The Word Maven on cracker, does not really give the origin. The OED notes that a crak was a boast by 1509 (and, while it does not directly link them, it shows the usages that have come to us as “to crack a joke” or “to crack a fart” were recorded, originally, in the same historic period).
It’s never okay for anybody to play the race card… but more importantly, it’s pretty much IMPOSSIBLE for whites to do so.
That’s because “playing the race card” doesn’t mean what the OP foolishly thinks it means.
“Playing the race card” means no more or less than this: making an appeal for support STRICTLY based on ethnicity. A man who’s playing the race card is saying (explicitly or tacitly): “I’m in the wrong here, and we all know it- but I want you to ignore the facts and stand by me because I’m one of you.”
If a black man complains when a Klansman burns a cross on his lawn, that black man isn’t “playing the race card.” He’s calling for justice. If a black man is offended by, say, “Amos and Andy” re-runs, and calls for the local TV station to stop airing them, he’s not “playing the race card.” He’s calling for some sensitivity. And if a white viewer complains about white-baiting comedy routines of “Def Jam,” that’s not “playing the race card” either. In each of those cases, the complainer has legitimate grounds for being angry.
“Playing the race card” is usually a desperate strategy by a bad character who has little else going for him. O.J. Simpson, for instance, pretty much told the black community, “We all know I killed Nicole and Ron- but you have to rally around me, because I’m one of you.” Sadly, that worked.
Are black Americans the only ones who’ll rally around scum because of misplaced ethnic pride and solidarity? No, of course not. The Mafia “played the race card” successfully for years. In the largely Italian New York neighborhood where I grew up, I often heard honest, hard-working, law-abiding Italians make feeble excuses for the likes of Carlo Gambino and John Gotti. Mafia dons knew they could gripe about the police harrassing “honest, humble, Italian-American businessmen,” and win the sympathy of ordinary Italians. The Mafia tacitly told honest Italian-Americans, “Sure we’re thieves and killers. Sure we’re scum- but we’re YOUR scum! We’re your compadres. You OWE us your loyalty.” And sadly, that tactic often worked. Why do you suppose even a decent man like Mario Cuomo felt compelled to deny the Mafia’s very existence?
Now, was there EVER a time when “white solidarity” was real, and white people could “play the race card”? Sure! In the South, for many years, Klansmen and other white racists could harrass, assault, or even kill blacks with impunity, knowing they could count on an all-white jury to acquit them. White racist criminals could tacitly tell juries, “We all know I’m guilty. But we’re all white, and we all have to stick together, or these N----s will get out of control.”
However, the time when whites could play the race card is gone. NO white creep can count on support from a larger “white” community simply because he’s white. Even is stereotypical redneck towns like Jasper, Texas, a white man CAN’T kill a black man and expect a white jury to turn him loose simply because he’s white.
Black wrongdoers can still count on automatic support from many in the black community, just as Italian wrongdoers can count on unthinking, reflexive support from many fellow Italians. That’s probably because blacks and Italians both still feel like outsiders in the U.S. (blacks more than Italians, obviously). As a result, playing the… well, let’s just call it the ethnic card… can still pay in those instances.
But it simply isn’t possible for whites to play the race card. Not any more. There’s no such thing as white solidarity or a white community… which means there’s no automatic support from whites for other whites accused of wrongdoing.
It’s never okay for anybody to play the race card… but more importantly, it’s pretty much IMPOSSIBLE for whites to do so.
That’s because “playing the race card” doesn’t mean what the OP foolishly thinks it means.
“Playing the race card” means no more or less than this: making an appeal for support STRICTLY based on ethnicity. A man who’s playing the race card is saying (explicitly or tacitly): “I’m in the wrong here, and we all know it- but I want you to ignore the facts and stand by me because I’m one of you.”
If a black man complains when a Klansman burns a cross on his lawn, that black man isn’t “playing the race card.” He’s calling for justice. If a black man is offended by, say, “Amos and Andy” re-runs, and calls for the local TV station to stop airing them, he’s not “playing the race card.” He’s calling for some sensitivity. And if a white viewer complains about white-baiting comedy routines of “Def Jam,” that’s not “playing the race card” either. In each of those cases, the complainer has legitimate grounds for being angry.
“Playing the race card” is usually a desperate strategy by a bad character who has little else going for him. O.J. Simpson, for instance, pretty much told the black community, “We all know I killed Nicole and Ron- but you have to rally around me, because I’m one of you.” Sadly, that worked.
Are black Americans the only ones who’ll rally around scum because of misplaced ethnic pride and solidarity? No, of course not. The Mafia “played the race card” successfully for years. In the largely Italian New York neighborhood where I grew up, I often heard honest, hard-working, law-abiding Italians make feeble excuses for the likes of Carlo Gambino and John Gotti. Mafia dons knew they could gripe about the police harrassing “honest, humble, Italian-American businessmen,” and win the sympathy of ordinary Italians. The Mafia tacitly told honest Italian-Americans, “Sure we’re thieves and killers. Sure we’re scum- but we’re YOUR scum! We’re your compadres. You OWE us your loyalty.” And sadly, that tactic often worked. Why do you suppose even a decent man like Mario Cuomo felt compelled to deny the Mafia’s very existence?
Now, was there EVER a time when “white solidarity” was real, and white people could “play the race card”? Sure! In the South, for many years, Klansmen and other white racists could harrass, assault, or even kill blacks with impunity, knowing they could count on an all-white jury to acquit them. White racist criminals could tacitly tell juries, “We all know I’m guilty. But we’re all white, and we all have to stick together, or these N----s will get out of control.”
However, the time when whites could play the race card is gone. NO white creep can count on support from a larger “white” community simply because he’s white. Even is stereotypical redneck towns like Jasper, Texas, a white man CAN’T kill a black man and expect a white jury to turn him loose simply because he’s white.
Black wrongdoers can still count on automatic support from many in the black community, just as Italian wrongdoers can count on unthinking, reflexive support from many fellow Italians. That’s probably because blacks and Italians both still feel like outsiders in the U.S. (blacks more than Italians, obviously). As a result, playing the… well, let’s just call it the ethnic card… can still pay in those instances.
But it simply isn’t possible for whites to play the race card. Not any more. There’s no such thing as white solidarity or a white community… which means there’s no automatic support from whites for other whites accused of wrongdoing.
I’ve got the results from a couple of David Duke elections that says that whites can still play the race card–although they are less successful when they are too overt in the act.
I have also watched a number of local elections where whites have played the race card. Again, they usually have to be a bit more subtle, but calls for concern about violence or property values in areas where the statisitics are stable but the perception is volatile are nearly always plays of the race card in one way or another.
admittedly, i named the thread poorly, about which tom almost immediately educated me.
if you had been reading, you would realize that this was quickly corrected and acknowledged, but i can’t rename the thread.
so you win about that one (hurray)
the debate was really supposed to be about whether it was ok for ethnic minorities to make fun of white people, because hey, they can take it and they deserve it.
i argued for the affirmative on that one and (rightly so) came off looking like a primitive childish doofus. But hey, i was squeezing the tube to see what colored toothpaste comes out.
the discussion then turned to issues of covert racism, white privilege, and, well, making fun of the way white people dance.
astorian this is where you come in.
to say that there is no support for whites when other whites are accused of crime, etc… well, maybe not publicly, maybe not in a formal way, but you don’t think that the bias still exists?
you don’t think that the ethnic minorities are over represented in prisons?
i’m trying to understand your context, but it looks like you are equating white with normative, and morally neutral when you say that there is no white solidarity or a white community.
Kind of that old “i’m just white, i don’t have an ethnic background” thing that serves to state that whites are the standard.
the truth (the sad truth) is that OJ couldn’t be completely sure that race didn’t play a role in his prosecution, and (another sad truth) it was important that his defense highlighted this aspect of the trial in order to rule out racially motivated prosecution.
Just a small correction here - Jasper is not a ‘stereotypical redneck town’. Part of the reason why people in that area were so shocked and surprised at the dragging death of James Byrd Jr. was that race relations there were fairly good for a small East Texas town.
Then I think it isn’t really about race at all, it’s about whether it’s acceptable for someone to mock or insult another person simply because that person is better off in some ways.
Specifically, whether being better off (because of the circumstances of your birth, not any choice of your own) means you can “take” insults better than others, and whether it means you deserve insults more than others.
For the record, I disagree with both of those points. I don’t mock people who are taller, wealthier, or more successful than myself, and I won’t tolerate jealous insults from people who are worse off.
Sure, he could.
He was the former husband: a huge percentage of homicides are spousal.
He had issued threats against the victim: a high correspondence with murders.
He had a record of physical abuse directed at the victim: another high correspondence with murders.
He had committed the crime.
Had he been a blonde “Aryan” or had she been pure Nubian, the other facts of the case still pointed to him as the first five of any ten possible suspects.
i’m not sayin that the other evidence wasn’t overwhelming,
he did it,
he was a sleaze about getting off,
he definitely abused his status as a minority and served to undermine civil rights as well as the judicial process
but the fact remains, people still think he was innocent, and the victim of racism.
oj’s probably not the best example because he did have access to so much power (bringing us back to that non-minority person of color thing), but is it your assertion that a person of color can absolutely rule out race as a factor in their arrest, prosecution and sentencing?
it’s been a few years, and i really tried not to pay too much attention to the circus that was the oj trial, but didn’t the defense prove that fuhrman was in fact a racist jerk?
If David Duke is the best you can do (and he is!), you’re on mighty shaky ground, Tom.
David Duke is the Harold Stassen of racism. He runs for something every year, he gets a lot of press, and he loses. Are we REALLY supposed to panic when this dweeb (yes, dweeb- have you seen the guy? Heard him talk? He’s much closer to Potsy Webber than to Adolf Hitler) manages a seat in the Louisiana state legislature? A few generations ago, active Klansmen served openly in high offices all over the South, even in Congress and the Supreme Court. Today, people work themselves into a tizzy when one such dork wins a low-level office?
“Today, suburban Shreveport… tomorrow, the world!” NOT.
As for the rest of your post, it’s disappointingly typical liberal claptrap. I grew up in New York, where it was all too common to see the Times sniff that “getting tough on crime” or “cutting taxes” were simply “racist code words.” Small wonder blue collar New Yorkers always read the Daily News instead.
I don’t think putting criminals behind bars is racist, nor is letting hard-working people keep more of their own money. What IS racist is the underlying assumption behind the Times editorials: that blacks are so overwhelmingly criminal or so utterly dependent on government handouts that fighting crime or cutting taxes must be inherently racist.
As for greck, while I may have come to this thread late, and certainly missed some of the twists and turns it took, I won’t let you pretend that your intent was to start a light-hearted thread along the lines of “what’s so awful about black comedians making jokes about how white people talk or dance.”
You want to lay aside “playing the race card,” which you now agree was wrongly phrased? Fine. We’ll go back to the simpler issues:
-
Is it okay to make fun of other ethnic groups? (If you answer “no,” the debate ends here.)
-
Assuming it is okay, do some ethnic groups have a greater right to insult others?
Greck’s stance seems to be that white males are a privileged class, so they’re fair game for insult from anybody and everybody. But since they’re privileged, they have no right to complain when they’re attacked, and have no right to ridicule other, less “powerful” groups.
I think that’s ridiculous. I think ALL ethnic humor is fine, provided that:
- It’s funny.
- It has at least a kernel of truth.
- There’s a modicum of affection, or at least an absence of malice, for the group being mocked.
Most of us straight white guys KNOW that straight white guys can’t dance! If a black, female or gay comic wants to make a routine out of that, fine by me! Such routines have been done a million times, though, so SOME kind of new wrinkle on it is called for by now (as it is, they’re about as fresh and funny as jokes about cats vs. dogs, New York vs. LA, airline food, and Hindus working at 7-11).
Most of us working class Irishmen KNOW our reputation for drinking, brawling, and maudlin sentimentality (I myself don’t drink at all, and haven’t been in a fight since grammar school… perhaps I’m the milkman’s child). If a comic wants to put on a phony brogue and do a routine about such stuff, let him go ahead! If it’s funny, even Irishmen will embrace him.
And most of us Catholics are perfectly prepared to laugh at good routines about the oddities of Catholic education. Heck, even the Pope would probably laugh at much of George Carlin’s “Class Clown.” Funny is funny.
Only when anti-white, anti-Irish, or anti-Catholic comedy betrays a real mean streak do Catholics, Irishmen, or whites in general get angry. And when they DO get angry, they won’t be assuaged by the likes of Greck telling them, “Now now, you have no right to be offended, because you’re POWERFUL!” Working class Irish Catholics are NOT a powerful class (they’re not an oppressed class either, of course) and will scoff at the notion that their “lofty” status makes them fair game for ridicule.
But, absent that all-important mean streak, I see no real problem with most ethnic humor. Jews regularly joke about their own customs and foibles around other Jews, Catholics tell Pope jokes when they think no non-Catholics are around, blacks mock other blacks when they’re alone among themselves, and YOU probably make jokes about your own ethnic/religious/whetever group. It seems silly to act outraged when a comedian from a DIFFERENT group tells the same jokes you tell yourself.
Are “oppressed” minorities entitled to greater leeway in mocking other groups? And are the entitled to greater protection from insult by other groups? Again, I say no… with the stipulation that the material has to be funny, recognizably true, and non-malicious.
So, I don’t mind when a black comedian ridicules the way I dance. I don’t mind when a Jewish comedian does a routine about the oddities of a Mass he had to attend. I don’t mind when an Italian comic jokes about the foibles of the Irish families he grew up around. And, for the MOST part, people who DO get upset about such things should lighten up (listening, William Donohue?).
But I don’t see why blacks should be automatically exempt from the same kind of humor. I don’t see why a man like Howard Cosel (whom I loathed, but who had never shown any indication of racism) was fired for affectionately calling a Redskin player “that little monkey.” And I don’t see why it’s racist for Howard Stern sidekick Stuttering John to ask Spike Lee, “Why do black people hoot and holler so much at movies?”
Black Americans have customs, attitudes, mannerisms and traditions that are fair game for comedy (and which, again, we all know that black people laugh at themselves, in all-black situations). If a white comedian can look himself in the mirror and say, truthfully, that he bears no malice toward blacks, that his comedy reflects reality, and that he tells his jokes with some genuine affection for the people he teases… then I don’t see why a white comedian can’t twit black people the same way he would any other ethnic group.
So, when does comedy go over the line? When it’s mean, and when it isn’t funny. A few guidelines when you’re trying to decide:
-
MOST of the time, real racism is mighty obvious. If you have to search for racism between the lines, it probably isn’t there.
-
If you laugh at a routine about your ethnic/religious group, it’s funny. Do NOT laugh, and THEN insist afterward that you’re offended.
Sorry. You are speaking in ignorance, here. I am not suggesting that every call for tough crime provisions is racist. I am noting that I have witnessed specific local acts in specific situations that were clearly racist.
There is a nearby comunity where the population is nearly all white and the neighboring community is nearly all black. (Metro Cleveland has far too few integrated communities.) In several recent elections, one of the candidates in the “white” town has made very poorly veiled remarks about the “threat” of increased crime “coming over the borders.” The crime stats for the two towns are the same (and have remained the same without any changes to laws or police procedures).
In my exurban county, one of the townships got a windfall from a resident who left the community several million dollars in his will. There have been numerous proposals on how to spend the money, of course, one of which included providing cash to allow a couple of poorer neighborhoods to improve their appearance and livability. All the negative letters to the editor in the local papers have concentrated on claiming that it would not be “fair” to spend money on the one black enclave (specified by name so as not to use the word black) with no similar criticisms of the similar expenditures considered for the two poorer white developments.
As to David Duke being the “best” I can do: I could have thrown out Willie Horton.
Tali Mendelberg documented the continued use of the race card in surprise! The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality and while there have been a few grumblings echoing your own knee-jerk reaction, most reviewers noted that Mendelberg did not make any claim that all “crime” or “welfare” cries were race-based, but showed where, in several specific areas and political races, they have been racial.
It is certainly true that some people on the Left will play the race card by claiming that all references to crime or welfare are race-based. They are wrong. It is equally wrong to simply declare that no crime or welfare issues are racially motivated.
Sorry. You are speaking in ignorance, here. I am not suggesting that every call for tough crime provisions is racist. I am noting that I have witnessed specific local acts in specific situations that were clearly racist.
There is a nearby comunity where the population is nearly all white and the neighboring community is nearly all black. (Metro Cleveland has far too few integrated communities.) In several recent elections, one of the candidates in the “white” town has made very poorly veiled remarks about the “threat” of increased crime “coming over the borders.” The crime stats for the two towns are the same (and have remained the same without any changes to laws or police procedures).
In my exurban county, one of the townships got a windfall from a resident who left the community several million dollars in his will. There have been numerous proposals on how to spend the money, of course, one of which included providing cash to allow a couple of poorer neighborhoods to improve their appearance and livability. All the negative letters to the editor in the local papers have concentrated on claiming that it would not be “fair” to spend money on the one black enclave (specified by name so as not to use the word black) with no similar criticisms of the similar expenditures considered for the two poorer white developments.
As to David Duke being the “best” I can do: I could have thrown out Willie Horton.
Tali Mendelberg documented the continued use of the race card in surprise! The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality and while there have been a few grumblings echoing your own knee-jerk reaction, most reviewers noted that Mendelberg did not make any claim that all “crime” or “welfare” cries were race-based, but showed where, in several specific areas and political races, they have been racial.
It is certainly true that some people on the Left will play the race card by claiming that all references to crime or welfare are race-based. They are wrong. It is equally wrong to simply declare that no crime or welfare issues are racially motivated.
greck,
Hispanic? Then i assume you are of Latin descent.
May I point out that it was Spain and Portugal (western European, therefore white by some definitions) that opened up the Americas for exploitation? (Sorry, I meant exploration.)
Do you personally feel any “Conquistador Guilt” for the actions or attitudes of your possible ancestors?
Having (somewhat diluted) Native American blood in my veins, should I view with disdain all Latino appearing persons because of the opportunities taken from my blood line?
Unfortunately, racism exists. It is simply another form of the bigger problem, prejudice. Prejudice doesn’t have to be racial. More often, thoughout history anyways, it’s religious and social prejudice that has done the most harm. Even in modern times, look at Northern Ireland, Bosnia, India. Bring that up in class, I’d like to hear some comments on that.
It’s not okay for anyone to use the race card.
Two things to note:
Everyone of every race has been or will be subject to being screwed over by someone else at some point in time on the basis of race or the perception of race. This happens in small ways and big ways spread equally throughout the universe(s). Thus all those race cards cance each other aout and are rendered worthless.
Any crap you are dished based on race is only temporary in relation to your life and your dignity. When you play the race card you surrender your dignity and chose to be a victim. If someone treats YOU unfairly then deal with it that way. It may not be fair, but see above. If you are a holder of Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith then stick you being a good person and don’t sweat the paltry few years you have to suffer on Earth. If you are more of an Eastern bent then you should know that any crap you suffer here is due you so shut up and drive on. For those who believe in nothing at all, I can’t opine as I’m confused by that stance.
Sigh
If you will notice my grammer, I said, “assume”. I did not say that I assumed it, but was rather making a theoretical case. I am saying for you (and other posters) to assume said fact is true, and derive a logical sequence therefrom. It is unfortunate there was this misunderstanding. I have reposted that argument to make it easier to respond to.
"I have no knowledge of your ethnicity, but assume you are an African, (and I mean living in Africa). Do I, coming from a society that has publicly rejected racism and slavery, get free use of the term “barbaric slaver” for all Africans because some people in some parts of Africa do so? No, because that would be sterotyping and wrong. "