Bigotry and Semantics (or Gaddmanned Frogs)

Let me start by saying that I am guilty of much of what I am going to argue against here.

Chances are, so are you. But, then again, maybe not.

What makes a bigot?

I think there are three kinds:

First is bigotry by strangeness. “Hey, look at that green guy! I’ve never seen one of his kind before. Keep him away from me, he looks like he’d eat the kids,! Look at those bulging eyes, and thick legs. His kind aren’t like us. Even though, they can jump higher, there’s no way HIS KIND are like us. The Fucking Kermit probably eats flies, the bastard!”

Secondly, bigotry might be taught. “Son, you see that guy over there, the one with the green skin, bulging eyes and thick legs. Well, ever since his kind came into town, it’s been harder to get jobs. They suck up all the tax-dollars, and they are lazy and shiftless. They sleep all day, and hang around downtown all night by the lamp posts in their little groups trying to catch flies attracted to the light. Afterwards, they hop around, looking to rape women who aren’t green! Don’t trust those frogs, boy!”

Third, bigotry might be rationalized. “I don’t have nothing against those green people, but this is starting to make me mad. They just promoted this froggish guy over me at work, and I’ve been there longer. I do a better job. The only reason he got that promotion is because corporate wants more greens in management. It’s not fair. They’ve got this attitude, like the world owes them something because they are green. Bastards.”

Now let’s keep this in mind. For purposes of the OP, green people are perfectly human. They are not descended from frogs. They are just like you and me. Their skin may be green, their eyes may be slightly larger than average, and they might have slightly longer tounges than average, but other than that they are identical. Of course there are stereotypes though, unfounded but based on a slight resemblance to, err, toads.

Concerning the environment of green people (the proper term,) in America, let’s assume that a green person growing up will encounter an unfortunate amount of prejudice. Some of it will be overt and hateful, sometimes sly as a quiet snicker and muffled voices. All of it will hurt deeply. There will be derogatory terms, some worse than others. "Kermit, " and “Frog” will be the worst. “Froggish” is a term that has enjoyed some popular usage in the past. It used to be the correct term, and it still is used to some degree. Even green people may refer themselves this way from time to time. Unfortunately the connotations are mostly (but not always) derogatory. "Lillyjumper, and “pond-waders,” are clearly derogatory. “Amphibious” is somewhat ambiguous, depending on who you talk to and here in the country you live.

It is important to note that green people are fully human. Some are nice, some are total pricks, most are in between, just like you and me.

Now, the stage is set.
Let’s talk about semantics.

Assuming one wishes to be kind and sensitive, it seems to me that it is safest to refer to our lime skinned friends and neighbors as they would prefer it. When it is necessary to do so, we say “green.” On TV, we may hear that there are groups that refer to themselves as “froggish,” and “Amphibious American” rights may be an issue, but sometimes it is best not to ask too many questions, we say “green.”

The group dynamics get interesting. In the privacy of our own homes, you might complain about the “Goddamned kermit” that went through a stop sign and almost killed you. Are you really a bigot? You have nothing in general against green people. You’ve only used the term, because the green skin was the only characteristic you remember about the bastard, and he DID give you the finger. Dammit, you have a right to be pissed and it is the privacy of your own home. No harm done, right? It’s not like you are generally bigoted. You just needed an insult. It’s your house and a free country. You can do what you want.

Consider this: You tell the story at work the next day, and maybe somebody remembers how they almost got into an accident with another reckless green driver. Two weeks later you almost have another accident. Again, the driver happens to be green. You go out one night, and get drunk with some friends, and you laugh a little about webbed feet and accelerator pedals,. Again, no harm. Maybe the next time you see a green person at the stoplight, you are a little extra cautious. You’re not a bigot, you’re just cautious. One more statistical anomaly though, and more than likely you’ll be convinced that green people can’t drive.

Let’s go a step farther and pretend it’s true. Let’s say your community has a disproportionate number of teenage green people, and 500 inconsiderate green-skinned teenagers with newly minted licenses, and an attitude go screaming recklessly through town every night in their hot rods. Cause and effect is confused and in such circumstances prejudice and stereotyping is born. Because of your joking with your friends, and the socio-economic makeup of your community, ten years from now a responsible man may be turned down for a good paying job for which he is qualified, because it involves driving and he is green.

Better not to let yourself be conditioned. You have the right to do it, but it is irresponsible to allow yourself the luxury of using the term in a derogatory fashion, now matter how justified you may seem to be.

Let’s move on.

Your green-skinned friends sometimes joke about themselves with you and in front of you. They may mention jokingly that their long tounges can come in handy during a particularly hot date. One of your green skinned friends might say “A little Kermit between the thighs is bound to open the ladies’ eyes” or some such. Perhaps in a moment of clever insight you make a joke referencing Miss Piggy that makes all your friends, green-skinned and otherwise roll on the floor with laughter. Later in the evening you even jokingly called your good friend a kermit and he took no offense, and he enjoyed the familiarity. Was this a good thing? In and of itself, yes. Oh, there was the potential for misunderstanding and resentment, but we are all, or should be responsible people. I think we can handle a social situation without interference, and use good judgement and discretion.

Now let’s get tough.

Down in Carolina everybody says “amphibious.” It’s the proper term. You’ve heard about the famous cuisine among the green communities in Texas, and while on a trip there, you ask a new acquaintance who has green skin about where the best amphibious restaurant is. One of a couple of things happen.

  1. He assures you that he’s not offended, and politely informs your that the proper term is “green cuisine.”

  2. He looks at you in shock and informs you of your error. He is clearly mildly annoyed with your ignorance.

  3. He flys off the handle at your perceived bigotry.

Clearly #1 is the way to go for a polite and responsible green-skinned individual. As a visitor to the State of Texas, and being aware of the especially heinous persecution and bigotry prevalent against greens down there, you might also feel a little compassion and understand if you receive a #2. It doesn’t speak highly of your friend, but he’s had to go through a lot, so it’s no big deal. You should let it go.

A #3 though is inexcusable. Remember the driving incident. If you receive enough #3s when you mean no harm, you might start (wrongly) to get generally pissed off about green people. Your green friend should know this and be suitably conscientious. Fortunately your friend will probably know this, and I would guess that a #3 would be a rarity. Even if you slip up after dinner and say “amphibious” again you will probably only receive a mild rebuke. Mistakes happen. Your friend will have to learn that when you dine green, you really dine “amphibious” when he comes to Carolina. The shoe will be on the other foot then.

Let’s go a step farther. You are in a bar. A belligerent drunk and obvious bigot, accosts a green couple and starts spewing hatred (let’s be charitable and say the drunk had a particularly bad day and was bumped by accident by the green person.) How does the green person react?

  1. He can respond in kind, and start cursing and screaming right back. In my opinion what you have in this circumstance is just two assholes looking for a fight, who found each other.
  2. With quiet dignity and reasonableness the green person can respond politely yet firmly. His goodwill, tact and discretion will leave a good impression on all who witness it.
  3. Discretion may be the better part of valor, and he may leave quickly.

That’s enough examples for now:

Let’s be general and see if within the context of green what we can do.

Since nobody here is green, let me jump on a pulpit for a second.:

As a non green one needs to be sensitive that a green person may see things a little differently and be touchy on issues. These issues might be baffling to you, but if you are decent, you will choose not to get offended when you encounter hostility. You need to decide if that hostility is really directed at you or at the frustation encountered in the daily life of a green person. Even if the hostility is unwarranted or the behavior is baffling to you, you need to react with compassion. The worst thing that you can do is be technically correct, but lose sight of the bigger picture. If you do, you are well down the slippery slope. It takes two to tango.

If you are green, I think you have to remember that you are always on stage when issues of amphibioussness, er, greenness (sorry,) are at hand and behave accordingly.

In short, there is never an excuse for not being decent. It may be understandable, but it’s not right. It ALWAYS takes two to tango, and if you get yourself into a pissing contest with a skunk, you are always going to lose. Worse yet, it means you are probably a skunk as well (no offense to any skunks, out there.)

These things seem so inherently obvious, yet difficult in practice (to me anyway.) I get pissed.

Well, if you’ve bothered to read this whole thing and have something to say, have at it. It helped me, just to write it. I guess I’m witnessing, so into Great Debates we go.

Remember.

It’s not easy being green.

Look at the title! I KNOW I wrote “Goddamned Frogs” I proofread very carefully. How’d that happen?

Preach on, brother. We’re all green.

“Green can be warm, and friendly-like. . .”

It’s not easy being Amphibious…

I thought this was referring to the French. :smiley:

Man, I thought we were going to get a chance to bash the French.

Nuts.

Scylla, I really did try to read your post. I shudder to think how many hours you put into it. It really is thoughtful, precise, and carefully done. I got about halfway – maybe 2/3 of the way – through it and then gave up trying to figure out where you’re headed.

Did you just want to preach, or is there a specific question (or questions) that you are asking? Is there any way you could summarize it all?

I’m trying to build a framework within which some of the more difficult questions concerning bigotry, semantics, and plain old good behavior can be discussed.

I’m also trying to work these things out for myself. Every millenium or so, I like to readjust the old worldview.

I’m also just preaching. (I knew that universal life ministry certificate would come in handy.)

Maybe it will get interesting, maybe not. It took me less than an hour, and the fun lies in the doing.

OK – you grew up in a very different environment where you parents taught you how horrible greens were and how they are the REAL problem with our society yet you have seen through the bigotry of past generations and realize greens are like everyone else. Now you are older, have kids and a home and make your own decisions. You choose to dislike people because they are assholes – not because they are green, or race, or * religion* or * physical handicap*, or sexual orientation, or nationality (even the French). You are now good friends with several greens, your kids regularly play with them, you support many of their political candidates and causes, and generally enjoy good standing in the green community because of your acknowledgement that past bigoted attitudes were wrong and your acceptance of their race, religion, physical handicap, sexual orientation, nationality even though it is at fundamental odds with your own race, or * religion* or * physical handicap*, or sexual orientation, or nationality. In summary, in spite of past prejudices (your society taught you to pre-judge) your actions and life speak for your acceptance of greens.

Now, there is one thing on the green’s political agenda that you strongly disagree with. Why all of a sudden are you then viewed in the same light as the person who killed Matthew Sheppard, drug Mr. Byrd behind a truck until he died, and gassed 6 million people in WWII?

Opengrave:

An excellent question. I was going to try get there a little slower.

You said:

“Now, there is one thing on the green’s political agenda that you strongly disagree with. Why all of a sudden are you then viewed in the same light as the person who killed Matthew Sheppard, drug Mr. Byrd behind a truck until he died, and gassed 6 million people in WWII?”

I am coming to think, that you are making a mistake by choosing to see things this way.

Is there a green agenda? Are the greens of one mind? It seems that like any other group they would only share SOME common ground, and you are going to see extremists.

If you choose to lump all greens into one category, then it rapidly becomes us and them. By lumping them this way, it becomes true and perhaps you become a bigot in the same way that you do in the car example above.

The other thing I’m trying to do here is be very specific. Let’s be particular. What specifically are we disagreeing with? That question could be important. Are the greens lobbying for a “Frogy day” National Holiday? Are they arguing that only greens should be allowed to carry guns?
Are they arguing for equal pay?

I think in order to treat this fairly we will need to decide what part of the greens potential agenda we disagree with.

At the risk of taking the scab off a recent wound:

Who’s we? In fairness, perhaps some recent links would be in order.

picmr

picmr:

“We” is somebody who’s not green, for purposes of Opengraves’ question.

You can of course post a link if your feel it necessary. I’d like to think that it isn’t, and I can do better here.

God, Scylla, haven’t you had enough yet? Sheesh.

Esprix

Esprix:

If you look in the archives, you’ll find I’ve done this kind of thing before, usually after I’ve found I was in error.

After an evolutionary debate where I got pummelled, I studied an online microbiology text, so I could understand where I went wrong.

A panspermia debate culminated in what was nearly a thesis on my part (I actually sent it to a scientist.)

I get pretty focussed on one topic until I think I understand it.

BTW,

One might take a look at your sig, and ask the same of you, N’est ce pas? :slight_smile:

Actually, non - AtGG isn’t beating a dead horse.

I just figured you did understand it after, what, 3 or so threads devoted to it, but I guess I was wrong.

Good luck.

Esprix

Actually, we green people prefer the term Chlorophyllically endowed. Please use that from now on. Thanks.

I’m sorry, but I’m with Keeve.

As I have said to you before, Scylla, your practice of trying to reduce every problem to something that can be communicated with flash cards is not always helpful, and sometimes entirely misses the essence of the matter. In other threads (here and here, for example) your attempts to break down an issue perhaps best understood in terms of flow and nuance into a programmer’s flowchart has only thrown a wrench into the discussion and necessitated a measure of refocusing.

Why can’t you let each new situation be a learning experience for you? Why must you attempt to arithmetize (new word!) every potential situation? Why must you devise a cheat sheet for emotionally uncertain territory?

Do you really think that if you nail this down to something that will fit on the back of a business card you’ll never again be in a situation where you’ll have to wonder and inquire and engage? Do you think you’ll be able to come up with an equation that will allow you to “prove” to someone you may have offended that, due to a technicality (“See, it’s right here!”) they’re not really offended?

There’s no formula for human relationships.

Only connect.

So how do you judge? I know this is an oversimplyfication but if yu don’t know then surely you need some sort of guidance. That is just what Scylla’s trying to do with this thread.

God curse my lousy spellling!!!

I’m gonna get some sleep. Laters.