Did you know that racism as it existed in the US was effectively invented by the elites as a way to sow disunity among the lower classes to hemegonize their power? Consider a quote from chapter 2 of Howard Zinn’s ‘A People’s History of the United States’:
Why did it happen? Because it could. Our Founding Fathers were not the types to leave an unexploited opportunity.
But later came rules to separate the races and the classes, the ultimate motive of which was to prevent any solidarity among the greater part of the population which might threaten the elites’ power. Miscegenation laws were passed for this purpose. Racial hatred was intentionally stoked. Face it, when some of the poor are niggers and some are decidedly not, the poor will not rise up en masse against their oppressors. They are too exhausted from conflicting with each other.
But today racism has been all but discredited. Even its most fervent adherents must recognize this, for a new form of social division has been spawned: the Liberal! Don’t ask me to define it, I didn’t make it up. Far as I can tell, a ‘liberal’ is a target of aspersion. Talk show hosts and propagandists are free to correct me, but I predict that the definition will consist of a list of accusations rather than a definitive statement about the essence of a ‘liberal’.
Like race, I doubt ‘liberal’ has a solid definition. It has become an epithet, a way to cast aspersion. A word that is said in a nasty tone against a ‘mark’. A way to divide certain classes into separate, opposing groups.
What do you think? Has the word ‘liberal’ taken on the old social function of the word ‘nigger’?
No. This might have had a point around 15 or 20 years ago, but the word “liberal” stopped being an across-the-board utilitarian insult over the course of GWB’s presidency. (That is why the current rage on the far right is to overuse the word “socialist,” because they can no longer whip up a good hatred among the center by using the word “liberal.”)
Beyond that, of course, “liberal” was never an epithet invented by some power elite to disparage a class of people. It was the accepted term for a serious political movement that came under a shadow when the movement, itself, ran out of steam, (or changed directions, depending on who is telling the story).
For that matter, Zinn’s analysis of race is flawed. Clearly, there were efforts to make sure that the disparate elements of the lower classes were kept separate, but that was hardly some Illuminati-inspired effort to “create” a situation, but more of a natural progression in which all elements of society, (already stratisfied by class), sought to ensure that no class “lost status” to any other. Zinn attempts to portray a devious plot, manufactured and instigated by cunning overlords, when it probably had a lot more to do with the normal actions of humans. This is not to say that there was no manipulation from the ruling class, but it probably had more to do with their recognition that while white indentured servants could flee to a different colony and blend in among other free workers, enslaving black servants made it much easier to identify runaways.
Well, as with liberal, and unlike nigger, the name “Tea Bagger” was self-selected by the group so identified, (despite it already having a more salacious meaning that they chose to ignore).
The slavery that existed in Africa prior to the arrival of Arab and European raiders (and that continues today) was and is not a good thing, but it was of a completely different sort than the ethnic based chattel slavery imposed by the outside groups. Zinn’s errors are not well offset by making claims as silly as his.
People have a tendency to eat babies. The very fact that laws have to be passed after a while to forbid such things indicates the strength of that tendency.
People have a tendency to maim school children. The very fact that laws have to be passed after a while to forbid such things indicates the strength of that tendency.
Funny, I was going to mention the Texas school board’s decision to implement more ‘conservative’ content in their curriculum as weighting in favor of my argument, but thought better of it.
No, it hasn’t gone out of style. I live in a mixed neighborhood and the children yell the “n” word at each other all the time. I inwardly cringe and remember that the hurt this word used to cause is part of a world gone by and good riddance. Laughing at Downfall re-subtitling where Hitler rants on the stupidity of the day is one of my guilty pleasures. All that pain and hurt.
Anyway, I’m a liberal, always have been and anyone can call me that in any tone of voice they want.
“Liberal” is the new “nigger” like Oasis was the new Beatles.
Really, does anyone besides me find the OP disingenuous and a bit offensive? People use words to label and paint dispersions on other groups all the time. But it is ridiculous to equate being called a Liberal with the 400 years of racial oppression the word “Niger” invokes.
You are not oppressed for your Liberal beliefs. You aren’t prevented from living in certain neighborhoods or taking certain jobs or marrying certain women. You aren’t taken out back and beaten or killed for being liberal. You might be ridiculed or disagreed with, but get over it.
This whole line of discussion strikes me as nothing more than an attempt by the OP to lend weight and validity to his beliefs by casting himself as an oppressed minority.
I’m a “liberal” by most standards and find the OP baffling. Apart from being “words which have been used as insults” there’s no equivalence between the two.