MERGED--> all discussion of Sen. Allen incident

[INDY500]

Indy what is your take on the quotes from Clinton and Biden?

Both were trying to be cute, ad-libbed a line and bombed. Hillary in front of crowd, Joe was caught by the C-Span cameras.
My point is you can play GOTCHA with almost anybody speaking often enough in front of crowds or cameras. From the White Sox's Ozzie Guillen to Bush saying a 4 letter word the other week. Do we really want to get to the point where politicians only read prepared comments and talking points off cards for fear of slipping up and offending someone? I submit there's too much of that as it is and that it's keeping some of our brightest minds out of politics and government.
2004 Bush vs Kerry. The evil of two lessers George Carlin called it. Or was it Bill Maher?

 

[BVS]

George Allen said a stupid thing. So did Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. But none of them are racists.
Prove me wrong.

Well I guess it depends on what YOU consider makes a racist.

And I don't buy your gotcha theory one bit. You could put me in front of a camera 24/7 and yeah you may get a cuss word out of me once in awhile that may offend some, but you would never once hear a racial slur, homophobic slur, or any other slur come out of my mouth. Because it's not part of my everyday language, the reason slurs "slip" out under your theory because this language is part of their everyday language, they just try and hide when on camera. Sometimes they fail.

 

[ntalwar]

Sanjay Puri, the leader of the nation's largest Indian political action committee and a longtime Allen supporter, said he will lead a delegation of Indian business executives and community leaders to meet with Allen on Wednesday to express dismay.

"The comments are very insensitive. That's what we want to find out: How can we continue working with him?" Puri said. "The senator has had a very good relationship with our community. I was pretty surprised -- you can say shocked."

From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081501210.html

Also:

Release Date : August 15, 2006

Washington, D.C. – USINPAC leaders spoke with Senator George Allen today and expressed the deep hurt his recent remarks have created in the Indian American Community. His insensitive and offensive comments have shocked and angered Indian Americans across the Commonwealth and the country. After talking with Senator Allen today, USINPAC Chairman Sanjay Puri said, "We spoke briefly with Senator Allen on the phone today. We stressed to the Senator that the Indian American community is very upset, and frankly very angry about his statements. The Senator pledged to have a full and open in person dialog on this matter as soon as tomorrow. USINPAC considers this to be a very serious matter, and we look forward to having a frank discussion with Senator Allen."

 

[Liesje]

What did your dad think it meant? I'm curious because I've seen "macaque" used on white supremacist websites as a crude synonym for "African-American," but "macaca" I was familiar with only from Southern France (ironically, I just learned that word when I was teaching there earlier this summer). Did he think of it as a general derogatory term for nonwhite people, or as something more specific?

Yeah I never heard it either, shows how much I know. I know "macaque" because that's a monkey. I've never heard anyone use it as a racial slur, but if I did, I'm sure I'd pick up on it and be disgusted.

Seems like based on the info in this thread, he's dug himself into a rather large, racist hole....

 

[Irvine511]

Really?

Isn't the offense defined by the hearer?

Or do we have an objective standard?

can you point me to the historical examples where "oh my god" has been used to intimidate communities of individuals?

if i were in your company and you asked me not to use that phrase, out of respect, i certainly would stop.

but to make some sort of case that the phrase should be excluded from, say, speach one hears on television -- no casual racial slurs there -- then you've got lots of work to do to make that case.

let me give you an example -- i spent a summer teaching once and had a close group of friends. one of the in-jokes became the phrase, "yeah, your mom!" it was stupid, but funny, until one of my co-workers said that it bothered her when we used that phrase because her mother was in jail for armed robbery.

seriously.

so, we stopped using that phrase in her presence out of respect for her. no problem. but, in a larger cultural context, the phrase "your mom!" is not offensive.

so it's a mixture of the two things -- objective standard vs. defined by the hearer -- that creates what is known as cultural norms/standards. there really isn't a principle here that we must demonstrate unwavering fealty to. we have to use our brains and judge each situation. the onus is on us to demonstrate reasonable sensitivity, but also on someone who might be offended by whatever phrase. you can't honest think that someone who is offended by "oh my god" isn't aware of the fact that the large majority of the population considers the phrase as little more than an empty expression, having nothing to do with her own personal notions of God.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm all for holding back when you are aware you will offend someone but people should also realise that not everything is meant in an offensive way

Doesn't matter. We have developed a list of words and expressions that are de facto offensive - the intent of the speaker plays no role. Say the word/phrase and it is strict liability.

Now, the question is whether we should approach speech this way and who gets to decide what is on and off the list.

 

[Iskra]

Republicans would defend Hitler if he was in their party and wanted to lower their taxes.

 

[Irvine511]

Doesn't matter. We have developed a list of words and expressions that are de facto offensive - the intent of the speaker plays no role. Say the word/phrase and it is strict liability.

Now, the question is whether we should approach speech this way and who gets to decide what is on and off the list.

is it really so difficult to participate in culture? is culture not something that grows and shifts and changes and part of being aware and alert is to participate and not just make lists to trot out whenever useful?

i really don't see what's so hard about the difference between using the word "n*gger" versus "oh my god" in conversation.

 

[nbcrusader]

Cute. I guess by "participation in culture" you mean holding the power to approve or disapprove what other people say (or granting them the right to be upset).

You may be comfortable with the distinction you note, because the phrase "oh my God" may not offend YOU.

It is far easier to live with arbitrary rules than guiding principles of thought.

 

[nbcrusader]

Now we're getting to quality discussion.

 

[Justin24]

Like I said earlier, he probably did not know what it meant. Hell Idid not even know the word existed until yesterday. He apologized. He is only human.

 

[BVS]

Like I said earlier, he probably did not know what it meant. Hell Idid not even know the word existed until yesterday. He apologized. He is only human.

Do you use a lot of words that you don't know the meaning of?

 

[Irvine511]

Cute. I guess by "participation in culture" you mean holding the power to approve or disapprove what other people say (or granting them the right to be upset).

You may be comfortable with the distinction you note, because the phrase "oh my God" may not offend YOU.

It is far easier to live with arbitrary rules than guiding principles of thought.

well, you're not going to get very far by taking phrases and twisting them.

no, by "participation in culture" i mean to actively participate in culture -- it was once okay to say "oriental," it no longer is, and we know this because we participate in culture. we listen, we speak, we read, we watch TV, we become aware of things. why is that such a terrible thing? because it violates some rule you have? some list you want to keep?

do you really think Dire Straights would write a song with "faggot" in the lyrics today?

"oh my god" does not offend MOST people -- it is commonly thrown around (OMG!) and can be heard everywhere. when we particpate in cluture, we know these things.

we can also ask people not to use such phrases because it offends US, and that is perfectly fine. but when you participate in culture and you are aware of the fact that you are in an extreme minority in this regard, the onus is in YOU to let others know that you are offended.

"guiding principles of thought" sounds lofty and noble, but they really don't lend themselves well to slippery, ambiguous, complex, and unstable things like culture. i know the lack of a rulebook can be discomfiting, but such is life.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Whether or not he "knew" what the word macaca meant disturbs me less than the "welcome to America" crack being aimed at a non-white participant.

 

[Muggsy]

Yeah I never heard it either, shows how much I know. I know "macaque" because that's a monkey. I've never heard anyone use it as a racial slur, but if I did, I'm sure I'd pick up on it and be disgusted.

Seems like based on the info in this thread, he's dug himself into a rather large, racist hole....

the first time I heard that word as a racial slur was on tv, watching the sport news. That word (we say "macaco" and it means monkey too ) was used by some fans to insult the black soccer players of an european team. But comparing black people with gorillas, monkeys, etc is not an unusual insult and it really disgusting .

 

[nbcrusader]

The distinction raised by Salome was one of intent. Cultural changes in colloquialisms are different that imputing intent on an individual based on a choice of words.

When you say "it was once okay to say a word, now it is not" - does that reflect a change in the intent of a speaker, or does it reflect a change in political argument. It seems that there is little effort to determine what a speaker meant by a comment, and far more effort placed on political posturing as "I'm offended - you must apologize".

In most cased of uttering "Oh my God" there is no intent to offend. If that is the case, why does the standard change for other words? Do you want to use the "most people use the word" standard for determining what is offensive and what is not? A might makes right standard? Or is there another way to evaluate speech?

 

[BVS]

For those of you who believe he didn't know the meaning(which I don't understand), that's fine but please don't vote for him, we really don't need another Republican who uses words he doesn't understand.

 

[yolland]

In most cased of uttering "Oh my God" there is no intent to offend. If that is the case, why does the standard change for other words?

What other words are you thinking of? How often does someone say "******," "faggot," or "bitch" outside a context of consciously disparaging the person(s) thus referred to?

 

[BVS]

When you say "it was once okay to say a word, now it is not" - does that reflect a change in the intent of a speaker, or does it reflect a change in political argument.

I think it reflects a change in understanding.

 

[Liesje]

What other words are you thinking of? How often does someone say "******," "faggot," or "bitch" outside a context of consciously disparaging the person(s) thus referred to?

Those are kinda harsh, but I sort of see what he's getting at. The other day someone commented on me always being on the porch and I said "yeah, everyone at my house are real porch monkeys" and they were like "I can't believe you said that!" Seriously though, I was the only white kid on my block for 12 years and EVERYONE used that term. Until a week ago, I had no idea it had a racial undertone. We always called each other "porch monkeys" because we'd climb/sit on railings and junk on the porch, not because a monkey is black. So yeah, I will definitely not use that term anymore, but I had no clue the "monkey" referred to skin color rather than us acting like monkeys.

 

[Justin24]

I would not vote for him. I would hope you wouldn't if a Democrat,or any political party said the same.

 

[BVS]

I would not vote for him. I would hope you wouldn't if a Democrat,or any political party said the same.

I wouldn't vote for any politician who I thought was a racist or stupid enough to use words they didn't know the meaning of...

 

[Irvine511]

The distinction raised by Salome was one of intent. Cultural changes in colloquialisms are different that imputing intent on an individual based on a choice of words.

what intent does one have other than to offend when using words like "kike," "n*gger," "faggot," and "macaca." these words are culturally loaded with intent, and it would take careful decontextuatlizing of the word in order to use it devoid of harm. Quenten Tarantino, for example, feels as if the word "n*gger" in his movies is decontextualized enough, and devoid of cultural context, that it is meaningless. while that is debatable, at least an effort has been made.


[q]When you say "it was once okay to say a word, now it is not" - does that reflect a change in the intent of a speaker, or does it reflect a change in political argument. It seems that there is little effort to determine what a speaker meant by a comment, and far more effort placed on political posturing as "I'm offended - you must apologize".[/q]


yes, i know it seems this way to you.

once words were okay, now they're not -- this is usually a reflection on the changing cultural status of the word. one example: where once "manifest destiny" was considered a righteous national calling, now it is associated with the genocide of the Native Americans, a genocide that the nation has only come to grips with even in my relatively short lifetime. this is what i mean by being culturally aware. the same thing with "faggot/fag." language is as much a reflection of social mores as it shapes them.

In most cased of uttering "Oh my God" there is no intent to offend. If that is the case, why does the standard change for other words? Do you want to use the "most people use the word" standard for determining what is offensive and what is not? A might makes right standard? Or is there another way to evaluate speech?

again, please show me the historical context in which "oh my god" was used to terrorize and intimidate a group of people causing the word to be culturally loaded with intent to do harm.

there really isn't a methodology for "evaluating" speech. not everything lends itself so easily to rules and boxes.

 

[nbcrusader]

What other words are you thinking of? How often does someone say "******," "faggot," or "bitch" outside a context of consciously disparaging the person(s) thus referred to?

That is my question. In today's climate, you cannot ask that question. The conclusion is automatic.

All your examples are spoken everyday without inferring negative intent. An African American can use "******" with disparaging intent, where a non-African American cannot use the term at all.

My paralegal's teenage son (who is Hispanic) was playing with African American kids at his school. The word ****** was traded freely among all the kids. No consciously disparaging intent existed. When he got home, he was cautioned (likely forbidden) from using the word at all.

"******" becomes the A-Bomb word. Other words get some breathing room. Words like "macaca" need an explanation.

 

[Irvine511]

That is my question. In today's climate, you cannot ask that question. The conclusion is automatic.

All your examples are spoken everyday without inferring negative intent. An African American can use "******" with disparaging intent, where a non-African American cannot use the term at all.

My paralegal's teenage son (who is Hispanic) was playing with African American kids at his school. The word ****** was traded freely among all the kids. No consciously disparaging intent existed. When he got home, he was cautioned (likely forbidden) from using the word at all.

"******" becomes the A-Bomb word. Other words get some breathing room. Words like "macaca" need an explanation.

first, i think you misunderstand today's climate as these kinds of questions are asked all the time. just look at Eminem and his defense of using the word "faggot."

doesn't the historical intent of the word, which is to cause harm, that both Yolland and i have pointed out, become uprooted from it's historical meaning when used by african-americans? doesn't the word derive its historical meaning precisely because it was used by white people to denigrate black people?

lastly, simply because the word is used amongst some black people doesn't mean that others might not find the word quite offensive coming out of anyone's mouth, black or white.

much like some Christians are offended by "oh my god" and others use it all the time.

 

[nbcrusader]

what intent does one have other than to offend when using words like "kike," "n*gger," "faggot," and "macaca." these words are culturally loaded with intent, and it would take careful decontextuatlizing of the word in order to use it devoid of harm. Quenten Tarantino, for example, feels as if the word "n*gger" in his movies is decontextualized enough, and devoid of cultural context, that it is meaningless. while that is debatable, at least an effort has been made.

Don’t you see the huge inconsistency here? Intent is automatic unless you allow the speaker an exemption. We are faced with a guilty until proven innocent (or granting of a specific defense) analysis for the speaker.

You haven’t set up a structure for clear definition of speech, but a process by which you can justify inconsistent application of inferring intent.

again, please show me the historical context in which "oh my god" was used to terrorize and intimidate a group of people causing the word to be culturally loaded with intent to do harm.

I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the "terrorize and intimidate" is the principle by which you are operating. There is certainly no consistent application of this as a standard anywhere here. Was Allen "terrorizing and intimidating" with the use of "macaca"?

Wouldn't be more honest to simply say "I don't care if you are offended by 'Oh my God' "?

 

[Sherry Darling]

Whether or not he "knew" what the word macaca meant disturbs me less than the "welcome to America" crack being aimed at a non-white participant.

Thank you! I've been to busy to post but am glad someone finally focused on this. Let's suspend logic for a moment and pretend that an educated adult routinely makes up words--the "Welcome to America" crap is enough to glean Allen's views on race and the US of A.

Not to mention the sheer brain-dead stupidity of harassing the guy from the Other Team who has a camera on you.

 

[nbcrusader]

doesn't the historical intent of the word, which is to cause harm, that both Yolland and i have pointed out, become uprooted from it's historical meaning when used by african-americans? doesn't the word derive its historical meaning precisely because it was used by white people to denigrate black people?

Again, that is part of the question I'm asking. “Historic intent” may not be someone’s current actual intent. Using this standard, at what point do you allow someone to have a different intent from the intent of other people from a different time? And is the application of this standard based on a clean analysis of a situation, or does it get tainted by other motives (such as politics)?

 

[yolland]

All your examples are spoken everyday without inferring negative intent. An African American can use "******" with disparaging intent, where a non-African American cannot use the term at all.

OK, I should have qualified--how often does someone not belonging to whichever collective (African-Americans, gays, women) not use these terms disparagingly? Jews for example don't commonly refer to other Jews using anti-Semitic terms--but if I were to do that, how could I possibly be understood to be disparaging them as Jews? Because obviously I also belong to the collective I'm ostensibly disparaging, so unless you assume I additionally meant to convey self-disparagement--and how often is that likely to be the case--there's no way I could mean it in that sense. There would have to be a hefty dose of insider irony involved (not that this necessarily makes it unproblematic), and I suppose this interpretation *could* be extended to the case of a trusted non-Jewish friend saying it to me in private under certain circumstances, but it wouldn't be reasonable to extend it to non-Jews generally regardless of situation. What would their grounds for being ironic be?

You seem to be suggesting that assuming disparaging intent in such cases is a priori wrong--could you explain then what the other possible intentions might be? For instance, is it possible I misread the intent of some of the people--all of them non-Jews, none of them friends--who called me "Christ-killer" where I grew up, and if so, what are the other possible explanations I overlooked?

I could perhaps grant this doesn't apply so tidily to women calling each other "bitch," but then that word doesn't have widespread currency as denoting membership in some roundly disparaged collective, the way "******" or "faggot" does for the people those words label.

Wouldn't be more honest to simply say "I don't care if you are offended by 'Oh my God' "?

Should there be anything beyond a purely voluntary decision to care here? God is not a person and doesn't partake of the usual civic obligations or entitlements.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/16/allen.volunteer/index.html

"In a four-paragraph statement issued Tuesday, Allen said, "In singling out the Webb campaign's cameraman, I was trying to make the point that Jim Webb had never been to that part of Virginia -- and I encouraged him to bring the tape back to Jim and welcome him to the real world of Virginia and America, outside the Beltway, where he has rarely visited.

"I also made up a nickname for the cameraman, which was in no way intended to be racially derogatory. Any insinuations to the contrary are completely false."

Allen said it "was certainly not my intent" to offend anyone by the remark.

"On every stop on my listening tour, I have talked about one of my missions for this country -- to make it a land of opportunity for all," Allen said. "I have worked very hard in the Senate to reach out to all Americans -- regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity or gender. And I look forward to continuing to advocate this important mission for America's future."

As for Sidarth, Allen said, "I never want to embarrass or demean anyone, and I apologize if my comments offended this young man. Even though he has signed onto my opponent's campaign, I look forward to seeing him on the trail ahead."

In an interview with CNN before Allen released his statement, Sidarth said he had introduced himself to the senator days before he made the remark.

"He was doing that because he could, because he could get away with it," Sidarth said. "I think he was just trying to, trying to point out the fact that I was a person of color, in a crowd that was not otherwise."

Sidarth later said he did not view Allen's statement as an adequate apology. "First of all, if he is going to single me out in a crowd of 100 people, he ought to apologize to me personally," Sidarth said.

Webb campaign manager Jessica Vanden Berg added, "From my perspective, if a U.S. senator wanted to directly apologize to somebody, he would do so. Sidarth has not been apologized to."

Vanden Berg said Webb's "family and roots are in southwestern Virginia," and he has lived in Falls Church "for a number of years."

During the Senate campaign, she said, he has traveled extensively throughout the state. "So to say that Jim doesn't know Virginia is a lie," she said."