If Chubby Checker had done the same thing, would it have been wrong to say “throw his fat ass in jail”? Same thing, same sort of reference.
The talk of whether “black ass” is acceptable is irrelevant, as the “nappy” reference is a direct reference to the guy’s stage name.
Seems kinda obvious. You’d think anyone with brains enough to type would get that. But you’d be wrong.
Isn’t that right, Dribbles?
“Nappy” is derogatory about a natural characteristic of black hair texture. “Darkie” is derogatory about a natural characteristic of black skin color.
Would you say “throw his darkie ass in jail”? If so, I hold that it’s inappropriate to use words that are inherently derogatory toward a natural characteristic of black people. If you wouldn’t use “darkie” in that way, why not, and why is “darkie” different than “nappy”?
We’re talking about “Afroman”. Which refers to his hair. He has an afro.
People other than black people have afros. I had an afro. I used to play basketball with two different white guys that had big red/blonde afros. I had a huge afro through high school.
And for some reason you can’t seem to grasp this. I was my strong intent to refer to him in a derogatory way. Since his name was Afroman, referring that aspect of him in an insulting way made perfect sense. If the guy was a white guy with an afro, like the two guys I used to play ball with and he was called Afroman, I would have likely used the same throwaway line.
Again, this is irrelevant. It’s possible for non-black people to have afros. That doesn’t change the fact that, like “darkie” denigrates black skin, “nappy” denigrates naturally textured black hair.
Okay. But do you understand that, just like “darkie” denigrates black skin, and implies that black skin is a bad thing to ahve, “nappy” denigrates naturally textured black hair, and implies that naturally textured black hair is a bad thing to have? Even if you didn’t intend it that way? If the guy’s rapper name was “Dark Man”, would you have said “throw his darkie ass in jail”? If not, why not? How is “darkie” different than “nappy”? To me, they both denigrate naturally black features, and therefore should never be used in a derogatory fashion. I wouldn’t refer to a black person as “darkie” under any circumstances whatsoever, and I wouldn’t refer to a black person as “nappy” under any circumstances whatsoever. Does it make sense to you why I feel this way?
Again, not a huge deal. Saying “nappy” doesn’t make one a racist. I’m just explaining why I feel like it’s a term that should absolutely never be used, unless one doesn’t care about denigrating natural black features.
We disagree. Again. Yes, if his name was Darkie, I might very well have said “throw his darkie ass in jail”. If he name was Blackie, I might very well have said “throw his black ass in jail”. And neither of them would have been racist.
Got it. We disagree.
Do you not think that including the adjective “black” in that phrase is obviously superfluous, and as such suggests a causative relationship between the adjective and the action being punished? And that because this adjective describes a race of people, the phrase implies a racial component to the action?
Edit: Oops; forgot I was only on page 2. I haven’t yet read the wisdom which must have been dispensed on pages 3 and 4 
Gosh, Mister! I had no idea there was any other meaning to the word. Mighty white of you to explain it to me.
Figures you’d have a nostalgia for the most whitebread era of TV…gag
“used” it, past tense.
Miller doesn’t know you like I do, maggie.
Aw, shucks, yes, please, someone Yanksplain things for me.:rolleyes:
Hmmm…
I despise racism, but I also think some folks have a hypersensitivity on the subject matter and see racism in things that aren’t. And there is a difference between racial and racism.
I’m white, my hair is naturally straight or wavy, and naturally greasy if I don’t wash the hell out of it daily, and I’m thinking that’s fairly common among my group. The grand majority of the folks I work with at work are black, and their hair usually shares different characteristics from mine, quite curly, sometimes drier or more brittle, more difficult to maintain, and it’s very difficult to maintain if you wash it as much as white people hair. I am fairly knowledgeable about these matters for a white guy because my roommates are both black, my ex girlfriend is black, my friends are black, my coworkers and customers are black, and white folks are rare in my part of town. It’s just that simple. And I probably need to list all of these ‘credentials’ to even be able to venture any kind of opinion about another group of people because otherwise there will be a massive rush to judgment about my character.
Most of what I just said, talks about bodily characteristics in a racial way, there wasn’t an ignorant or hateful thing in there.
But you know what, in spite of my large group of folks I like, I’ve met my fair share of people with dark skin who act like total assholes. In fact, that’s one thing the various ‘races’ have in common, we all have a bunch of assholes in our midst.
The racist sees a few assholes and thinks most every member of that race is an asshole, and makes blanket statements about the entire race.
However, a not-racist person can have strongly negative opinions about *one *person, who has a different ethnicity, and refer to their characteristics in a negative fashion, without it being automatically racist.
In one of my posts on this site, I refer to one mother screaming at her kids in the stereotypical southern accent (an accent which blacks and whites alike in the south seem to share) and some people seemed to think I was making fun of her for talking like a stereotypical black woman.
:dubious:
I live in a nearly all-black neighborhood. The diversity of speech, tone, inflection, is pretty effing wide. Maybe a good 20 percent speak that way. Most of them, you can’t pin down what they’ll look like until you meet them in person, on the phone, indistinguishable from anyone else. Some speak in a really formal and higher-educated-sounding way, some speak in slang with glaring imperfections.
The racist sees that one characteristic and assumes this is how they talk because they’re black, completely unaware that such diversity of speech occurs in white people in the south, too.
And of course, if you talk about a redneck using a lot of pejorative language, or with many of the tropes associated with trailer trash from the south, that’s fine, no one assumes you’re being dickish towards them because you’re racist. Change the skin tone, and if you insult their personal characteristics, you’re being racist.
Insulting someone for being violent, dumb, unkempt, or an asshole, not necessarily racist. Even if you refer to their personal characteristics. Suggesting asshole X is a string of insults, plus nappy headed, makes sense if they’re black and also nappy headed. Insulting a loud dumb fat white woman for having giant folds of ugly skin that looks like it hasn’t seen the sun in decades would be an insult that you really couldn’t use on a black person. It refers to a racial characteristic and is insulting.
Is it necessarily racist, though?
And while I’m not saying you need to have 19 black friends and to live in a mostly black neighborhood to have an opinion (or, to be black yourself), ask yourself if you feel you’re really speaking in defense of all black people here when you accuse someone of being racist, or if you’re just trying to poke one poster here on the internet for using language that is vulnerable to attack by calling it racist.
We all look for avenues of attack against people we don’t like, and assume the worst in them. But we’re not the most impartial judges in those examples, now are we?
Even if what someone you hate says isn’t obviously racist, if you could make it seem like it is, that’s an avenue of attack.
And who can pass up a good avenue of attack against people on the internets that we don’t like?
(Btw I’m Askthepizzaguy and my posts contain too many words. :rolleyes: Also, I just inserted myself into this thread and discussed someone else’s spat, and that’s just intolerable as well)
So, in summary- Nah, I don’t see a whole lot of racism in this thread. And yeah, I feel like a pretty impartial judge, particularly since I don’t have any particular reason to defend anyone being attacked here.
You didn’t say “throw his Afro ass in jail”, you said “lock his nappy ass up”. Stop pretending the two words are the same or have the same pejorative weight.
Nope, it doesn’t sound any more true coming from someone other than mags.
You mean, not even where I was requested to fan the Klansman like a combination plantation/Egyptian slave?
See, when you echo the local racists’ favourite talking point verbatim in your very first paragraph, I’m not inclined to believe you at all.
This is a rational and nuanced viewpoint. One that I can certainly understand, and I generally avoid using such terms.
However, as a member of the pasty-skinned community, if someone wants to insult me by calling me pasty-skinned, I’m not going to say they are racist. I will say that they’re unimaginative.
MrDibble, I doubt I could persuade you regardless. You’re dead-set on this particular line of thought and you’re also quite invested in the truth of it.
That doesn’t make you the most impartial judge. That’s the totality of anything negative I could say about you right now, because I otherwise share your passionate dislike for racists.
That’s because it is true. Racial is racist. Especially the way maggie uses it.
I never claimed impartiality. I’m partial to a board where I don’t have to read racist threads that insult me and my entire continent. Not getting it, but I’m partial to it.
That’s nice.
And anyone telling me “So don’t read the threads” can get knotted.
@ MrDibble
I mean, he’s obviously trolling you here to get your goat. What can you expect? You said he was racist for using the term “golly”.
If your line of accusation is bordering on he turned you into a newt, and then you got better, then his defense can be equally absurd, and for the purposes of trolling you to get your goat.
That’s how I read it. Hey, maybe this is how racists really operate, they use terms like golly.
If that’s the case, then that’s a pretty overwhelming victory for non-racists, that we have to force them into using language that deeply hidden in code that only you are seeing it.
“Golly”, seriously. Just saying.
Well yeah. Racist trolling.
No, he’s not racist for that. He’s racist, amongst other things, for the outright racist things he says about race in race realist threads (like how he knows people are Black because of their hair texture…you know, the complete opposite of his stupendous Afro claims here) . The “golly” thing is semi-serious baiting on my part (I don’t doubt the use of digwhistles - do a search for Fotheringay-Phipps and “tarbaby”, for instance.) This one is a grey area, but it’s mags, so he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, I know why he did it. But you must understand, underlying that, is the sheer joy that your average racist gets when he can actually say all those things he’d usually get castigated for. Because he’s “just kidding”, see. And it’s a response to being called a Klansman, so it’s OK to go full racist.
…and “boy”. And “colorful”. And “tarbaby”… see, by itself, it’d be Aw Shucks dialect. Add them all up together and you get a White Knight’s great delight.
Oh, it’s not always so subtle.
You do realise that the “golly” was after I’d already had a back-and-forth about dogwhistling with mags, right? Not something he just dropped into an unsullied thread. Although he is fond of the word.
**MrDibble. **
How could someone write that on THIS message board, and *not *think that people would call them out on saying something racist? Even I’m smart enough to know it would rub people the wrong way here.
As soon as I read it, I knew people where going to object to it.
“Pasty-skinned” doesn’t have the incredibly ugly history that words like “darkie” and “nappy” have, in addition to the ugly history of using language to denigrate black people in general. It’s not just because those words reference skin color and hair in a negative way – it’s that they continue a long history of denigrating black people with language, even if it’s in a very small-seeming way.
Not a huge deal, but I think the right thing to do is try to avoid contributing to that history.