This is from Ognilecaf's post rac·ism (rszm) Pronunciation Key n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability. Fuzzy is believing that race accounts for a certain predisposition to particular foods. It is a racist belief.
BTW, the definition of racism states (looked it up in the American heritage Dictionary) states: 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. FranchiseBlade hit the nail on the head. Those comments were racist.
Exactly. If you use it with a friend in private that isn't offended that is one thing. If you use it in public with people you don't know then it is something else. The comments being talked about were all used in public regarding people who could or did take offense.
Good, then you shouldn't. But the point of the thread was asking why white people arn't allowed to. Generally, whites should avoid using it but if your heart was so content, you COULD use it if you knew how to apply it correctly. So just because it makes YOU sick to your stomach doesn't make what blacks do among themselves relevant to your feelings. Regardless of the ultimate origin of the word, the word N!gger received a negative connotation well after the Niger river was named and to this day remains current as does two African nations. Should Nigeria change it's name because of some hick KKK dudes in America? No. Black Americans reclaiming the word Niger which has roots back to the motherland is not a bad thing. Besides, there is no proof that the Niger river was named based on the Latin word ...you are simply jumping to a big conclusion. Nobody in Africa has spoken Latin for kagillion years, if ever, and the river got its name long after Latin was a dead language.
I'm 34 and treat my parents with the same level of respect as I always have. I may cuss around my father but I definately would not cuss AT him. Again, another example of learning HOW to use words rather than simply making blanket statements about how a word, by itself, is or is not racist. I certainly wouldn't call my dad, *****.
that's why the word was born out of the spanish version of the word Niger. But whatever man... That is why this discussion is valid. There are words that aren't to be used by people because it might offend other people. But if the other people use that word, and I'm offended by it, I should just accept it and continue to be offended. Makes sense. As to the "n" word having its origins in the motherland, I'm tellin' you this is flat wrong. It's true they didn't speak Latin in what is now called Nigeria. It was a French colony. However there were Portuguese explorers there before the French and they use the same Spanish version of the Latin word "Niger" which is "Negro". The origin of the name of the river isn't clear - and might be indigenous but probably isn't. The locals didn't call the river the Niger River. The origin of the "N" word has nothing to do with Nigeria or Niger or the Niger River and has everything to do with the word "Negro" which is Spanish and means black. Either way, the origin isn't important unless you claim you are using the word out of respect for the motherland and a way to reclaim your African heritage. The word is not African in origin so this can't possibly be justification. If you have roots in Latin, Spanish or Portuguese then you can state you are reclaiming your heritage. I wish the word would go away, but it isn't and I will have to live with the fact that I'm offended by it although apparently I'm the only one the world has a given right to offend without consequence. Cheers, Brock
The Spanish and Portuguese word is Negro ...not Niger. So how are you making that leap? It is unclear. When you arn't the subject of said word, then your taking offense to it doesn't hold as much weight. Not a hard concept. You are misinterpreting my usage of the word 'origin.' All I am saying is the Niger River was around before the KKK. If the Spanish, or whoever named it, then that proves my point. Thanks. Today, right now, there are two countries and the 2nd largest river in Africa with names derived from Niger. Regardless of the ultimate origin of the word, the word itself is still very relevant to the continent as we see it today. You can't simply dismiss it citing that hundreds of years ago another country gave its name. If that were true, virtually all of language would be irrelevant since all languages have common roots. The city of New Orleans and New York would have no reason to inspire American pride because their names are rooted elsewhere? Silly.
This certainly effects you more than it does me so I admit I don't have much a leg to stand on as far as criticism. And you seem like a cool dude, if maybe a little biased. The two countries in Africa both have their name as a result of the Niger River. The origin of the Niger River is then the origin of the two countries names. that origin is unclear. There isn't anything at all to suggest that it comes from an African word and there is a possible explaination that it comes from the French word nigérien - which is probably the true origin. None of these have anything to do with the word ***** or n******. All I am saying is that if you are using this word to recapture your African heritage then your reasoning is misguided as the word doesn't originate in Africa. Just because there happen to be two countries and a river in Africa that have a similar name still doesn't make this word originate in Africa. The only association between these two words is one that you are making. It doesn't exist in reality. I'm not saying that because the Niger River has its name as originating from another culture that that is the reason you are misguided. I'm stating you are misguided because these countries names and the name of this river have absolutely nothing, zilch, nada to do with the "N" word. As to your question about Negro being different from Niger, Niger is the root of where the word Negro comes from. And if you say Negro with a Spanish twang you might then find yourself with the realization of exactly where the "n" word comes from. It ain't the spelling dude... it's the sounds... As an example say your word - either form - ***** and ******. Now say Niger and Negro and see which sounds closer. Either way, it's your word and you can have it. Cheers, Brock
I thought this was interesting... and after this discussion I'm thinking about checking this book out. Hopefully it doesn't get my ass kicked. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word by Randall Kennedy. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002. 226 pp. $22.00. In his provocative book ******: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word, Randall Kennedy explores various meanings of this contentious and ambiguous word. Kennedy claims that the term "****** is fascinating precisely because it has been put to a variety of uses and can radiate a wide array of meanings" (p. 34). He notes that words like honky, kike, wetback, and gook do not seem to capture the same attention or create the uneasiness that ****** does. Kennedy, a Harvard Law School professor, delves into the history of the word ****** as well as the countless ways and contexts in which the term is now being used by Americans of different ethnic and racial backgrounds. Kennedy approaches the analysis of this highly controversial word in four detailed chapters. He begins chapter one, "The Protean N-Word," by retracing the origin of ******, the various ways Americans tend to use the word and why it "generate such powerful reactions" (p. 3). ******, Kennedy asserts, is derived from the Latin word niger for the color black, and has become part of the vocabulary of all types of people, including those Kennedy describes as "whites high and low" (p. 8). For example, Kennedy cites Supreme Court Justice James Clark McReynolds’ reference to Howard University as the "****** university" and President Harry S. Truman’s reference to Congressman Adam Clayton Powell as "that damned ****** preacher" (p. 11). In this same chapter, Kennedy includes personal accounts of prominent Black Americans, such as Paul Robeson, Malcolm X, Michael Jordan, and Tiger Woods, who have been targets of this epithet. Interestingly, Kennedy points out that many Black Americans have actually embraced the word ****** and shifted its meaning to a more positive connotation that they use among themselves. For example, Kennedy documents Black American rap artist Ice Cube as saying, "When we call each other ‘******’ it means no harm. . . . But if a white person uses it, it’s something different, it’s a racist word" (p. 52). In contrast, Kennedy cites University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Eric Dyson, a Black American, who believes that "there is nothing necessarily wrong with a white person saying, ‘******,’ just as there is nothing necessarily wrong with a black person saying it. What should matter is the context in which the word is spoken — the speaker’s aims, effects, alternatives" (pp. 51–52). Kennedy also draws on a powerful comment made by journalist Jarvis Deberry, which describes the word ****** as "beautiful in its multiplicity of functions . . . capable of expressing so many contradictory emotions" (p. 37). To illustrate some of these "multiple functions," Kennedy cites sociologist John Hartigan’s research, which describes how ****** can refer to anyone of any color or shade. For example, Hartigan’s research documents how poor Whites in Detroit refer to their White neighbors as ******s, and in some cases as wiggers, which signifies a White ******. Having set a broad context for interpreting the word, Kennedy devotes the second chapter, "****** in Court," to discussing how the use of ****** has been debated over many years in court cases in the United States. He divides "****** in Court" into four sections that underscore Kennedy’s assertion that the use of ****** is extremely complicated, and that court decisions dealing with this term reflect this complexity, as they are usually decided on contextual factors that differ from case to case. Also in chapter two, Kennedy includes the various definitions of ****** in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and acknowledges that some Black Americans are not pleased with the way the term is defined. However, Kennedy is adamant that decisions "whether to note or how to define a deeply controversial word is an inescapably ‘political’ act, and claims to the contrary are either naïve or disingenuous" (p. 136). Kennedy also incorporates the ideas of eradicationists (i.e., people who believe that any use of ****** is always inappropriate). Because he primarily sets out to describe various meanings of the term, such a view from eradicationists appears valid at best, but somewhat limited and uninformed for Kennedy’s taste. In chapter three, "Pitfalls in Fighting ******: Perils of Deception, Censoriousness, and Excessive Anger," Kennedy looks at how the word ****** has received much publicity when used in the media or in contexts other than the courts. To illustrate this point, Kennedy explores some White Americans’ artistic use of ****** as well as Black Americans’ perceptions about the word and White Americans’ use of it. For instance, he mentions filmmaker’s Spike Lee’s belief that African American filmmakers have more of a right to use ****** than do White Americans. This chapter also addresses some people’s concerns with Mark Twain’s use of ****** in Huckleberry Finn. Kennedy claims that although Twain was once "inculcated with white-supremacist beliefs and sentiments," he eventually "underwent a dramatic metamorphosis" that radically changed his beliefs (p. 139). This change in Twain’s perspective is actually reflected in Huckleberry Finn, which depicts the ignorance of White Americans who use the term. Kennedy ends his third chapter with a proclamation that current Black comedians are liberally and appropriately "eschew[ing] boring conventions . . . that ****** can mean only one thing" (p. 171). Kennedy’s briefest and final chapter, "How Are We Doing with ******?" suggests that "public opinion has effectively stigmatized ******-as-insult," regardless of the context in which people use the term, and predicts that "as ****** is more widely disseminated and its complexity is more widely appreciated, censuring its use — even its use as an insult — will become more difficult" (p. 175). With so many accounts of the use of ****** in various contexts, Kennedy appropriately concludes that "for bad and for good, ****** is . . . destined to remain with us for many years to come — a reminder of the ironies and dilemma, the tragedies and glories, of the American experience" (p. 176). Kennedy’s provocative piece is a powerful illustration of how one term can have an array of meanings for those who use it, for those who interpret it, and in the specific situations in which the word is spoken and heard, written and read. G.A.S. http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~hepg/wi03.htm
You are missing the point. Nigerians are proud of be Nigerian regardless of the derivation of the namesake of their country. Very few words originate from whence they originally came as language has migrated to/from all parts of the world. I'll grant you that few, if any, Americans realize the link to Nigeria and the Nword. Nevertheless, I'm simply pointing out that the word itself has many meanings and interpretations ...one of which is now ***** ...meaning "black" which Africans themselves proudly refer to themselves as Nigerian. African Americans have intentionally or unintelltionally taken back their word which has roots back to the motherland (even if the derivation of said word has latin orgins). I find it interesting that you called me biased. I have an opinion, as do you, about the usage of this word. What have I said that caused you to label me as 'biased.'
well... this quote for one. You still haven't quite understood what I am saying. You think that the N word "has roots back to the motherland" even though I have several times tried to explain that it doesn't. The "N" word has nothing to do with Nigeria, Niger, or the Niger River. At all... nada. That's a fact jack... and I think my exact quote was "maybe a little biased" the "N" word does not come from Africa. At all... It didn't originate there, it has absolutely nothing to do with African countries or Rivers and absolutely nothing to do with Africa. Cheers, Brock
It's not a matter of denial - it's that the definition of racist requires some kind of demonstration of racial superiority. In no way was that there in Fuzzy Zoeller's comments.
There needs to be a demonstration of racial superiority - which you left out of your definition. You didn't quote it completely. If I say the audience is white, there for we shouldn't serve chinese food...that's not racist. BUt if I were to say....the audience is white - we need to serve something for the inferior white palette - then that would be indeed racist. Do you understand the difference?
Racism is more than just overt hatred. Racism is also the process of making assumptions about a person or people specifically based on the color of their skin. So yes your example would be racist. The idea of saying you white people don't need Chinese food because you are white is racist because you are making a determination about food preferences based on the color of their skin.
