I’m not sure if you’re being intentionally obtuse, but political affiliation has nothing to do with it. As stated above, even if he used the word “black” or “African-American,” it’s a wholly out-of-place thing to say. Would “I’m arguing with this African-American” be any better? Of course not. It makes no sense to refer the person’s ethnicity or color in this context, except with some amount of condescension or contempt. It’s like “woman” isn’t offensive, but if I call my wife “woman,” as in “where did you put the car keys, woman?” I’ll have hell to pay. In that context, it is being used as a bit of a slur. There is no context in which “Negro” or any more “polite” or “acceptable” words here change the tone or meaning of Roger Stone’s phrase. So, yes, context matters and that context is not if you’re Republican or not. Hell, I’m in Chicago, so there’s plenty of Democrats whom I can imagine (and probably have heard, though typically they’ll just run straight to the unambiguous slur) using the word in the same hateful manner.
As a person of Indian origin, I find that a white construct and highly offensive. When I came to the US, I along with all People of Indian origin, had to identify ourselves as “Pacific Islander” in all official/government forms like student applications, SSN applications, etc etc. Later it changed to Asian.
It seems like the white man wants neat boxes to fit everyone else into: White, Black, Latino, Pacific Islander, … and it doesn’t matter if those races or ethnicities don’t like those boxes.
What term do you prefer? I’ll use that. I’ll always use that as best as I can.
In the UK, “Asian” is most commonly used to refer to those of South Asian origin (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka), including by that population. It is not considered remotely offensive (although if plugged into Roger Stone’s context it would clearly be seen as such).
Squeegee - it’s not you as a person. I,
as an individual, am not offended by being called an Indian or Asian.
This is about institutionalized racism. Check out the US Census website : About the Topic of Race
Excerpt : “ OMB requires five minimum categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.”
Excerpt : “ The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country ( aka White Guys) and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically”
The bolded part above is my addition.
There is no study or survey showing that these categories are meaningful or representative of the demographics of the present day USA.
Indians have been known as Indians for 1000s of years. In fact this continent was found in search of India. In traveling the world, I’ve never found anyone confused of my origins when I tell them I’m Indian.
But the white majority driven census guy feels, it’s too hard to give India their own category : so let’s strip their identity and make them identify with Pacific Islanders. A few years later, let’s fit them in another box: Asians.
I have made the case for Indians here, but parallels exists for everyone. I am facetious here : this system will make Jesus a white guy when we all know he was brown.
He would have been way better off if he had said, “I’m arguing with this asshole”. As everyone knows, assholes come in all races…
I think the category was “Asian or Pacific Islander,” but still, I agree that “Asian” is ridiculous as a racial category. But to “fix” it, you have to start asking uncomfortable questions like “what, exactly, is race?”
From there on it goes down hill. “Are Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans the same race? What about Filipinos? Vietnamese? Indonesians?” “Are Nepalis, Tibetans, and Burmese more like Indians or more like Chinese racially? Are Turks and Iranians the same race as Japanese?” No matter how you answer these questions, it just gets worse.
It’s a nightmare.
Uncomfortable for everyone else except White. That’s the whole point.
And what exactly is “white”? I’m more of a pinky beige myself. There’s American white, French-Canadian white, English-Canadian white, English white, Scottish white, Irish white, Welsh white, French white, German white, Swedish white…the list goes on forever. Maybe a better question is why do we need to subdivide into categories at all?
“We” need to because we have an actual societal hierarchy based on race. If white people gave up whiteness as an identity, we might be able to start down the path of not caring. But as stated before, the creation of the concept of whiteness is the original sin of our culture and we can’t just pretend it doesn’t exist.
Explained very well by Hari Kandabolu here :
About the 1:55 mark. In think the whole video is funny though, if you care.
If Indians get their own box, does this mean Pakistanis and Sri Lankans need to get one too?
The criticism is not about Indians not having their own box : The criticism is about white guys forcing others to identify in archaic boxes convenient to white guys and their way of seeing the world.
If there was a demographic committee at the census bureau, consisting of diverse racial/ethnic community members with backgrounds in medicine, anthropology, social sciences, etc etc; and they came up with groupings (boxes), then it would make sense, to me.
The objection is similar lines to white actors voicing non-white voices or white authors writing autobiographical fiction of non-white people.
I’m caucasian, but filling out the census form, I put my hand on the page, said "Well, this paper’s white, and I clearly am not. So I wrote in “Pink”.
Wait, I think I solved the problem. Why do we need boxes to put people in? How about a blank space…
Ethnicity: __________________________________
Most Indians are Caucasian too. Again it’s an archaic term with very little meaning in today’s time.
Any word can be a slur with enough venom behind it because we allow words to be powerful. Negro just means black.
No, it does not “just mean Black”. Yes, the root of the word means “black”. But the usage of the word over time has changed. It is not longer acceptable to use that word in polite society. The word Negro in English is a now outdated word to refer to Blacks. Again, it does not “just mean Black”.
I agree, but it’s still not a slur. For example, I have read significant parts of Letter from a Birmingham Jail out loud literally hundreds of times. King uses “Negro” many times. I never hesitate to read it out loud. He uses the n-word once, and I never say it aloud. (This also shows that the idea that the n-word was somehow not a slur in the past is ridiculous: in the context of Letter, it very clearly is a terrible slur.)
That was then. This is now.
Right, but I can still read it aloud to a group of school children, when the writing is from a time when it was polite. Actual slurs generally aren’t read out loud, period.