Yes, “liberal” (or euphemisms for it), certainly can stand in for racial epithets. I noticed this phenomenon over a decade ago, when certain overt racists of my acquaintance used the word “Democrats” as a stand-in.
“How was the music festival?”
“Pffft. Nothing but Democrats.”
:rolleyes: Sick bastards.
Just to be clear, I’m aware that the OP is referring to the “spirit” of the term “liberal”. I just wanted to point out that I have heard an analogue of it LITERALLY used to substitute for “nigger”.
Well, yeah, but we’ve also heard ‘Canadians’ used that way, too.
True, and for closely related reasons, since these mutts are likely to see Canada as a liberal pinko commie fag country.
Without the rest of the quotation, in context, there is no reson to believe that Madison was referring to a policy of creating multiple lower classes to be played off against each other to leave the oligarchs, aristocrats, or plutocrats in power. He explicitly mentions that it must be employed in a limited manner and, given the history of the colonies or fledgling United States, at that point, it would seem to me to be a reference to general factions and regions rather than economic class.
Going out and looking at the entire letter, in context, I find that my guess appears to be accurate. Madison proposed that the tyranny of the majority and oppression of the minority was best avoided by setting the structure of the government in such a way that no tyrannical majority would be likely to emerge, making no reference to using such divisions to hand power to some tiny group.
[bolding mine]
But adhay, that second quote is exactly the same thing tomndebb was describing. It’s an open argument for an elite portion of the legislative body in order to protect the property of the minority from tyranny of the majority. He was afraid that when the working classes grew to outnumber the property owners, the working-class voters would as a matter of course vote to dispossess the property-owning minority, causing instability and political turmoil.
We may not agree with that attitude today, but it’s not the same thing as a deliberate nefarious plot to foster racial prejudice for the express purpose of pitting the lower classes against one another.
Well… that last bit is kind of what Zinn is implying. One bit:
And later
If you take Zinn for it, sounds like the ruling elite actually designed a race- (and gender) based system of social stratification. I haven’t found a quote that claims it was for the purpose of pitting classes against one another, but if groups are desperate to not lose status as tomndebb claims, then that part is effectively built in to the, um, nefarious plot. Maybe ‘scheme’ is a better word?
And today the scheme is still obviously quite effective. Teabaggers with literally nothing in their minds but a few buzz words, “socialists”, “communists”, “nazis”, “progressives”, “Democrats” … in sum, Big Guvmint … pitted against Libruls, etc. , who argue for more govt and regulation and blame the Republicans for the state we’re in, when, in fact, the Dems have been quite complicit.
All the while, our corporate masters own the govt and smile on approvingly while profiteering at the expense of humanity and the environment. We be da niggers, bro.
No, “Liberal” is not the new “Nigger,” for reasons adequately explained in this thread. But Liberal-baiting is the new Nigger-baiting
Let’s recall how casually and proudly some demogogues, especially but not exclusively in the South, could find approval and support by pointing to “The Niggrah” as a threat to their constituents’ way of life.
Now, unlike the old-timey Southern segregationsts, Sean Hanity isn’t going to have a chours of Liberal children sing spirituals for his warm-up act to serve as an example of how he actually cherishes “good Liberals…who know their place.” But Senator Bilbo wasn’t going to let any Niggrah’s take the podium to offer counterpoint, any more than Limbaugh is going to let a Liberal on the air (“I AM equal time!”). The general pattern of opportunism, distortion, and the exploitation of fear and ignorance is still the same.
I have noticed ‘moocher’ cropping up as a new dog-whistle code for ‘nigger’, no doubt coming in on the heels of the latest Ayn Rand revival.
And I know about niggerdom.
What was it, a lily-white 8th grade debate in 1955? I was chosen to argue against integration in front of an auditorium full of parents, teachers and students. The best I could come up with was “Do you want one living next door?” I literally choked on the words and my friendly adversary sitting just to my left whispered to me, “Glug, glug.”
Oh, how I wish I’d had the wisdom and wit at the time to shout, “Fuck dem niggas”.
I, personally, would favour the Wyatt Cenac approach*
Woah, woah. Settle down fisty…
No news is good news?
I searched for this but no luck. Can you post a link, or toss me some keywords?
Did segregationists actually do that?
During the reign of Bush,Liberal was spoken with venom and nastiness. They openly derided those who they saw that way. Now with Obama ,there is a diminishment of rancor at least in most quarters. Fox and their followers however did not change a bit. Liberal is still a swear word to them.
Well, you know, he kind of has his moments. Sometimes things are a bit dark, and sometimes certain elements of the board just get annoyed with him. But I don’t think that it was the reign of Bush that made people speak with venom and nastiness about Liberal…
-XT
C’mon man, stay on topic.
People have done a fine job shaving off the distinctions between the two words. I’m talking about the systematic, machine-like propagandizing of the word ‘liberal’ through certain media channels. Seemingly at any time of the day a person could tune in to the local ‘Why I Hate Liberals’ broadcast. The phenomenon strikes me as particularly divisive, especially since a) what a ‘liberal’ actually is isn’t obvious to me and b) the accusations collectively add up to The Attack of the 50 Foot Straw Man.
But to whatever degree people cannot see through the straw man they may absorb the drivel. Maybe whatever latent hate they’re experiencing gets recruited toward the anti-liberal cause. Maybe they get whipped up by the drumbeat of rhetoric. I dunno- I am not exactly hiding the fact that I don’t understand it. But if your point is that the swear-word version of ‘liberal’ isn’t as ‘bad’ as ‘nigger’ is, I would ask if you think the proponents of this phenomenon wish it were.
‘liberal’ will never be the same as ‘nigger’ because then it would no longer include other favorite hate targets, i.e. feminists, university professors, educated urbanites, white socialist do-gooders, people who don’t love Jesus, etc.
I could foresee that in the near future you might see someone spit the word ‘liberal’ at a black person because the speaker considers it more hateful than ‘nigger’. But until the target of the insult feels the same about it, it will never really be the same.