DescentBB

Foil wrote:I'm considering splitting this into a separate thread:

Will Robinson wrote:The actual number of instances where a white person acts out in racial bigotry is much much smaller than he number of times black people are taught that white people hate them.

Both are a legitimate problem, but to claim that racism against blacks is now "much much smaller" than racism against whites is ludicrous.

[Edit: Personally, I find the oft-repeated lines about "race-baiting" to be just as divisive as what they object to.]

I'd say do the split.

I've given the whole race thing a lot of thought lately. I can't say that I have very many answers, but I'll lend my thoughts:

I think that the US has a culture problem, not a race problem at this point. I think that my #1 problem with the way things are is that there's this unwritten (or maybe written) expectation that cultural lines will be drawn along racial lines.

I'll start with some places in the south. I went to college in east Texas. I don't know if this is true... but there was rumored to be a little town down the way that would run out any black person that dared to stop there. Maybe it was a rumor... but I saw and heard enough around there to know that for some people and some circles, it wasn't too far from the truth. There are pockets of culture that are still extremely bigoted toward anyone who isn't white, and it's an evil thing. It hurts me that my daughter is going to be hated and judged by people simply based on the way that she looks.

Now, the urban culture. My daughter doesn't look like me. She isn't going to grow up to talk and act like a lot of people that look like her. There are aspects of the urban culture that I don't particularly want her to pick up - such as the marginalization of women and the importance that appearance receives. I also hurts me that my daughter is going to be hated and judged by people that look like her simply based on the way that she speaks and carries herself.

I think that the primary problem is with groups and places that expect individuals to fit certain cultural bins based on some outward characteristic of theirs. I think that there are places of diversity where there can be acceptance of individual people's cultures and outward presentation without them having to be expected to fit in some per-defined bin. I think that I live in a place that's pretty good about this - the vast majority of the comments that I've received about my colorful family have been good ones - and I'm very thankful for that.

Getting back to M and Z and this whole race issue: I think a lot of this comes from misunderstandings between cultures that persist. If I could ask for one thing, I'd ask for people to be required to get a cultural education... about each other's cultures. From my perspective, we're stuck in this mire where we have two cultures with a long history of adversity living alongside each other - and the people that dare to reach across the lines, from either side, are ousted by their own. I get the whole concept of treasuring our culture but some days I think maybe we'd be better off if we could all just meet in the middle and let our cultures get diluted into each other.

snoopy wrote:I think that the US has a culture problem, not a race problem at this point. I think that my #1 problem with the way things are is that there's this unwritten (or maybe written) expectation that cultural lines will be drawn along racial lines.

I'm not sure there's a big difference (beyond semantics). Even if it's attributed to culture instead of skin color, the very fact a boundary is being drawn based on flawed broad-brush generalizations shows that the problem still exists.

For example:
"Those __[insert ethnic group/culture]__ are the ones being racist."

Note that this is, in and of itself, a flawed generalization. Sometimes, it's from well-meaning people who believe they are just pointing out the problem rather than adding to the divide, but mostly it's from people who are just blind to their own pre-conceived notions about the other culture/race/group/religion/etc.

snoopy wrote:
I think that the US has a culture problem, not a race problem at this point. I think that my #1 problem with the way things are is that there's this unwritten (or maybe written) expectation that cultural lines will be drawn along racial lines.

pretty fair assessment. At the very least, people tend to jump to racial differences when they ought to be considering socioeconomic or even geographic faultlines.

I'll start with some places in the south. I went to college in east Texas. I don't know if this is true... but there was rumored to be a little town down the way that would run out any black person that dared to stop there. Maybe it was a rumor... but I saw and heard enough around there to know that for some people and some circles, it wasn't too far from the truth. There are pockets of culture that are still extremely bigoted toward anyone who isn't white, and it's an evil thing. It hurts me that my daughter is going to be hated and judged by people simply based on the way that she looks.

those types of places extend FAR beyond merely the 'South'. Otherwise, good sentiments re: your daughter.

Now, the urban culture. My daughter doesn't look like me. She isn't going to grow up to talk and act like a lot of people that look like her. There are aspects of the urban culture that I don't particularly want her to pick up - such as the marginalization of women and the importance that appearance receives. I also hurts me that my daughter is going to be hated and judged by people that look like her simply based on the way that she speaks and carries herself.

yup, you get the geographic/economic thing. Well put.

I think that the primary problem is with groups and places that expect individuals to fit certain cultural bins based on some outward characteristic of theirs. I think that there are places of diversity where there can be acceptance of individual people's cultures and outward presentation without them having to be expected to fit in some per-defined bin. I think that I live in a place that's pretty good about this - the vast majority of the comments that I've received about my colorful family have been good ones - and I'm very thankful for that.

I think, also, that there is a trend toward greater acceptance and tolerance with time. However, it is a slow process.

Getting back to M and Z and this whole race issue: I think a lot of this comes from misunderstandings between cultures that persist. If I could ask for one thing, I'd ask for people to be required to get a cultural education... about each other's cultures. From my perspective, we're stuck in this mire where we have two cultures with a long history of adversity living alongside each other - and the people that dare to reach across the lines, from either side, are ousted by their own. I get the whole concept of treasuring our culture but some days I think maybe we'd be better off if we could all just meet in the middle and let our cultures get diluted into each other.

racial/ethnic predjudice is a really slow process, like I said. Some day, that melding of cultures will be progressed to the point where you wouldn't even think about the matter, but, for the moment, consider aspects of our cultures that have met and grown. I think of Jazz and other musical genres as prime examples but there are more. At any rate, thanks for sharing your observations.

I'd like to know whether you guys think unique cultures are a thing of the past, and whether you see the hypothetical disappearance of unique culture as a positive thing or a negative thing? It makes me wonder, why should the melding of cultures be considered a good thing? Is it correct to sacrifice a basic and natural thing like culture on the alter of tolerance? What kind of world are you vying for where unique cultures are somehow outmoded or taboo? Note that I'm speaking of culture as a natural and changing phenomenon, related to a degree of separation or isolation, not the artificial preservation of a "culture" which is little more than an image of some historical reality.

ST, good question. I think, given the ever more global nature of human discourse and economics, you will see less distinction of culture, but only gradually, as those changes tend to come generationally. Just my best guess.

I have two questions/comments:

One: Paula Deen & Riley Cooper are examples of how strongly people react to racial slurs (okay, specifically the n word) these days. Do you guys think that there should be grace for people who use the word - even when they are using it in anger to hurt another person? Do you guys think that it's proper that there is such extreme sensitivity to one word direct toward one race, and not so much for the assortment of other slurs used for other races?

Two: Racial Profiling - where do we draw the line between what's proper and what isn't? Let me give an example: When I was in high school, I stood in the lunch line each day. It was a very common occurrence that certain people would cut in line. Among the people that cut in line, a good 90% were African American & "jocks". Among the people waited properly in line, 95% of us were not African American. The racial mix in the school was somewhere around 75/25%. The conclusion that I drew: African Americans were line-cutters. Incidentally, the African Americans that didn't cut in line were the smart ones that were in higher-level classes. Also note, there weren't that many people in my lunch (say, ~100) so there was a lot of repeat offenses by the same people over and over again.

Was I racially profiling? You bet.... except that I generally didn't associate the smart people (regardless of race) with the group that drew my disdain. Did I also lose respect for the "wanna-be" white kids that acted black? Yes... because they tended to be the 10% of line cutters that weren't black. Was my perception off? Probably to some level... but mostly I know that it really made me mad.

Can there be a place for racial profiling?

snoopy wrote:I have two questions/comments:

One: Paula Deen & Riley Cooper are examples of how strongly people react to racial slurs (okay, specifically the n word) these days. Do you guys think that there should be grace for people who use the word - even when they are using it in anger to hurt another person? Do you guys think that it's proper that there is such extreme sensitivity to one word direct toward one race, and not so much for the assortment of other slurs used for other races?

a fair question, Spidey, and certainly one I don't have a clear-cut answer towards. If you think about it, we've seen a variety of societal responses to other slurs, too. Remember the role 'macaca' played in the Virginia senate race a few years back, for instance? I think, though, that society does tend to lessen it's response to slurs aimed at the majority. I can't say that is proper, but I think the reasoning is that, for example, a black person calling white people 'Whitey' or 'Cracker'(the latter more reference to a certain social class of white person) is seen as more of a response born of being a victim than of belittlement(as seen with Cooper and Deen). Right? Not really, but I can see the distinction in there someplace.

Two: Racial Profiling - where do we draw the line between what's proper and what isn't? Let me give an example: When I was in high school, I stood in the lunch line each day. It was a very common occurrence that certain people would cut in line. Among the people that cut in line, a good 90% were African American & "jocks". Among the people waited properly in line, 95% of us were not African American. The racial mix in the school was somewhere around 75/25%. The conclusion that I drew: African Americans were line-cutters. Incidentally, the African Americans that didn't cut in line were the smart ones that were in higher-level classes. Also note, there weren't that many people in my lunch (say, ~100) so there was a lot of repeat offenses by the same people over and over again.

Was I racially profiling? You bet.... except that I generally didn't associate the smart people (regardless of race) with the group that drew my disdain. Did I also lose respect for the "wanna-be" white kids that acted black? Yes... because they tended to be the 10% of line cutters that weren't black. Was my perception off? Probably to some level... but mostly I know that it really made me mad.

Can there be a place for racial profiling?

I left your whole example in here, because it shows a key point, Spidey. Looking at your words, the distinction you should have been likely making was between smart people and not-so-smart people, not color. However, for any of you who took Sociology, you remember that bit where skin color is the easiest stigma to determine, and as humans, we tend to gravitate toward 'easy'. As that study I cited earlier saw, we are programmed, as humans, to develop 'us versus them' thinking at birth. Therefore, using skin color as a means to that end is, frankly, too easy, so we do it. Is there a place for racial profiling? No, there SHOULDN'T be, but, on the other hand, there likely always will be, because that's how the human brain works.

You're addressing Snoopy, slick.

All us superheroes and cool dogs look the same.

There is a place for racial profiling if you are trying to eliminate the non likely subjects of your scrutiny to be able to focus more attention on the more likely subjects AND actual experience shows that only one particular race is likely your target.

That is using race and not out of illegal discrimination or bigotry.

If you want to study sickle cell disease and you plan to bring in 1000's of people for a free screening and you only ask black people to participate you are:

A ) not a racist (or bigot for those who know the difference)
B ) subject to be called a racist by the white equivalent of Al Sharpton (as if there is one)
C ) probably smart enough to know the difference between a good profile and a bad one

Yes! All the above!


Likewise, if you are the police dispatch and sending a radio alert for a bank robbery suspect and the only description you have is black male age approximately 35 driving a white car you will be causing your patrol officers to alert to black drivers of white vehicles...they will then narrow it down to the other details as they get a better look at them.
Race is the primary component of that profile. It is totally acceptable.

snoopy wrote:When I was in high school, I stood in the lunch line each day. It was a very common occurrence that certain people would cut in line. Among the people that cut in line, a good 90% were African American & "jocks". Among the people waited properly in line, 95% of us were not African American. The racial mix in the school was somewhere around 75/25%. The conclusion that I drew: African Americans were line-cutters.

What percentage of the jocks were African-American? You can't make that assumption without that piece of data. It could have been a black thing, or it could have been a jock-culture thing.

From my own experience teaching at a high school where 98% of the students were black, I saw the exact same thing (jocks cutting in line). I'd say it's an issue of jock-culture.

----------

An interesting anecdote about my own conclusions about students "cutting":

As a university freshman, I recall getting in line at the cafeteria, only to have a bunch of upperclassmen cut in ahead of me to get what they wanted. I remember being angry and annoyed, much like you were, and many freshmen came to the conclusion that upperclassmen were just rude.

However, as I and the other freshmen eventually figured out (and the upperclassmen knew): There was no reason for us to even line up; there were no established rules about lines in the cafeteria at all. We had just made the assumption that we needed to line up, and thus made the false conclusion about the upperclassmen.

Will Robinson wrote:Race is the primary component of that profile. It is totally acceptable.

If the profile is accurate, sure. The problem is the recursive dynamic between profiles and targets:

Targets/arrests are driven by profiles
Profiles are built from target/arrest rates

It's not completely circular, but there is a measurably inaccurate skew toward certain races in these profiles.

I'm not suggesting that we do away with profiles altogether, but law enforcement has to take this into account when race is the sole metric.

Foil wrote:
... The problem is the recursive dynamic between profiles and targets:

Targets/arrests are driven by profiles
Profiles are built from target/arrest rates

...

I think for that phenomenon to manifest into a real problem the police would have to purposely stick with an old profile and they are dealing with a very up to the minute input dynamic. A crime is reported, with suspect description, and the alert goes out...the profile is updated...

A department issued profile, or a few words from a detective to a street cop about the suspect they want him to look for...etc. is going to be pared down to relevant data by virtue of the goal.
A bigoted inclusion or exclusion of a particular race is going to be more of a personal choice on a cop to cop basis or a peer group influenced choice that ultimately still comes down to an individual cops choice to go 'bigot' instead of go effective cop.
I don't think you can fault the simple logic of a "profile" based on operator corruption.

To cite individual bigotry as a sign that "profiling" is evil is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The problem with making that distinction is you need to tell people that sometimes their race is going to be one of the red flags in a "profile" and that should be accepted. To me, that message is no different, or offensive, than telling people they will need to remove their shoes in line at the airport..
The problem with that is trying to make a case for it in today's society and you get labeled a 'racist' for doing nothing more than suggesting people do what is correct, logical and helpful to society!

To suggest that we throw away good sense because the ancestors of some white people owned slaves therefore all white people today owe so much to blacks that we cant do anything that they perceive in any way as motivated out of bigotry is ridiculous, and yet that premise is closer to reality than hyperbole!
The reason it is so embraced is, in my view, the direct result of power hungry people manipulating the emotions of black people for their own gain, or some twisted sense of raining down retribution on the white devil.

Spidey wrote:All us superheroes and cool dogs look the same.

thanks, guys for the sense of humor with my feckups!

Will, you are STILL making the same unfounded assertions about what black people think and why. Wouldn't it be best to limit your pondering to why you think the way you do? To say that denial of describing suspects by race is 'prevalent', or 'closer to reality than hyperbole' is flat-out wrong.

I’m going to slightly oversimplify your first question Snoopy…

The reason racial slurs used against white people aren’t considered as bad as the ones used against black people is because of the lens people see the two races through…

One being the “privileged” race, and the other being the “victim” race.

When I worked at this one place, I worked in a room without air-conditioning, while the room that the women worked in was, when I asked the boss why this room wasn’t air-conditioned as well he said…”You can take it, you are a man”

On your second question…

I think your case is more like an experiential bias, than a case of profiling. The real question I have with this sort of thing is this…

Do you have a right to become a racist if people of another race constantly mistreat you?

I firmly believe the answer is NO…you do not. But I find much too often that people are given this excuse.

callmeslick wrote:Will, you are STILL making the same unfounded assertions about what black people think and why. Wouldn't it be best to limit your pondering to why you think the way you do? To say that denial of describing suspects by race is 'prevalent',...

Please show me how or where I said that.

callmeslick wrote:...or 'closer to reality than hyperbole' is flat-out wrong.

Or even that in any context close to your bizarre inference!


What I did say.... as in the actual words of the actual sentence that I typed. That is the comment that I then referenced in the next paragraph with the words that you completely misrepresented.... was:
"To cite individual bigotry as a sign that "profiling" is evil is to throw the baby out with the bathwater."

It is a simple premise really. A simple point to follow.

I answered the question of : "Can there be a place for racial profiling?" with an example or two of how I thought it has a place.

In the explanation I drew the distinction between an institution / policy that has a proper way to profile and the way that proper plan can be corrupted by an individuals bigotry.
I then simply stated that the concept of a 'proper place for a profile' should not be dismissed just because an individual can inject his own biases and bigotry where they don't belong.

Now you have taken that and twisted it into...hell I don't even know what! And while doing so you are preaching down to me about unfounded assertions?!? WTF?

You aren't having a discussion, you are just spouting off.

Saw this on an OTL segment yesterday.

If nigga is such an offensive term. Them why do black people consistently use it to refer to each other and perpetuate it use?

For the same reason that the homosexual community has tried to reclaim the word "queer," one would assume.

Rep. Charles Rangel had said in an interview that the Tea Party consisted of the same kinds of “white crackers” who opposed civil rights.

Why no outrage by the left? Why can a black man make a racist comment and get away unscathed. But a white man says "he looks black" and get labeled as a racist?

Incidentally I find the comment incredibly humorus and ironic, that he called the democratic party a bunch of white crackers since it was them that opposed civil rights

Top Gun wrote:For the same reason that the homosexual community has tried to reclaim the word "queer," one would assume.

so you are saying its ok to use a derogatory and unacceptable terms to desribe one another. but then feign outrage if someone else uses that same term.

CUDA wrote:

Rep. Charles Rangel had said in an interview that the Tea Party consisted of the same kinds of “white crackers” who opposed civil rights.

Why no outrage by the left? Why can a black man make a racist comment and get away unscathed. But a white man says "he looks black" and get labeled as a racist? ...

Worse than that! He said he 'looks like he might be up to no good being that he was just standing in the rain between the backs of two rows of houses looking about...'
He only mentioned the suspect "looks black" AFTER the police ASKED HIM what race was the suspect? Zimmerman NEVER voluntarily used race as an identifier in ANY of his calls to 911 over the years.

The police ASKED for that information because they know the value of faster identification by immediately eliminating a large portion of the population...regardless of what color the subject is reported to be!
If you know he is white you can ignore all the black people you see when you roll up into the area....and vice versa...all the white people if he was reported to be black!
Of course that kind of logic is considered racist by some fools.

Rangel makes those kinds of comments because he knows his audience responds to their 'programming'. He is pushing their buttons.

....sort of like that loon in the midwest calling hispanic immigrants 'cantelope legged drug mules' or the like. You are right, these folks play to an audience, and for the record, lots of folks in the Dem party have expressed outrage and dismay at Rangel's words, more than once. Despite the party witholding financial support, in a couple primaries, the man keeps winning his Harlem district. That is the problem of 'safe seats', you end up with a discourse in many cases that the population as a whole doesn't agree with. I don't think MOST Americans support such overt bigotry on any level, aimed at any group.

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:For the same reason that the homosexual community has tried to reclaim the word "queer," one would assume.

so you are saying its ok to use a derogatory and unacceptable term to desribe one another. but then feign outrage if someone else uses that same term.

I don't personally agree with the use of such words generally, but if a certain minority group wants to attempt to take a slur against them and turn it into a positive term within the group, I'd say that's far different than someone outside the group using it against them in a derogatory manner.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:For the same reason that the homosexual community has tried to reclaim the word "queer," one would assume.

so you are saying its ok to use a derogatory and unacceptable term to desribe one another. but then feign outrage if someone else uses that same term.

I don't personally agree with the use of such words generally, but if a certain minority group wants to attempt to take a slur against them and turn it into a positive term within the group, I'd say that's far different than someone outside the group using it against them in a derogatory manner.

So if a group wants to make a word with derogatory meaning into a positive for their group then why would it not be considered a positive if someone ftom outside the group uses it? Why the double standard and caused confusion for others?

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:For the same reason that the homosexual community has tried to reclaim the word "queer," one would assume.

so you are saying its ok to use a derogatory and unacceptable term to desribe one another. but then feign outrage if someone else uses that same term.

I don't personally agree with the use of such words generally, but if a certain minority group wants to attempt to take a slur against them and turn it into a positive term within the group, I'd say that's far different than someone outside the group using it against them in a derogatory manner.

So if a group wants to make a word with derogatory meaning into a positive for their group then why would it not be considered a positive if someone ftom outside the group uses it? Why the double standard and caused confusion for others?

Maybe for the same reason that nicknames often sounds awkward if used by a stranger, either on one's friends or on oneself. However, I thought homosexuals was perfectly fine with people using 'queer' as a strategy to neutralizing the word. I might be wrong though.
I avoid using the term 'nigga' for the same reason I made above. I don't know the social context and so forth. Same with slang in a foreign language, English is not my native language so I try my best to avoid using slang terms. Often when I hear foreigners use slang, it sounds awkward.
I know blacks make a distinction between 'nigga' and '★■◆●', without me knowing why. I think the distinction just lies in how a term is connoted, as there's no reasonable explanation on the differences. What's funny though, I'm a white guy from Norway, and I have some black friends in both UK and US, and when I visit them they call me 'nigga' - nigga from Norway

With that being said, I think all this is just a word game, and an attempt to make whites walk on egg shells. In my country it was perfectly OK to say 'negro' until for some 10 or 12 years ago. Back then I was like - What, whats wrong with that?! I never connoted that term with something negative. Now on the other hand, I get this bad gut feeling when I hear someone use that term. So they have successfully made a descriptive term into a prescriptive term.

Problem with this is that it often backfire. If one tries to connote 'racism' on everything, the term loses its normative aspect, which leave the term meaningless.

As for profiling. I don't know if this have been discussed earlier, but if police are looking for a serial killer, they look for a white guy.

I heard an interesting interview on sports talk radio the other day which made me think about the n word vs. other racial slurs.

Particularly in the U.S. - that word was used in association with some particular acts of hate - hanging, lynching, torture, beatings. Other racial slurs and racism hasn't had the same level of action behind it... here in the U.S. I'd compare it to Germans using racial slurs against Jews - there's a history of particular violence and racism against the group in the region that the open wound is warranted. I can buy into that. I'd also say that in Europe, or even with Europeans in the US, the rules are different for use of the n word.

On the subject of African Americans using the word among themselves: My understanding on the social convention, when it comes to racial slurs is that you're allowed to use a racial slur against your own race... but it also sort of blurs the line of others in the group being able to use with you. Given the special rank of the n word among racial slurs in the U.S., maybe different rules should apply. I'd also draw a distinction between the use of the word as a term of endearment vs. a term of insult regardless of the speaker. I tend to think that the word should be treated with reverence in general, in memory of those for whom that word meant hateful torture and death.

On racial profiling & my example:

I think the "jocks" were approximately a 60/40 mix, with non-African Americans in the minority, but not by a whole lot. I think I was in the wrong to associate it with skin color... if nothing else, I could have associated it with certain people.

I've found that I tend to profile now much more along the lines of how a person dresses and carries themselves than by purely race. If I see a person in a collared shirt and slacks, I tend to assume that they are a decent person. If I see someone in "gangsta" gear, I tend to assume that they are a punk & up to trouble.

So Snoopy, you actually believe it’s the word doing the harm, and not the usage and intent behind it?

I guess people really don’t understand how an insult works.

Spidey wrote:So Snoopy, you actually believe it’s the word doing the harm, and not the usage and intent behind it?

I guess people really don’t understand how an insult works.

I'm saying that in the US I can buy that it's impossible to use the word without a significant possibility of interpreted harm on the part of the hearers; regardless of the intent of the speaker. I'm also saying that the interpreted harm has the potential to be a lot deeper than other racial slurs, because there's more of a personal, extreme hate tied to the history of the word in the US.

Thus, responsible communication on the part of the speaker is to avoid the word in general - and speakers would validly do well to consider the deep implications/effects that can be drawn (either intentional or unintentional to the speaker) if they do choose to use it.

Spidey wrote:So Snoopy, you actually believe it’s the word doing the harm, and not the usage and intent behind it?

I guess people really don’t understand how an insult works.

I believe it's both. there is definitely intent involved. but those that just "USE" it do themselves harm by making its use seem acceptable by others

In these times of subjective understanding of concepts and conceptual confusing, understanding is replaced by association. It's then very easy to plant a psychological condition which is triggered every time we hear a word or see something.
This tendency is obvious every time a tourist in India is offended by swastikas on either Hindu or Buddhist temples, which precede the nazis by 2000 or so years. This says something about the power of association.

By nature, this tendency has a purpose, it's there to economize our reactions. Confronting by a possible danger, we don't have time to examine that particular, let's say a tiger, if he's tame and harmless. We better get in safety fast as possible. Often soldiers, when they're back from a war situation, can react on sounds that their body memory have learned to mean danger, but do not represent any danger now. He react on a feeling, or emotion. Thinking takes too long, emotions are instant and fast.

Too bad this tendency can be exploited for political purposes. Pay attention to how media or politicians use words. Often the word have a normative content, and by using it constantly on something trivial, these trivialities will then be connoted with something bad, and then these words can be used as talking points as if no explanation is needed.
This method can be used in reverse, as well. For example 'extreme'. Extreme is just a descriptive term, i.e. much of something. You can be extreme nice, extreme healthy, extreme smart, and so forth. But, because it's been used on bad thing so much, either extreme right wing, left wing, Islamist, etc, the term has been given a normative meaning. So all one need to do is to label an opponent 'extreme' and the normative (i.e. prescriptive) connotation will do the rest.

snoopy wrote:I'm saying that in the US I can buy that it's impossible to use the word without a significant possibility of interpreted harm on the part of the hearers; regardless of the intent of the speaker. I'm also saying that the interpreted harm has the potential to be a lot deeper than other racial slurs, because there's more of a personal, extreme hate tied to the history of the word in the US.

I’m pretty sure somewhere in there, you are actually making my original point.

Many years ago, black people were victims of slavery…come forward x years and they are now being victimized by a word.

Hey…someone calls you a ★■◆●…smile and give them a cookie.

(that will really piss them off)

Blacks are still enslaved by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton et al. Too bad the ghetto blacks never could cope when the plantation gates were opened and the overseer said , "you're free". A new master with chains made of welfare came and they smilingly put the new chains on as freedom and the right to make something of yourself was too scary a thought.

Only partly true Woody, after slavery black men did much of the skilled manual labor in this country. During the time after slavery and before unions, blacks enjoyed just about full employment, when unions came upon the scene those manual labor jobs started to look good to white people and they wanted them, and what white people want…white people get. (and took)

As a result black people started their own businesses, farms, schools, factories, towns…etc, then came along desegregation, which completely decimated the black business community. Harlem is the perfect example where you once had a hustling thriving community…now, not much more than a slum. Then of course you had the civil rights movement, which pretty much destroyed the remaining remnants during the riots.

Come forward a little more and we have the rebirth of the black middle class, fueled mostly by government bureaucrat jobs, and what happened then…as soon as black people had a few bucks in their pockets, they abandoned the hoods.

And this behavior was encouraged by liberals, the proof is in shows like The Jeffersons.
“The kin folks said Jed move away from there, Californey is the place ya ought to be, so they loaded up the truck, and moved on up to the east side”

Then of course came welfare, to put the final nail in the black family’s coffin, causing much dysfunction, and dependency. So you see, a lot happened between the end of slavery, and welfare.

(timeline is not exact, and history formatted to fit into the time allowed )

In all of history the price paid for each “progressive” change (listed here) took the largest toll on the black race, and has always taken decades to recover from each. Mostly due to poor implementation, such as the failure to grandfather black workers during the union years, but also due to their own doing, in the case of desegregation where blacks stopped patronizing their own businesses, because they could now shop at Woolworths, and of course the riots.

(historical facts all…so don’t even try)

Spidey wrote:Many years ago, black people were victims of slavery…come forward x years and they are now being victimized by a word.

I was in this camp, too. Recently, I think I've decided that it isn't "many years ago" quite yet.

Segregation was alive and active in the 50's and 60's. Hate and violence lived on during segregation.... Once we're separated from segregation/Jim Crow by enough that we don't have people alive that lived through it, I'll reconsider. For now, I think that the fact that we have people who lived through segregation still with us means that we can't quite dismiss racism in the US as the distant past.

Sorry Snoopy if you misunderstood me, that’s not what I meant…

The point was more like…there is a real difference between actual slavery, lynching, discrimination…etc, and something like a word. (and don’t let yourself be victimized by something as trivial as a word)

I was never trying to imply, everything went away after slavery.

cobbled together, both Snoopy and Spidey make a good overall point.

callmeslick wrote:cobbled together, both Snoopy and Spidey make a good overall point.

QFT

woodchip wrote:Blacks are still enslaved by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton et al. Too bad the ghetto blacks never could cope when the plantation gates were opened and the overseer said , "you're free". A new master with chains made of welfare came and they smilingly put the new chains on as freedom and the right to make something of yourself was too scary a thought.

This is the most ★■◆●ing disgusting thing I've read here in a very long time. Seriously, what the ★■◆●.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:Blacks are still enslaved by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton et al. Too bad the ghetto blacks never could cope when the plantation gates were opened and the overseer said , "you're free". A new master with chains made of welfare came and they smilingly put the new chains on as freedom and the right to make something of yourself was too scary a thought.

This is the most **** disgusting thing I've read here in a very long time. Seriously, what the ****.

and, you seem surprised......why? Woody has a bizarre grasp of history(welfare came over 90 years after emancipation), and even less of a clue about human nature. Like I say, should anyone be surprised?