It's not complicated, IMHO.

Post #331,422 by Another Scott 8/16/10 10:23:44 PM 8/16/10 10:42:20 PM Reply	It's not complicated, IMHO. But as we are getting thinner skinned and not the opposite...safer to just keep those words/thoughts to yourself. Its almost impossible to determine what will, in the end, be deemed offensive by someone else. It's not complicated, IMHO. The N word has lots of power, as you both note. It's almost always directed at certain groups of people. When members of that group use the word, they're temporary taking the power to hurt and insult away. When someone who isn't a member of that group uses that word, they're not taking away its power. They're using its power, even if they don't intend to. That's why her use of the word wasn't appropriate; that's why Michael Richard's outburst wasn't appropriate. If Lenny Bruce's routine had stopped with the N word, it would have been inappropriate and not social commentary. It works because he includes many, many groups and says, basically, we're all in the same boat. Similarly, if an older brother calls you a nasty name in jest, that's one thing; if someone on the street uses that same name for you, that's something else. Context matters. [edit:] A couple of TNC columns related to these issues: http://www.theatlant...ing-spades/16920/ http://www.theatlant...for-racists/5989/ Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott Aug. 16, 2010, 10:42:20 PM EDT It's not complicated, IMHO. But as we are getting thinner skinned and not the opposite...safer to just keep those words/thoughts to yourself. Its almost impossible to determine what will, in the end, be deemed offensive by someone else. It's not complicated, IMHO. The N word has lots of power, as you both note. It's almost always directed at certain groups of people. When members of that group use the word, they're temporary taking the power to hurt and insult away. When someone who isn't a member of that group uses that word, they're not taking away its power. They're using its power, even if they don't intend to. That's why her use of the word wasn't appropriate; that's why Michael Richard's outburst wasn't appropriate. If Lenny Bruce's routine had stopped with the N word, it would have been inappropriate and not social commentary. It works because he includes many, many groups and says, basically, we're all in the same boat. Similarly, if an older brother calls you a nasty name in jest, that's one thing; if someone on the street uses that same name for you, that's something else. Context matters. Cheers, Scott. Collapse All History
Post #331,428 by beepster 8/16/10 11:47:55 PM Reply	Sure it is.. ..because it means that someone has to translate thought and intent prior to reacting. It creates a double standard. Context matters..but it also creates an easy path to misunderstanding. And does the "power" of the word make "cracker" a less offensive or less racist word? It shouldn't. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,434 by Another Scott 8/17/10 8:08:00 AM Reply	A point, but not a strong one. "Cracker" or "whitey" or "honkey" do not have anywhere near the power of the N word. Sure, they're insults, but just a little above "buckethead" to my ears (and yes, I did hear those terms as insults growing up part of the time in Georgia). http://en.wikipedia..../Atlanta_Crackers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honkey I'm all for civility, but maintain that it's not complicated to learn what words should be avoided, and reject the "PC/double standard" label for this topic. YMMV. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #331,441 by beepster 8/17/10 11:20:11 AM Reply	Not to debate, more for thought as to >why< you associate more power to the word, when in many instances, its said with the same malice, simply in different directions. Why is one intent worse than the other? Thats my $0.02, YMMV ;-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,443 by Another Scott 8/17/10 11:24:33 AM Reply	It's a power thing.
Post #331,447 by beepster 8/17/10 11:41:24 AM Reply	Thats what I don't get the argument that racism is less racist depending on who it is. I get the historical aspects..and the economic aspects...but when it gets to the bare metal, hate is hate. I don't agree with the "power" thing. Thats a different aspect. that doesn't address the base hate. it actually, imo, rationalizes it for some. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,449 by jake123 8/17/10 11:52:19 AM Reply	Power matters It especially matters if you're the one that doesn't have it.
Post #331,454 by crazy 8/17/10 12:56:37 PM Reply	People with power rarely do It goes against your survival instinct to accept certain things. Giving away power is the ultimate in stupidity. At least from a single organism evolutionary viewpoint. So you don't. You may or may not get it, and then decide you like it, and any downside to having it isn't so bad. Or you may be dumb (or nice), and act on impulse, and decide because of it you'll give some power away, occasionally.
Post #331,474 by beepster 8/17/10 6:54:31 PM Reply	You are both missing my point entirely. I understand your argument. Being dismissive of my talking point because "I have the power and they don't" is disingenuous. My point is the core stereotypical assumption that race is a characteristic that denotes a difference and that using that basis to direct general hatred is racist behavior. It has nothing to do with having power and everything to do with individual/group behavior. If a guy in the deep south is working for a black man and calls him the N word, by your definition that is NOT racist. (he doesn't have the power in that relationship). By my definition, it is. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,479 by Another Scott 8/17/10 8:48:05 PM Reply	Your point doesn't make much sense. To me, anyway. And you seem to be changing the topic. My point is the core stereotypical assumption that race is a characteristic that denotes a difference and that using that basis to direct general hatred is racist behavior. It has nothing to do with having power and everything to do with individual/group behavior. If a guy in the deep south is working for a black man and calls him the N word, by your definition that is NOT racist. (he doesn't have the power in that relationship). By my definition, it is. That isn't what I thought you were saying. (Your second paragraph certainly doesn't argue against the point I was trying to make.) I thought you were criticizing some members of some groups being called on using the N word while others weren't. I'll try again to make myself clear before bowing out. As TNC said above, racism is all about power of one group over another. Power that can hold down a minority (as in the antebellum South) or a majority (as in pre-Mandela South Africa). It's not about personal power. A 100 pound 12 year old girl calling a 250 pound black man the N word in Atlanta in 1960 would certainly be engaged in racist behavior even though she would have no physical power over him. Her society certainly had power over him, though, so he would have felt the sting... When derogatory terms from that time, that were used when people were murdered by mobs, are resurrected as an insult, all of that history is dragged up again with that word. It's not about individual power, or lack thereof. There are cases that one could cite about the use of the N word by a white person that is arguably not racist. E.g. the Elvis Costello song "Oliver's Army". One could also look to the past and see the word used in what might be considered a non-racist way - e.g. someone who knows of no other term for a black person. Or, to illustrate a deeper point, as say, Jim in Tom Sawyer. Dr. Laura and Michael Richards weren't cases like those. You seem to argue that one should ignore the history of the word, when that history is the elephant in the room when it's trotted out. Or just say it's too complicated so nobody should use it any more. I maintain it's not complicated - context matters. Another take on this topic is by Randall Kennedy, who wrote a book on it. An interview with him is here - http://www.theatlant...int2002-01-17.htm (scroll down). He's got a complicated view of the word, and arguing for consideration of context, but I'm not sure I agree with him in all aspects... Now maybe I'm misreading you and we're actually in agreement. Wouldn't be the first time; you can have the last word. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #331,488 by boxley 8/18/10 8:02:00 AM Reply	I think they are as well when a liberal democrat comedian loses it and starts screaming nigger nigger nigger, White people get upset, they expect that behavior from southern crackers. An american person with african ancestors isnt upset because he knows those whitebread democratic liberals are as willing as the KKK boys to hold him down. He doesnt expect anything different. When Byrd made a comment about white niggers the black community didnt quibble because they new exactly what he meant, nigger is an attitude not a color. White liberals get extremely upset because they are all secretly thinking exactly like the white comedian.
Post #331,565 by lincoln 8/19/10 9:55:35 PM Reply	Re: Sure it is.. Laura Schlessinger aka Dr. Laura came under attack recently when she repeatedly used the "N-word" in her response to a question posed on her radio show by a caller. The caller was a Black Woman, married to a White man, who felt offended by what she perceived as disrespectful language by her husband's friends and his willingness to allow the language in her presence. Essentially, Dr. Laura told her to "get over it" and develop a sense of humor about it. This sparked a national outrage. Everyone is missing the point here. The caller's question essentially boiled down to this: "My husband allows his friends to say and do things in our home that I find personally disrespectful." Nothing beyond that is even pertinent. But instead of answering a relatively benign relationship question with a reasonable answer (i.e., talk to him about how you feel or leave the marriage or whatever), "Dr." Laura seized the opportunity to make some weak point about the use of the "N-word" that really didn't fit the context. http://open.salon.co...tsnow_thats_funny "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #331,613 by beepster 8/21/10 1:01:49 AM Reply	and? not defending her Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,618 by crazy 8/21/10 1:50:52 PM Reply	Nope Just egging on anyone who may think you might. Hey, give the guy a break. Maybe his blood pressure medicine is expensive. You're costing him money.
Post #331,621 by beepster 8/21/10 3:33:20 PM Reply	Just wondering what the context was. That is all. Already agreed that she was out of line and worthy of the Imus treatment. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.

Welcome to IWETHEY!