…let’s talk racial politics.
In the “Yo’ Teabaggers” thread Shastafarian posted this comment:
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 “ rdly,” [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 led, “The Pernicious Effects of Banning Words,” for Slate.com in December of 2006:
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 iden y 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 ins ute 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.
your not serious and this turned into a political post. nice try.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.
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.
How else are we going to get safe direction on what the politically-correct term of the day is for the different races?
it's all about race?
don't say i haven't tried to help you.
You are the only one here caught up in the race issue.
stop obsessing with race.
hopefully you will get over race at some point in your life.
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.
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.
sad that some ppl still can't get over the fact Obama is black
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 iden y 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.
I agree. Someone should tell that to Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter voted for Obama
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.
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 Mitc , Chris Mathews, Brian Williams, etc. all say that we are not liberals. This is to sneek in with all our progressive ideas.
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"?
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.
Count me in as a liberal..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
Not if you're a classical liberal.
Yeah, we know.
The 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.
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.
Sorry, your analogy doesn’t translate in this context.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote