Racism

[Jive Turkey]

I know what you are saying, I just think "agree" might be the wrong word. Agree almost infers fact, I mean it is a joke and full of hyperbole and stereotype, so agree may be too strong of a word.

I can make a joke about how when I take off my shirt people have to put on sunglasses, now I would expect you to laugh, but for you to tell me you agree is a different thing.

I hope I'm making sense. I know it may seem like we're arguing semantics, but I do think it's a very important difference.

you're right. bad choice of word. I guess I see it like this. If you take the word ****** out of what hes saying, its really not all that offensive: There are racist people who think all black people are hooligans. The reality is that only a small percentage of black people are who the racists think they are and those people are tarnishing the rest's reputations (this can be said about any race. Theres always going to be a few doorknobs). Queue over the top stereotypes and hilarity ensues. That may be putting it very simply, but I think at the heart of the joke, thats the point hes trying to make. Its kind of sad to put it bluntly like that, to be honest. But I dont think to say hes at least partially right is all that offensive. I actually think it would be the opposite of being racist... But still, for a white guy to make that point and then to also include the word ****** would be inappropriate. So yes, I agree with you too.


But then the guy I was trying to stick up for drops an N bomb of his own and I look like an asshole

 

[yolland]

Ya. I understand this. Its not my point. You people dont seem to think its okay for a white man to laugh at Chris Rock's jokes, which I find to be completely and utterly retarded. ... Do you like the black people that shoot up movie theatres or rob their neighbours? I dont. But not any less than I like white people that beat their wives and wear white hoods on their heads.

Huh? I never said that. Why would I have referred to what makes the skit "so funny" if I believed it was categorically wrong for anyone to laugh at it? I do think that what, precisely, a listener finds humorous in it matters...which is where I'm not sure whether you did, in fact, understand what I was trying to convey. Do you really ever feel threatened by the thought that the sort of f*ups who happen to be white whom Jeff Foxworthy et al. are laughing about, are going to be taken as some kind of reflection on you because they share your skin color? Can you imagine a a white comedian ranting, "Every time white people wanna have a good time, ignorant-ass white trash fuck it up"? That's not where someone like Foxworthy's coming from, that's not the tension which enlivens his comedy (though there certainly is--and especially was, back when what he was doing was novel--an underlying social tension he's probing there; it's just that it's class- rather than race-based). Chris Rock (see the quote BVS posted), Dave Chappelle, and Foxworthy have all talked at varying times about the reality that sometimes you find yourself in the highly uncomfortable position of evoking a kind of laughter you didn't intend, from people who don't get what you're trying to do and think it's about nothing more than gleefully spitting on some of humanity's least empathetic specimens--or even worse, find validation in your humor for the practice of generalizing that stigma to broader groups of people (all black men for instance, or all working-class Southern whites); that you're merely Tellin' It Like It Is!, and doesn't it feel good to make 'em all squirm by needling them with the implication that they'd better be happy to turn handsprings to prove to you that they're not like that.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Yolland, my comment about not being able to laugh was a bit of a generalization as it was the reason I kind of got pulled into the convo. Sorry for getting off track at the start there. I still stand by the rest of what I said though. I do understand what you're saying. I just think you're analyzing it to a point that isnt necessary for the argument (at least not for what I'm trying to defend). I understand there are deep underlying issues at the heart of the comedy. Comparing to Rock to Foxworthy is a little unfair though. They arent even in the same league. One guy is telling socially relevant, narrative style humour and the other is essentially telling knock knock jokes. If you read my response to BVS's last comment you can see where I'm coming from. I'm not really arguing your point. What the whole bit boils down to for me is Rock saying "hey assholes, not all black people are what you would classify as niggers, but there are some who fit that description and they're idiots. I'm going to tell some jokes at their expense". I can get behind that

 

[yolland]

Oh, I probably am over-analyzing, I'm wont to do that with pretty much everything.

I agree that Foxworthy's clearly neither as smart nor as bold a comedian, yeah, and the kind of themes he popularized may be getting rather stale by now, but actually I think that what he did was something pretty socially useful and significant in its own way. And to do it, he had to tackle head-on an American taboo against (effectively) slamming poor people for being poor, which takes some audacity to do. I know where I grew up, at least, that was a seriously loaded topic--everyone freely pissed on the 'white trash' behind their backs, but no one was comfortable talking about these issues publically or even knew how to get started doing so, because that would require reckoning with the group in question as full-fledged human beings who belong to a distinct subculture, with its neutral aspects as well as its serious problems, which as with any other subculture emerge from a particular history and a particular series of often self-destructive collective responses to it. Being able to get everyone laughing about it in the way that he sometimes could is actually a necessary first step towards that IMO, limited though his themes are (he sidesteps redneck racism entirely, for example). And who Foxworthy is and where he comes from is definitely relevant to why he was able to do that.

 

[yolland]

Even the most dangerous ghetto ****** isn't a threat to me, they're a threat to perceptions of the black race, which is why I don't like em.

This rings completely false; the threat is from those who base their perceptions of an entire racial group on what criminals who happen to belong to it do. Criminals are only a threat to crime victims.

And, yeah, I get it, you're having a great time thumbing your nose at everyone's pious sensibilities in here and watching them get all neurotic and righteously indignant, blah blah, etc. etc. A delusion I'd rather not fuel by responding. But for the record, you're treading a very thin line with regard to the forum rules with a post like that.

 

[Got Philk?]

You don't get that there is occasionally crime in the ghetto?

Perhaps I am taking this comment out of context, but it seems to me that there is occasionally crime everywhere.... I lived in a small, dutch city and guess what. Someone down the street...a Caucasian male who had a full time job, went to church and contributed to society...had a meth lab in his basement.

Or here in Michigan, there are crimes committed in both the "ghetto" as it may be considered...but just blocks away, there is an upper class neighborhood and guess what...white people do things there too!

I apologize if I am missing the point of this comment. If so, you can explain to me what you mean.

 

[maycocksean]

You don't get that there is occasionally crime in the ghetto??

More than occasionally. But that's not the part of your post I was addressing. It is NOT "okay" for you to use the "N" word as reference for black people. It is offensive. Do you not get that? Or do you not want to get that?

Does anyone on here refuse to listen to Elvis Presley Ate America?

Well, I took it off my ipod and the rest of UF is still there. But what does this have to with anything?

 

[Irvine511]

i think there's a huge difference between Bono, in the midst of a semi-poetic rap, referring to Elvis as "the white n*gger" vs. saying that only some black people are n*ggers.

in the context of the song, it's quite clear that Bono is referencing just what made Elvis appear so dangerous to the white establishment of the 1950s -- remember, rock 'n roll was originally the devil's music with "jungle" beats, rock 'n roll was white people playing black people's music.

to think that Bono was using that word in anything close to the context of the Chris Rock routine shows a shocking lack of knowledge of really basic music history.

 

[HyperU2]

More than occasionally. But that's not the part of your post I was addressing. It is NOT "okay" for you to use the "N" word as reference for black people. It is offensive. Do you not get that? Or do you not want to get that?




Well, I took it off my ipod and the rest of UF is still there. But what does this have to with anything?

It's wrong to use it to describe someone because of the color of their skin. It's acceptable to use because of their actions. I'm just not afraid of words. In a momentary brain lapse yesterday while at lunch with a friend who happens to be black I described my aunt as the black sheep of the family, I worried for a second it might be offensive. Damn PC brigades. The word is fine in proper context.

 

[BVS]

You're trying really hard to come off tough, "I'm not scared of the PC brigade", but you're just coming off as ignorant.

Plain and simple.

There's only a few people who would agree with you and well we know who they are...

 

[Irvine511]

It's wrong to use it to describe someone because of the color of their skin. It's acceptable to use because of their actions. I'm just not afraid of words. In a momentary brain lapse yesterday while at lunch with a friend who happens to be black I described my aunt as the black sheep of the family, I worried for a second it might be offensive. Damn PC brigades. The word is fine in proper context.

tell me, how does a n*gger act, and how is this different from a criminal of another race?

also, why do you wish to have the freedom to use the word?

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

I was in New York Penn Station today waiting for a train out, getting pizza, and this nice black woman moved her things so I could sit down and eat next to her. She was very polite and asked me if I ever had the buffalo wings there. I must admit her teeth were very messed up but she spoke well, was dressed rather nicely and was reading a book. As I'm sitting next to her waiting for my food not a minute goes by when all of the sudden I look up and the black manager starts asking her what she was doing there. And she replied "waiting for my friend". And he asked "does he work here" and shes says "no". He says to her "well if you're going to sit there you have to eat something"...and she says "im waiting for my friend we are going to order together"...he says back to her "take the bag off of the table please and keep it on the floor" she says "im not gonna put it on the floor but ill hold it ok...is there a problem?" and he says "no just don't keep the bag on the table".....she called her friend on her blackberry and was saying "were not eating here this guy thinks im some crazy bitch im a RN making 70 thousand a year".....i felt badly for her I mean there is sort of a homeless person problem in New York Penn sometimes but to single out a person when they are just sitting there because they were black is fucked up, so you have black on black discrimination going on too.

When she left he came back around and started laughing with his co-worker saying "i know what the bag was for....food"...accusing this nice, educated woman for stuffing her bag with food....totally racially profiled, it was gross.

 

[HyperU2]

tell me, how does a n*gger act, and how is this different from a criminal of another race?

also, why do you wish to have the freedom to use the word?

It's not different, ****** is free to cross over, hence the Elvis Ate America, Rock and Roll ****** etc. I want to use every word.

 

[BonosSaint]

I imagine that for many blacks using the term, it's a statement that they are taking control of the word and they are not giving it back to be used to hurt or demean them as has been historically done, hence the anger when a group that historically hurt and demeaned them tries to appropriate the word again--in ways that cannot have any good purpose. Similar in some ways to "cunt". I've used the latter among my friends. I'm comfortable when some people use it. I'm very uncomfortable when other people use it--because of the strength of the word as a weapon and because of the way it gels a mindset to people who can do me and other women harm, demean me, marginalize me with it.

It's difficult to take possession of a word and not have other people feel free to use it so you walk a dangerous path. You can't control the meaning or the intent of the word.
And it's not such much the word itself, but what is behind it that can be so threatening.

I assume for many other blacks, the word is never appropriate. As for many women, "cunt" is never appropriate.

 

[indra]

I want to use every word.

Well tough shit. Do you really think you should get to do anything you want no matter how much it hurts someone else? What the hell kind of person are you?

 

[BVS]

I want to use every word.

So I'm guessing you want to use kike, spick, chink, and be able to wear swastikas as well?

And don't try and tell me there's a difference...

 

[Irvine511]

It's not different, ****** is free to cross over, hence the Elvis Ate America, Rock and Roll ****** etc. I want to use every word.

and you're free to.

just don't whine about the social consequences.

 

[Tiger Edge]

It's not different, ****** is free to cross over, hence the Elvis Ate America, Rock and Roll ****** etc. I want to use every word.

It's called poetic license, and no, you don't not have it.

 

[CTU2fan]

It's wrong to use it to describe someone because of the color of their skin. It's acceptable to use because of their actions.

What does ****** mean then? Seriously, what's a ******?

I looked it up:

******–noun

1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.
a. a black person.
b. a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
3. a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.
Origin:
1640–50; < F nègre < Sp negro black

****** Definition | Definition of ****** at Dictionary.com

So I assume you're saying when you use the word you mean definition 2? OK, but ask yourself how that word, with that origina and original usage, came to mean "a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc." In that way it's a lot like "faggot", I know that came up a bit a few pages back. You'll hear that word used, and when the user's questioned the response goes something like "well I don't actually mean he's literally gay"...well of course not, we all know what faggot as an insult means...weak, wimpy, cowardly. And how do you suppose a derogatory term for a gay man came to have that "other" meaning?

 

[Irvine511]

it's much easier to bash faggots and lynch n*ggers than it is to kill gays and blacks.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I think faggot actually has more sinister origins, if i'm not mistaken. Its almost the reverse of the word ****** (definition 2) in that, it was a derogatory term for gays before it was a insult to your weak and wimpy friends. And even before that, the first use of the word faggot was in reference to a bundle of sticks used for burning. With that definition in mind, it was then applied to homosexuals. Not very nice, is it?

 

[maycocksean]

It's wrong to use it to describe someone because of the color of their skin. It's acceptable to use because of their actions. I'm just not afraid of words. In a momentary brain lapse yesterday while at lunch with a friend who happens to be black I described my aunt as the black sheep of the family, I worried for a second it might be offensive. Damn PC brigades. The word is fine in proper context.

It doesn't work that way. You can't just decide how a word can be used acceptably. The word has always been about a black person, without regard to their personal character. You can't just decide to apply it only to the "bad ones."

Black sheep isn't even in the same category, it has no serious history of racism, it may not even be rooted in race.

and you're free to.

just don't whine about the social consequences.

This

I imagine that for many blacks using the term, it's a statement that they are taking control of the word and they are not giving it back to be used to hurt or demean them as has been historically done, hence the anger when a group that historically hurt and demeaned them tries to appropriate the word again--in ways that cannot have any good purpose. Similar in some ways to "cunt". I've used the latter among my friends. I'm comfortable when some people use it. I'm very uncomfortable when other people use it--because of the strength of the word as a weapon and because of the way it gels a mindset to people who can do me and other women harm, demean me, marginalize me with it.

It's difficult to take possession of a word and not have other people feel free to use it so you walk a dangerous path. You can't control the meaning or the intent of the word.
And it's not such much the word itself, but what is behind it that can be so threatening.

I assume for many other blacks, the word is never appropriate. As for many women, "cunt" is never appropriate.

And this.

 

[financeguy]

yes, please do lecture me on my country's history. Europeans love to do that.

Well, I wasn't trying to lecture anyone, but for a start, how do you define 'Europeans'? Because previously on this forum you've said, with some justification, that non-Americans sometimes overgeneralise regarding America, but maybe overgeneralisations apply in both directions.

What about European countries that have been colonised by other European countries?

For example, how does the Irish potato famine - according to some historians, the equivalent of a genocide - fit into the thesis that white guy is always the oppressor and black guy is always the one being oppressed?

I am aware of the cultural sensitivity in America regarding slavery. But the people to blame were basically a relatively small number of colonialist upper class WASPS (with a few token Catholic Irishmen). Personally, I don't carry the can for something that happened hundreds of years ago that my ancestors, in all probability, weren't involved in. And I'm not convinced you should either, to be honest. It's as absurd, to me, as it would be if I blamed my English relatives and acquaintances for the potato famine, or if they blamed me for the terrorist atrocities of the Provos.

 

[financeguy]

So I'm guessing you want to use kike, spick, chink, and be able to wear swastikas as well?

And don't try and tell me there's a difference...

Actually, there is. There's a difference between using a crude racial epithet and being a supporter of a far right ideology that slaughtered millions. There's an enormous difference between unthinkingly using a racial insult and being involved in active support of the worst and most evil kind of political ideology that ever held sway over a large part of Europe's population, or of any place's population, in history ever. Saying there isn't is a bit like a conservative claiming that social democracy is no different to Stalinism - a claim that you'd, correctly in my view, deride.

 

[BVS]

Actually, there is. There's a difference between using a crude racial epithet and being a supporter of a far right ideology that slaughtered millions. There's an enormous difference between unthinkingly using a racial insult and being involved in active support of the worst and most evil kind of political ideology that ever held sway over a large part of Europe's population, or of any place's population, in history ever. Saying there isn't is a bit like a conservative claiming that social democracy is no different to Stalinism - a claim that you'd, correctly in my view, deride.

I didn't say anything about supporting a far right ideology. And no one here is "unthinkingly" using a racial insult, he's very cognitive of it...

 

[HyperU2]

Worthless white fucks.

 

[BVS]

Worthless white fucks.

Weak

 

[Irvine511]

Well, I wasn't trying to lecture anyone, but for a start, how do you define 'Europeans'? Because previously on this forum you've said, with some justification, that non-Americans sometimes overgeneralise regarding America, but maybe overgeneralisations apply in both directions.

this was the ironic point.

 

[Irvine511]

Worthless white fucks.

and, note, these three words have absolutely none of the toe-curling effect of the single word "n*gger."

why do you think that is?

 

[Irvine511]

I am aware of the cultural sensitivity in America regarding slavery. But the people to blame were basically a relatively small number of colonialist upper class WASPS (with a few token Catholic Irishmen). Personally, I don't carry the can for something that happened hundreds of years ago that my ancestors, in all probability, weren't involved in. And I'm not convinced you should either, to be honest. It's as absurd, to me, as it would be if I blamed my English relatives and acquaintances for the potato famine, or if they blamed me for the terrorist atrocities of the Provos.

you're missing the forest for the trees.

comparatively, my family are relatively new to the United States. they all immigrated in the early part of the 20th century (save for my mother's father's father's side). there were none of us over here during slavery, and my mother's side were Irish Catholic and they landed in NYC.

but that doesn't mean that, by virtue of being white, they were able to better maximize whatever opportunities than they would have been able to had they been the descendants of slaves. there's little question that the legacy of slavery continues today, in a generalized form and in the shape of now illegal but still resonant institutionalized discrimination (housing, schooling, education) that affects generation after generation. it's not *my* fault, not at all, but i'd be wrong if i felt that i was distinct and apart from this historical legacy simply because my family didn't directly own slaves.