Why debate this issue for several pages and argue to diminish the offensiveness if not to say that it is OK to use such terms? If you want to know why a certain term is offensive to a group of people that can be easily answered in one or two posts yet what we see in this debate and the previous "chinaman" debate is arguments that seek to validate the use of such terms by arguing that they aren't offensive if there isn't intent, that most are ignorant of the nature of the term or that if members of a certain group use it internally then all should be allowed to use it too. If the discussion is why is this term offensive to a particular group that has been answered several several times.
Like I said it might not make them racist, but it does make their action racist. I gave specific examples of racism born of ignorance and not meant to show superiority, but that was damaging none-the-less. By spreading stereotypes it spreads racism. It is EXACTLY THAT WHICH LEAD TO THE HOLOCAUST. Stereotypes of Jews as money grabbers, and other things which were ignorantly spread and believed by many to be true were prevelant. Little things like that in themselves didn't cause anyone to die directly. But they did spread untrue stereotypes even though it wasn't meant to show Jews were inferior. Then after that was prevolent people were more easily accepting of certain warnings about the Jews. Because they are (fill in stereotype here) they also secretly control banks. That was accepted but the Jews weren't shipped to camps or killed, but people began talking. Gradually the propoganda and stereotypes increased, and at first they were just segregated for reasons that were accepted after years and years of apparently non-malicious stereotyping. Once that was done ignorance prevailed even more easily and the holocaust came about gradually. It was not all of a sudden a group of people who hated the Jews came in, spread lies, and started killing them. It took years and decades after decades to spread the ignorant stereotypes that allowed it to take place. You can sit there and pretend that if someone doesn't mean any harm or isn't trying to show superiority that it isn't racism, but you are wrong. It is and it can be dangerous. At the end of the day it most definitely is not only about intent and context. As I said limiting public media images of blacks was not meant to show superiority, or with ill intent by many of the writers, producers etc. Yet it was still racist, and harmful. It was also born of ignorance by men who were often well educated. Sorry I wasn't clear. Ignorance has to do with not knowing. One can be educated but ignorant about certain things. Also I didn't mean to say that all racism was born of ignorance. But I gave specific examples of where ignorance is spread and plays a part in spreading stereotypes. It is racist even though the intent isn't overtly malicious. What happens between individuals is up to them. You can say whatever you want to your friends if they are ok with it. That is an individual case, and is pointless to argue about that here. But in general it does matter and racism goes far beyond just trying a belief in an overt attempt to show superiority.
But ignorance does not equate to racism - that's my point. Thus, much of what is perceived to be racism is not really racism but rather insensitivy or a lack of knowledge.
I think this is a bit of a straw man you are showing. If a person says something that demonstrates racial supremcy - then yeah, that's racism. Saying Jews are money grubbing is racist - whether in jest or not. But using a word to describe someone technically isn't racist, unless it's used in a context to reinforce another stereotype related to demonstrating superiority. The Holocaust was born not of ignorance - but of racism. The idea that Jews were "different" and lesser. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge about someone. Ignorance can lead to fear - which can lead to racism - but most racism is not born of ignorance, but out of hate or anger. The Holocaust was born out of anger. Jews were a scapegoat of the anger that many had about their destitution. So if someone uses a word like Chinaman - the context has to be carefully considered. Is this person making fun of an accent? If so, that's not racism. That's just insensitive. Is Fuzzy Zoeller saying Tiger Woods shouldn't serve fried chicken or collard greens racist? Of course not. It's just insensitive and callous. Tiger might be offended but it's not racist. What would be racist if he said - black people shouldn't be winning the Masters. Because then you are in the area of superiority.
I don't see how you can say 'Of course not' like it's cut and dry. If he was trying to make a joke, as weak as it would have been, you might construe that as being insensitive and callous. But most people don't think he was joking and thus that makes him racist.
This thread title cracks me up. Since when was "Blacks" inappropriate to use? Should we not say "Whites" and go with Caucasian also?
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pHCrDxsoEYc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pHCrDxsoEYc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Tq4w69Ltjg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Tq4w69Ltjg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Offensive terms are offensive terms regardless of perceived intent or context. The same goes for profanity. Profane words are no less profane when one of them "slips" out in a conversation. One cannot simply say, "Oooops" and make it go away, or water down. Have we grown so self-privileged and callous? Certain words, from every "ethinicity" or "people group" or "heritage" what have you, will always be offensive to someone. The problem with these words is that once people come out of ignorance about them, meaning they learn that they may be offensive, they often times don't care. In every case it is a choice to be civil, in every direction, that keeps someone from repeating a potentially offensive word, whether "within" one's own ethnicity/heritage or not. We should choose our words based more on who we wish to not possibly be offended. I find that a desire to expand my personal vocabulary keeps me both 1)away from profanity and 2)away from any need to be insensitive to others, especially when it comes to differences in skin color, creeds, backgrounds, preference, heritage, etc. Am I perfect in these attempts? Not by a long shot. I'm sure I've offended someone in here before, and may again... but the choice is made, as I'm informed that my actions/words were offensive, to make sure to not repeat the offense. I will not make it seem as though I have attained perfection in this, but I sure as anything will attempt to make that my goal. When I was a kid, I thought as a kid. But I choose with age to mature in speech, in action, and in attempting to understand my world around me. I choose to not offend someone. Do I have disagreements? You bet your bippy I do. But I don't just say "who cares whether or not you understand why I do what I do?" Understanding my "rights" to remain unique, and or "true" to my upbringing, I also understand my need to understand what makes you different, and vice versa. Embracing differences, however, does not make me comfortable with anyone using offensive terms. The ugliness of a past that some wish to let go, and can never apologize enough for it seems, only grows more grotesque in the eyes of those who had no control over their ancestors actions. Helplessly I watch as others continue to remind me of the hatred once commonplace in society. A societal hatred that seems to still linger, even though it would seem the instigators of such hate have significantly diminished in number. A hatred that now seems to be aimed back at a generation by and large willing to move ahead, only to be imprisoned by a past they never asked for, yet inherited. It hurts me. Every time I hear it, no matter where I hear it from. It hurts. I'm human. So is everyone else. Everyone of us should hurt when insensitive language is spoken. But seldom does humanity think about his fellow man. If the "shoe was on the other foot" however, well... then we scream. Offensive words change. Some linger. In my house, none are tolerated. I've told elders in my family to leave my house if they've let them slip, especially if they've used the words intentionally. I've not invited, nor visited, some blood relatives after such language. I've marched my family right out of a family reunion I've driven 600+ miles to attend, and I've not returned to those functions for years now. I won't tolerate it. I can't afford to bring that kind of hatred into the future of my children. It is the choice of today's parents that carry this behaviour forward... and I will not. I've taught, and will continue to teach, my children that any word considered racist or offensive, even profane, if and when they hear it or bring it up to me to ask what it means, is not a word we use. It is very hard to teach a child not to use a word, based on the precept that the word will offend a certain people group, only to have your child ask the "then why do they say it so much then, Daddy?" question. That time comes in every family. And it is a choice to correctly teach that insensitivity to others is not tolerable, regardless of the past, or even whether or not they say it's no big deal. If we teach it now, it can change. We cannot change the past, but the future is yet to be written. I'd like to make it better. For the sake of civility, and future generations, I ask that offensive words not be used period. BUt the only audience I know will hear me is my children. And if I can affect their thinking to not tolerate this kind of language, perhaps they can influence others of their generation, and so on. This is not denial of the past. But it is saying that we do NOT condone the actions of past generations that were fueled by ignorance and hatred. Many civil right leaders, long since gone, of different ethnicity would be ashamed at the current state of our society. And as much as they would seek to correct, they would correct today's grandparents first. In my limited world view, it is the previous two parental generations in my life that failed to teach the vision shared by previous civil rights movements. I cannot for the life of me understand the desire to remain in hatred of fellow human beings based on skin tone. And yet, I am tagged by some instantly because of my skin tone. Unfortunately, all I can do is hope that others are teaching their children that the labels placed on us by society are not accurate, and that people must be known before they are judged. Of course, that's the big similarity between all people... we think, therefore you are. I know I am one voice... but not alone. When every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is no true civility. Threads like these can be very constructive so long as everyone allows other viewpoints to be heard and expressed. No culture is 100% what it was when it began. Every culture is equal to the sum of all of it's influences... exactly as each individual person's character is the sum of all of their experiences and influences. Racism at it's fullest is hatred under a different label. Some things considered offensive and potentially racist, once understood, can be history that need not be repeated or re-enacted. If something is perceived as offensive, it does not automatically mean that the person who was the offender was aware of the offense... it must be revealed as offensive. It is equally as offensive, or even more so, when the offended person is dismissed as ignorant, or not qualified to be offended. Simply put, it offends people to use offensive words, regardless of who they are. Some may be desensitized, but they have still had an offense thrown their way. Just because a person says it's okay for them to use a word "within" their community does not mean that it cannot, or should not, offend someone from the outside. It is offensive because it is offensive, and it is a lack of civility to not have any regard for the next generation of any "group." Bottom line, If you don't want me calling you a certain word, don't call yourself that either... it's self deprecating, and it impedes the progress of society as a whole. And the sad thing is, some current leaders in our lives have stressed these very points only to have them fall on seemingly deaf ears. History is supposed to be learned from, not repeated at the risk of losing forward momentum. These lessons have been taught on every continent, within every skin color, world wide. When will we as a whole learn?
A word can be racist, depending on the word. As for the holocaust I urge you to find a way to visit the tolerance museum and if you have the opportunity to visit with a holocaust survivor do so. It changed my thinking and had a profound effect on me. The holocaust end result was one of superiority and thinking Jews were lesser, and that is the only part most people hear about. But that is not how it was born. The survivor that I talked with says Hitler wasn't more to blame than the rest of Europe and even America for the Holocaust. He told me about how at first there were seemingly harmless stereotypes about Jews that were prevelant in Europe. Very few people saw it as a racial superiorarity thing. But everyone repeated and began to accept those stereotypes. Because stereotypes dehumanize and remove the individuality from people, it was easy to slowly darken the stereotypes and move toward the Holocaust. "Well you know Jews don't like to spend money" (that is ignorant and doesn't have a superiority bent to it.)was well accepted when it slowly over the course of years morphed into they are money grubbing, which morphed into control of banks. After of all that had been around for decades then it made it possible for laws to be passed to prevent business ownership of certain kinds of businesses which all started with an ignorant stereotype. It was only then that the idea of superiority began to creep in. That was an afterthought. The fact much of Europe held the stereotypes for decades and possibly hundreds of years before the Nazis is precisely what made the Nazis plans able to be put into action. If the Nazis had come along 50 years earlier and suggested that Jews be exterminated people would have thought they were crazy, and laughed them out into seclusion. All the while they would have still been spouting the same ignorant stereotypes. Those stereotypes laid the groundwork for the Holocaust, and made it possible, everybit as much as Hitler's ideas of a master race and racial superiority. You don't understand racism. Fuzzy Zoeller's comments made the assumption that Tiger liked fried chicken and collard greens because the color of his skin. That is reducing Tiger's character to Fuzzy's ignorant idea of what black people must eat. It denies his individuality and assigns him a characteristic based solely on the color of his skin.
By claiming that you don't need to be concerned with how African-Americans view themselves is being closed minded? You sure spent a lot of time confirming what I already said. All I said is you don't need to concern yourself with how blacks view themselves. How does that become "shut up whitie?" I'll summarize: ***** and ****** are two different words. If you use ***** "correctly" them you are free to use it regardless of who you are. But if you get it wrong, even in the slightest, then you look like an idiot or may be viewed as a racist. So if you don't know how to use it, then it's just best to avoid it altogether.
here's an idea: if you think a word might hurt someone...don't use it. i think that should save the trouble of analyzing this much further.
