Again, you're comparing something some blacks do amongst themselves, to organized barriers, that is going out of your way. Why don't you at least compare it to something somewhat topical, like why do women expect men to pay on a date, or why is it always ladies first. That may seem ridiculous, but it is more relevant than a white only golf course. You're comparing organized segregation to social norms. Lets compare social values to social values.
The action can never be isolated without the context and situation surrounding said action. A person A points a gun at person B and shoots person B killing him. We don't simply say that this "action" is all that matters when it comes to how to react to it and treat person A who committed this action do we? Obviously not! It is no different when it comes to the "action" of saying or using the n-word. It is really that simple.
It is stupid for women to expect the man to pay, hold a door, or allow them to go first. A man can do those things if he wants, but it should not be expected. I also think that men should be allowed to wear "women's" clothing without fear of negative consequences, and vice versa. Also, not to belabor the point, but I am having trouble with where you make a distinction between using certain language, "something some blacks do amongst themselves", and playing golf at a particular course something some WASPs do amongst themselves. Is it because it is written down? In either case the rule can be broken if one is willing to face the consequnces.
I can just walk on a whites only golf course and start playing. You can break the rule right now if you like. If I go to a whites only golf course I want get through the club house doors, its a ridiculous comparison.
But when it comes to stuff like the "n-word", talking about intent isn't enough. I believe we also need to consider the effect on the receiving party as well. In other words the overall context and situation which includes intent and effect. A white person may have the same intention as a black person in that both might be trying to use it "affectionately". But unless the black person knows the white person well and in reality doesn't mind hearing it from him, the context and situation of the action is not the same as that coming from a black person. It doesn't mean that a black person has some inherently unfair "right" to use it while the white person has no right. Both can use it whatever their intent but it's just common sense and fact that depending on the situation the "action" will be regarded by the receiver and witnesses differently. Personally I don't like to hear people using it and I would never use it. But I do recognize and do treat the "action" of using the word differently in different contexts and situations.
I agree that context is important (self defense, etc.) I do not think the color of one's skin should ever be considered as part of this context though. An easier way to look at it is to not break the action down so far. If we say person A murdered person B instead of describing ambiguous component actions, then the appropriate respone becomes clear. If I said I was going to use a word with four consonants and two vowels, that would be unclear as well. It seems like you are just trying to obfuscate the issue.
My kids had better know that it exists. It began to exist to my 5 year old daughter the day she came home from her new school crying wondering why certain kids said that she was "too dark" (not too many Blacks in Minnesota) and wouldn't allow her to play with them. Imagine trying to explain that. You guys continue to use a perfect world as your point of discussion. I don't live in that perfect world.
I'm sorry that your kids had to go through that, but my Chinese girlfriend had the same thing happen to her. Yet, she doesn't feel the need to call her friends 'chinks'. Why would you even want to use the 'n' word?
Uh, just because some people don't use that word in certain circumstances doesn't mean it's ok for other black people to use it when they aren't on TV. I quoted you when I said 'so-called privilege'.
Saying that person A murdered person B does not solely describe action but also describes the context and situation of said action. Person A didn't simply kill Person B (which describes a simple action) but also intentionally killed and planned to kill person B in a situation such that almost everyone would feel that person A had no justification. The word "murder" therefore does not describe an action but an action plus context. OTOH, the use of the word "kill" does describe action. It doesn't describe any context at all whatsoever. Similarly the "action" of using the n-word DOES NOT describe anything other than that someone used the word.
If racism ended the day that ALL people stopped using that word then I'd be the first to remove it from my vocabulary. Until then though, I'll probably continue to occasionally use it in casual conversation with friends.
I'm not even sure I understand what exactly this so-called "double standard" is. Anyone can say and use the word. The "action" of using the word in and of itself is not prohibited to anyone. A group of blacks can say it amongst themselves if they want to in an "affectionate" way. A group of KKK members can use it in their next member meeting and use the word as it originally was meant to be used which is to denigrate blacks. We all have been using the word to discuss the word itself. As far as the "right" to use it is concern, everyone has the inherent "right" to use it so I don't see the double standard. Now as far as how people "react" to the use of the word, then yeah I suppose there is a "double standard" but that is a bizarre and perverse use of the term "double standard". There is no inherent "right" that exists that people all have to react and treat the "action" performed by someone equally regardless of context of situation. If person A kills person B, and person C kills person D, obviously we don't and shouldn't react to person A and person C the same way unless their situation and contexts are very similar. But obviously we don't consider it a "double standard". A better example: If a husband calls his wife by a nickname, say, pooh-bear, whatever and she responds positively to it but then I call her pooh-bear and she gets angry, wouldn't it be ridiculous if I considered her different reaction to who is calling her by that nickname "double standard"????????
Don't worry, your ancestors were called the same thing (although in the negative sense) by US soldiers, politicians, etc. when we invaded the islands and started killing everybody. Simple fact: white people are stupid and fairly worthless. Once everybody (especially white people) realizes that, the world will be a better place.
I've played on a members only golf course. Someone tried to hassle me and I told em to f*** off. There really isn't much they can do to you.
