – certainly not all but, in large part – have a hair-trigger on such issues and rarely consider context or inflection before hurling the racist label at someone who, in many cases, meant absolutely no offense.

I think you'll find that most people, who HONESTLY use those terms without intending insult, can explain themselves and their reasoning. And usually the offended party will forgive.

I had a black friend who said he didn't appreciate it when I sang along to lyrics that contained the N-word. I could have done one of two things:

1) say "ok" and respect his wishes
2) been a dick and say "I can say it if I want to, you have no right to make me not say that word!"

I chose option 1. Was he sensitive about it, perhaps too much so? I'd like to think so. And since it offended him, did it matter so much to me to fight for it? No.

[LnGrrrR]

I remember when conservatives scorned and opposed PC. Now they internalize it, invert the hierarchy of victims, and reimpose it in on the world.

They did the same with moral relativism. Remember that term?

[nkdlunch]

Okay, tell the forum an instance in which Limbaugh, Beck, Fox, Tea Partiers (and I notice and appreciate that you forewent the pejorative and vulgar term, “tea bagger”), and town hall attendees have first mentioned race – and, not in response to rhetoric from the left.

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/annapolis-tea-party-obama.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/59/20090419061545!File-Signs_of_Madison%27s_Tea_Party_%22Obama%27s_Plan_W hite_Slavery%22.jpg

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg

[Yonivore]

I'm assuming you mean this: [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story

I find it odd that you assume the "liberal" coining of "magic negro" immunizes it from charges of racism. Of late, you have argued the opposite.
I do no such thing. The whole point of my bringing up the “Magic Negro” reference – aside from Shastafarian’s erroneous referencing it as proof of Limbaugh’s racism – is to show how racists terms are treated differently, not dependent on context but, on who uses the term. And, in the political environment of today, no quarter is given to non-liberals who use any racially-charged term – no matter the context. On the obverse, no offense is taken – and usually explained away – when such is done by someone on the liberal left.

I don’t recall any backlash against the Los Angeles Times writer that used the term or, against the paper itself. Do you? And, Limbaugh was merely mocking this situational outrage. And, it’s proven in that Shastafarian condemns Rush while not recognizing – and similarly condemning – the target of Limbaugh’s satire. It doesn’t matter to the purveyors of racial instigation, it really only matters who you want to paint as a racist.

And, I never said the term “Magic Negro” was innocuous. Maybe you should have this conversation with the LATimes and its editorial page where the term was first attached to the current occupant of the White House.

And, your mocking of my discomfort over the ever-changing protocols of race doesn’t advance the debate. In fact, I have changed when “social priorities” changed. I’ve gone from “negro,” to “colored,” to “black,” to “African-American” just fine, thank you. And, I’ve never used the invidious term “######.” The point I was making is how unreasonable and unfair it was for it to be expected that I would automatically know and adjust and, when caught unaware of the changing “social priority” how unreasonable and unfair it was for me to be painted as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, a racist.


Hysterical hypersensitivity and ignorance are a bitch too. That was dumb, but the non-existence of any actual slur didn't make the outrage any less real.
Tell that to the accountant that damn near lost his livelihood over the use of the perfectly acceptable – and relevant –term “niggardly.” Also, tell that to the entire country that refused to point out how dumb and ignorant was the woman that lodged the complaint making an issue of his use of the word “niggardly.”
Did we hear anyone calling her out for being dumb and ignorant? No. What you heard was a cacophony of people who, at first were similarly dumb and ignorant of the term, calling for his head on a platter and, then, when it was pointed out the word “niggardly” had no relationship to the word “######,” refused to apologize but, instead, admonished him on his poor choice of words. In other words, he was supposed to know the African-American attendee would be too dumb and ignorant not to understand the word was not a reflection on her race.



Fake umbrage sucks, and you're a serial purveyor Yoni. Where do you get off telling other people off about it? The frequency of bogus outrage is about every other post for you.
My outrage isn’t fake and I have no bad conscience about my beliefs. So, you’re going to have to convince me of my “fake umbrage.” I am incensed the African-American community continues to allow the liberal left co-opt their outrage in order to advance a political agenda. Personally, I think the African-American community should be outraged that the “purveyors” of racial divisiveness have used them for nearly half a century in order to win political power.


You are apparently far more attuned to the racial niceties than I. I wasn't aware any such restriction existed.
I must be. Just try to be a white South African who tries to indicate their heritage by claiming to be African-American in any context. If you’re not outright called a liar, you’re interrogated or – sometimes – encouraged to change your response to white because, only black African-Americans are entitled to that term. Indeed, usage of that term isn’t even restricted to blacks of African descent.


True, but slightly misleading. Surely slavery was more than a racial slur, and no one has suggested to my knowledge that mere racial insults are amerceable offenses.
I should have used the term “offenses.” My use of “insult” was intended to encompass all racist offenses of the past. But, now that we’re on the topic. Are there not black African-Americans, now in this country, who are descended from black Africans that profited from the slave trade? How do we separate them from black African-Americans that are descended from slaves?

That is the silliness of the whole reparations argument. There is no intention of actually identifying individuals that may honestly lay claim to a legacy of slave-related offenses. No, Americans are just supposed to fork over money that will then be doled out to anyone with black skin. We should just shut the fuck up and take in the ass.

Well, I’m not going to.


You're forgetting yourself. I think you mean that those who seek reparations are the true racists, and that they persecute and repress white people. They lay claim to the racist side of the argument, in your view, as you've stated many times.

You argue that whomever points the finger of accusation first is wrong, but you seem to forget that has been your primary role in this forum for months.
You’re right, I do believe they’re racists. What else explain the over-simplified planned method of awarding reparations? Show me where the reparations movement has ever proposed to indentify particular individuals who were harmed by slavery and award them compensation. All I’ve ever read is how money will generally be taken from All of us (blacks included) and doled out generally, to African-Americans without regard to whether or not they’ve suffered from the sins of slavery.

And, I disagree that I’m the first to point an accusatory finger in this regard. I’ve only ever responded to comments in here I believed wrongly ascribed race to something I said or to something I believe isn’t racism…just as I’ve done here.


Boo Hoo.
That half this country was willing to fight and die to abolish the reprehensible practice of slavery isn’t a small matter. Nor is the proposition that reparations will be extracted from those whose ancestors have already shed their blood to advance the cause of freedom and equality for African-Americans. It’s an insult. Just as your mocking “boo hoo” is an insult.

Kiss my ass.


They should shut up, and be content we finally elected a n*****r. So ungrateful.
I wouldn’t put it that way, and quite frankly, what excuses your use of the word “######” in this context?

But, to your point; that this country elected an African-American president says a lot about how far we’ve come. But, even more to your point, that only 12% of Americans believe opposition to his policies are racially motivated, says even more. African-Americans are successful in every area of our culture. With some notable exception, most would tell you their success is because of the changing racial attitudes in this country – not in spite of them.


You seem to think that all racial beefs but yours are in bad faith. Funny.
Point to an instance in which it wasn’t in bad faith and I was critical. It only appears this way, to you, because this is a political forum in which the most glaring example of bad faith use of racism is perpetrated by the political left. Just like the most recent meme that Obama is opposed because he’s black.


It's like you want to own PC for yourself and regulate access to it.

I remember when conservatives scorned and opposed PC. Now they internalize it, invert the hierarchy of victims, and reimpose it in on the world.
I’m sorry, I’m missing your point here; I thought I was scorning political correctness.

[LnGrrrR]

That half this country was willing to fight and die to abolish the reprehensible practice of slavery isn’t a small matter. Nor is the proposition that reparations will be extracted from those whose ancestors have already shed their blood to advance the cause of freedom and equality for African-Americans. It’s an insult. Just as your mocking “boo hoo” is an insult.


To imply that the Civil War was only about slavery is to make a wrong inference. It was about many things ultimately, but it was not started over slavery. State's rights over federal rights, manufacturing and other issues led to the Civil War.

Overall Yoni, it's not quite 'fair' that social mores change. But you and I both know there's no way to 'fix' that, so this post is nothing but complaining about not being able to keep up with the correct terminology.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, but how many pundits/columnists/etc refer to themselves as classical liberals? I don't think you can deny that the term "liberal" has become a perjorative as much as a self-defined label.

Most media personalities subscribe to the same ideology: themselves.

[Winehole23]

I do no such thing. You do.



And, I never said the term “Magic Negro” was innocuous. You did.


The point I was making is how unreasonable and unfair it was for it to be expected that I would automatically know and adjust and, when caught unaware of the changing “social priority” how unreasonable and unfair it was for me to be painted as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, a racist.You are insensitive. And obsessed with race.


My outrage isn’t fake and I have no bad conscience about my beliefs. So, you’re going to have to convince me of my “fake umbrage.” I am incensedthe African-American community continues to allow the liberal left co-opt their outrage in order to advance a political agenda. Just as you do. Birds of a feather.


I should have used the term “offenses.” My use of “insult” was intended to encompass all racist offenses of the past. But, now that we’re on the topic. Are there not black African-Americans, now in this country, who are descended from black Africans that profited from the slave trade? How do we separate them from black African-Americans that are descended from slaves?That's your job.


No, Americans are just supposed to fork over money that will then be doled out to anyone with black skin. We should just shut the fuck up and take in the ass.

Well, I’m not going to.No one will make you. There won't be reparations. This is one of those fake outrage things you say you don't go in for.


You’re right, I do believe they’re racists. What else explain the over-simplified planned method of awarding reparations? Show me where the reparations movement has ever proposed to indentify particular individuals who were harmed by slavery and award them compensation. All I’ve ever read is how money will generally be taken from All of us (blacks included) and doled out generally, to African-Americans without regard to whether or not they’ve suffered from the sins of slavery.More fake umbrage.


And, I disagree that I’m the first to point an accusatory finger in this regard. I’ve only ever responded to comments in here I believed wrongly ascribed race to something I said or to something I believe isn’t racism…just as I’ve done here.Weak. You stir the racial pot incessantly. You're ST's biggest race hustler, Yoni.


I wouldn’t put it that way, and quite frankly, what excuses your use of the word “######” in this context?Nothing at all. Are you the PC police?


But, to your point; that this country elected an African-American president says a lot about how far we’ve come. But, even more to your point, that only 12% of Americans believe opposition to his policies are racially motivated, says even more. African-Americans are successful in every area of our culture. With some notable exception, most would tell you their success is because of the changing racial attitudes in this country – not in spite of them.Don't sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back for your racial enlightenment and high-mindedness.


Point to an instance in which it wasn’t in bad faith and I was critical. It only appears this way, to you, because this is a political forum in which the most glaring example of bad faith use of racism is perpetrated by the political left. Just like the most recent meme that Obama is opposed because he’s black.This is what you're selling. You sell more of it than anyone here.


I’m sorry, I’m missing your point here; I thought I was scorning political correctness.You weren't. You've redefined it for yourself and seek now to impose it on us.

It's lame.

[Yonivore]

You do.


You did.

You are insensitive. And obsessed with race.

Just as you do. Birds of a feather.

That's your job.

No one will make you. There won't be reparations. This is one of those fake outrage things you say you don't go in for.

More fake umbrage.

Weak. You stir the racial pot incessantly. You're ST's biggest race hustler, Yoni.

Nothing at all. Are you the PC police?

Don't sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back for your racial enlightenment and high-mindedness.

This is what you're selling. You sell more of it than anyone here.

You weren't. You've redefined it for yourself and seek now to impose it on us.

It's lame.
You've devolved to Chumpism arguments and I'm not playing.

[Shastafarian]

I'm assuming you mean this: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story

I find it odd that you assume the "liberal" coining of "magic negro" immunizes it from charges of racism. Of late, you have argued the opposite.

from the Wiki:

"numinous":

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_16_53/ai_76915717/



Damn I wish I had known this thread was here. Winehole already beat me to my response.

[Yonivore]

To imply that the Civil War was only about slavery is to make a wrong inference. It was about many things ultimately, but it was not started over slavery. State's rights over federal rights, manufacturing and other issues led to the Civil War.
I'm sorry if that's what you got out of the post. I didn't mean to imply, maybe I just assumed everyone knew about the Civil War, it origins, and the various positions that brought it about.

Truth be told, the liberal elites of the North were pissed off the South could out-produce them with cheap slave labor and they set about rectifying that situation. To be fair, abolitionists existed on both sides of the Mason-Dixon.

By implying it was "just" about slavery denigrates those, from the South, that were just as passionate about ending slavery.


Overall Yoni, it's not quite 'fair' that social mores change. But you and I both know there's no way to 'fix' that, so this post is nothing but complaining about not being able to keep up with the correct terminology.
I think you need to be talking to Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton; not me. They see race at every slight. They see race with every oppostion to ther way of thinking.

Race only becomes an issue for me with it's raised unjustly...as now, with President Obama's socialist agenda.

[Yonivore]

Damn I wish I had known this thread was here. Winehole already beat me to my response.
And, I've already responded.

[Shastafarian]

And, I've already responded.

"And, I never said the term “Magic Negro” was innocuous. Maybe you should have this conversation with the LATimes and its editorial page where the term was first attached to the current occupant of the White House."

Clearly you read too much into my original post. Does this mean we can all use the n-word because it wasn't us who coined it? The other post was about Rush. I ridiculed him for using a racially insensitive term. You got butthurt. It happens.

[LnGrrrR]

I think you need to be talking to Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton; not me. They see race at every slight. They see race with every oppostion to ther way of thinking.

Race only becomes an issue for me with it's raised unjustly...as now, with President Obama's socialist agenda.

Why should I talk to them? I don't care. You're the one who's concerned about the changing terms. If you wish to "freeze" a term in place, you'll have to try to persuade the public. :)

Do many people race-bait? Of course. People on both sides of the aisle do it. Is it fair? Of course not. But that's like saying that people should stop stealing, or fighting, or something along those lines.

If people accuse you of being racist, then you need to clarify yourself if possible. If they still call you a racist, c'est la vie. You can't change everyone's opinions.

[LnGrrrR]

Eagerly awaiting your response to my other two posts above that Yoni. :)

[Winehole23]

You've devolved to Chumpism arguments and I'm not playing.Your posts are such a farrago of fallacy, cant, misrepresentation, disingenuity and loaded questions that it's sometimes necessary to take them point by point. It's not my fault you lack the patience and honesty to examine your own posts deconstructed.

You also seem to think your posts stand alone, but to anyone with a memory, they don't.

It's for others to decide whether my gloss descends to Chumpism. Your failure to respond may not help your credibility with other posters so much as it leaves my own take uncontradicted.

[jman3000]

Yonivore turned into a such a whiny, liberal, little girl.

"I can't call a black man a negro anymore. Wo is me, I'm such a victim."

[Winehole23]

They did the same with moral relativism. Remember that term?To the postmodern right, all values are instrumental. So long as they serve political expedience, they deserve a place in the conversation. Nothing proves the point so well as defending pre-empive wars of aggression and our anti-terror policies since 2001.

Expedience trumps morality; situational ethics reigns.

[jack sommerset]

I am still laughing at the folks trying to stop people from calling Obama a socialist. " You know what they are really saying (whisper) ######" :lol

Of course there is racism in America. Duh.... Some blacks hate whites. Some whites hate blacks,some blacks hate mexicants,some whites hate mexicants, some asians hate blacks,some whites hate asians,etc....

As a whole (Asians,whites,Mexicants etc) America just proved we all don't hate BLACKS. But what this election did prove is as a whole blacks hate whites. Thats why 95 percent black people voted for a black man and only 5 percent for a white man. Ouch! Hopefully that will change over the next few years.

Why can't these assholes say "some" people are racist towards Obama? That is true. When you put all of us whites in the same category as racist you just have to laugh.

[Winehole23]

Why can't these assholes say "some" people are racist towards Obama? That is true.That's what most people are saying.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I am still laughing at the folks trying to stop people from calling Obama a socialist. " You know what they are really saying (whisper) ######" :lol

Of course there is racism in America. Duh.... Some blacks hate whites. Some whites hate blacks,some blacks hate mexicants,some whites hate mexicants, some asians hate blacks,some whites hate asians,etc....

As a whole (Asians,whites,Mexicants etc) America just proved we all don't hate BLACKS. But what this election did prove is as a whole blacks hate whites. Thats why 95 percent black people voted for a black man and only 5 percent for a white man. Ouch! Hopefully that will change over the next few years.

Why can't these assholes say "some" people are racist towards Obama? That is true. When you put all of us whites in the same category as racist you just have to laugh.

do you realize what a blatant hypocrite you are?

[Winehole23]

Truth be told, the liberal elites of the North were pissed off the South could out-produce them with cheap slave labor and they set about rectifying that situation.Grant's strategy of losing every battle in a war of attrition wouldn't have worked if this was really true.

What the northern elites were really pissed about was the long simmering discontent over the advantage the slave states had in apportionment; sure enough, they changed that.

[Winehole23]

By implying it was "just" about slavery denigrates those, from the South, that were just as passionate about ending slavery.Their political leaders seemed more concerned with preserving property rights in man. The whole states rights controversy turned on this question, and the south went to war over it.

[ChumpDumper]

This thread and all his other posts about race prove that Yoni is not obsessed with race.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm sorry if that's what you got out of the post. I didn't mean to imply, maybe I just assumed everyone knew about the Civil War, it origins, and the various positions that brought it about.

Truth be told, the liberal elites of the North were pissed off the South could out-produce them with cheap slave labor and they set about rectifying that situation. To be fair, abolitionists existed on both sides of the Mason-Dixon.

By implying it was "just" about slavery denigrates those, from the South, that were just as passionate about ending slavery.


Sure, there was North-South antagonism due to Northern manufacturing interests desiring federal protections that Southern agricultural interests did not want, as well as other factors such as the quasi-feudal Anglican life embraced in the South versus the burgeoning non-Anglo Saxon flavor of the North, but in the end it did revolve around slavery. Though I will grant you that it was not the simplified good v evil morality play as it is presented today.

[ChumpDumper]

Truth be told, the liberal elites of the North were pissed off the South could out-produce them with cheap slave laborOut-produce them at what?

[101A]

sad that some ppl still can't get over the fact Obama is black

10th post.

Right under the wire, Yoni.

[spursncowboys]

Yes, but how many pundits/columnists/etc refer to themselves as classical liberals? I don't think you can deny that the term "liberal" has become a perjorative as much as a self-defined label.
classic liberal = conservative

[Marcus Bryant]

classic liberal = conservative

Not exactly. (http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46)

[Spawn]

Yonivore, if you feel that people are unjustly accusing you of racism then perhaps you should not associate yourself with them, who cares what they have to say if you are so sure of your anti-racist feelings. Also, when the subject of race comes up, since it upsets you so much, ignore it and continue on with your anti-racist existance.

It's as simple as that.

[Winehole23]

Yonivore, if you feel that people are unjustly accusing you of racism then perhaps you should not associate yourself with them, who cares what they have to say if you are so sure of your anti-racist feelings.Maybe he feels insecure in his anti-racist intentions.

Judging from the record he has committed to these pages, I'd say that insecurity is well-founded.