That’s not what I meant andros, and sorry if it appears that I was using such a ludicrous argument.
I find it intensely obnoxious that you see nothing wrong in freely chucking accusations of bigotry at soldiers in WW2. They went through a hell we’re lucky we’ll never know, and it’s not our bloody place to judge them, that’s all I’m saying.
Yes, if Gramps was selectively uncivil to random Japanese (or Germans or whoever) that he may meet today, yes you could start an argument there (I probably would have something to say to the old rascal myself, but I’d say it with maximum respect) but to nitpick his language just because it doesn’t suit your snotty modern notions of what constitutes a racial slur, is arrogant in the extreme.
And I can’t help but wonder if you would slam an elderly Holocaust survivor with the same passionate force of holy judgement, if s/he occasionally used a choice word or two about Germans (instead of Nazis).
Well, if Grampa went on about “the goddamn Japs,” I’d be silent because respect for one’s elders trumps correcting their opinions. But tolerating the bitterness of old memories doesn’t make “Jap” acceptable in any way in civilized society.
I watched a movie made during WWII last night on Turnber Classic Movies. It was called “First Yank Into Tokyo” and concerned an American pilot who had plastic sugery so that he could masqeurade as a Japanese soldier and infiltrate enemy headquarters. The movie was replete with buckttoothed Japanese (played by Chinese actors) raping white nurses and torturing prisoners, and the heroes of the story calling the Japanese “Japs,” “Nips,” “yellowbellies,” and other epithets.
Now that may have been aceptable in a day when open racial prejudice was common, but I like to think that we have advanced beyond those days.
“Jap” is as distasteful as “colored” or “spic.” I might tolerate its use by an older person who knows no better, but toleration does not mean approval. I just don’t correct my elders.
For one thiing, Reuben, I’m not “freely chucking accusations of bigotry at soldiers in WW2.” I’m chucking a particular accusation of bigotry at one particular soldier who has evidenced–and this is crucial–bigotry.
For another: I would hold a Holocaust survivor to be a bigot if he evidenced bigotry towards all Germans.
Since I think it’s fair to say that none of us here knows for sure whether we’d be able to stay PC enough to escape Monty’s wrath (or indeed, whether we’d even bother pretending to give a shit) if we’d been subjected to prolonged physical and mental torture by a particular ethnic group, I think we should lay off kunoichi’s Grandfather.
Kunoichi: For what it’s worth, given his proclivity for using the term at the slightest provokation, I wouldn’t consider being called a bigot by Monty insulting in the least.
And, oddly enough, BH, I’m not PC. I’m just not a bigot. Apparently you are absolutely unable to make such a distinction, what with facts being required for that.
I’m no bigot but I wouldn’t dream of accosting Kunoichi’s Grandfather and subjecting him to a lecture on racial politics. I wouldn’t scold an Auschwitz survivor on his use of the word Kraut either.
I wouldn’t do either of these things out of respect for what these people went through and because I know that had I been captured, starved and tortured by agents of a foreign power I might not be able to keep a fair minded and egalitarian approach towards that power after my ordeal was ended. I might find it in my heart to take the high road but after experiences akin to the ones Holocaust survivors endured I wouldn’t be able to guarantee it. And that’s why I don’t judge.
They’ve had enough shit to deal with in their lives without being harangued by sanctimonious peckerheads like you, Monty.
I’m no bigot. You’re no bigot either (and by God and Sonny Jesus you’ve made sure everyone knows it). The difference between us, however, is that you seem gripped by an almost primeval urge to Grandstand and advertise your own special brand of altruistic magnanimity from the highest hilltops whereas I am more sensitive to individual nuances and circumstances which might influence my opinion. Y’know, extenuating circumstances 'n all that? That makes you aggressively PC as far as I am concerned.
Not a disagreement, but the online definitions of bigot are quite clear that the word refers to [quoet]A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
[/quote]
So to be truly a bigot someone must consider their own views superior to all others and consider all that opposes their views as ‘unreasonable or wicked’. Now ex POW’s described are clearly bigoted towards the race/creed/or country that had held them as POW but there is no evidence for them being similarly bigoted towards all other groups with differing views. So it would be inaccurate to call such a person a bigot from the definitions I found.
This leads us to need a new word. Clearly someone whose view is ‘I’m right, everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong’ is a bigot. But how should we describe someone whose bigotry is not all encompassing such as a person racist only against one (or a small number of) particular group or culture (such as many Nazi Germans were).
If we expand bigot to include anyone showing bigotry against any group we will soon find everyone can be justifiably labeled bigot which is of no use. [If you think the term cannot be used against you, consider what you think of the Scientologist or Moonie movements!].
Maybe the POW’s are more accurately termed racists though the implications of that term are excessive for these views (who would consider Nelson Mandella, racist? Though he obviously has a bias towards black skinned rather than white skinned South Africans, his ‘right’ to that bias is unquestionable).
OK I’ve rambled on quite enough now, and probably lost the thread…
Cheers, Bippy
Unless kuniochi’s granddad is a registered member of the SDMB, that’s not at all what Monty was doing. kuniochi’s grandad is, to some extent, a bigot. Acknowledging that fact, or pointing it out to kuniochi, is nothing like lecturing kuni’s grandad in person. Making this thread about kunoichi’s grandad is a strawman, because the point of the OP is kunoichi’s actions in the linked thread.
But, since we’re in the middle of this hijack anyway, there is also the question of how much suffering must a person survive before he is given a free pass on racism. If I’m savagely beaten by a black guy, do I have the right to refer to all blacks as “niggers”? What if I’m kidnapped by a radical, psychotic sect of the Nation of Islam and tortured for days on end? What if a black guy just spits in my coffee at Starbucks?
Here’s a hypothetical: what if Grandad calls a Japanese person a Nip to his face. Does that Japanese person have the right to be offended? Or is he, too, required to let the old man’s racism slide because of something someone else did to him fifty years ago? What if Monty were of Japanese descent? Would his anger here be acceptable then?
Just curious, but what was your reaction when John McCain refered to his Vietnamese captors as “gooks” and the resulting media fallout?
Miller: I already know that Ben Hick’s actual response to your question on the free pass is “Any amount whatsoever.” He demonstrated that already when Twisty reacted with racist comments to the bombings in Saudi Arabia.
And before anyone accuses me of minimizing those attacks, which were extremely terrible since they’re murder, of course, let me say that my point is that in the Twisty thread, Hicks appeared to hold that everyone is a racist or bigot underneath. I do not hold that and therefore think that there is no excuse to evidence racist or bigoted behavior.
Granted, however, in the 5th post above yours Monty says
And in other threads he has said that he would be more than willing to confront people he felt to be bigots face to face (It’s quite late where I am and I’m too tired to search for the links but if you insist on seeing them I’ll search for them tomorrow. If memory serves me correctly he made a comment to that effect in Testy’s recent thread about the recent Saudi suicide attack called ‘The religion of peace strikes again’).
Anyway, the point I’m trying to get to is that I personally have no doubt that Monty would, if opportunity presented itself, call out Kuniochi’s Grandfather in person. Obviously that’s not what he’s doing at the moment but were Kuniochi’s Grandfather to sign up tomorrow Monty would have no qualms about calling him out.
A hijack? Yes. A strawman? I disagree. Monty said in the 4th post above yours
His thread may have been initially about Kuniochi’s actions but as this quote evidences the issue of his Grandfather was, at the very least, prominently tangental and as such fair game for a good ol’ fashioned hijack. I’ve only been addressing the issue of Monty’s denigration of Kuniochi’s Grandfather and in that respect I don’t think I’ve used any strawman.
Well, this is the $64,000.00 question. I’ve thought about this a lot before I started typing this and I honestly must confess that I don’t know precisely where the line should be drawn.
In fact, I think the idea of looking for a precise and clear cut line on this issue is rather futile since the amount of possible scenarios precludes the rather idealistic notion that one single dividing line would be enough to deal with all of them.
Having said that, I believe that if a person has suffered greatly at the hands of an ethnic group then any mild bigotry he demonstrates towards them should be considered in the light of that suffering, which may very well have warped his judgement somewhat in that regard. Obviously I don’t intend this to be inclusive of anything much stronger than the mild bigotry Kuniochi’s Grandfather exhibits. A white man who beats up a black man in retaliation for being mugged by another black man the week before shouldn’t have any emotional trauma he suffered at the hands of his mugger taken into account at his trial. He has committed a gross transgression and if he was genuinely so emotionally disturbed by the mugging that he felt his trauma would vindicate him then he’s either a callous racist or a lunatic and should be commmitted. If I witnessed such an event then I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever in testifying against him no matter how disturbed he had been by the mugging. Yeah, yeah, I know. Mighty white of me, eh?
On the other hand, if I heard a Holocaust survivor mutter “Kraut” under his breath as he walked past a Bratwurst stall, I’d consider what he’d been through and although I’d acknowledge the remark as a bigoted one, I wouldn’t condemn him for it. Monty, it seems, would get right up in his face about it then and there. To me that’s just as insensitive as the original bigoted remark.
So y’see, there is a dividing line. However, it’s very blurred and impossible to clearly define.
I’m sorry Miller. I didn’t mean to post that. I’m only about halfway through my response. If any moderators see this please delete the above post and this one as they really shouldn’t be there.
C’mon everybody, say it with me…Gimme a D…Gimme an O…Gimme an H…what does it spell?
Regardless if you’re beaten or not, you have a right that’s constitutionally protected. Would it make you seem uncouth and ignorant? Sure. And Monty, what about blacks who call other blacks, “niggers”? Are they bigots also? Your statement regarding kunoichi’s other grandfather of German ancestry using the term “kraut” seems to head in this direction.
Fascinating. Bippy, where did you get this particular definition. If it is indeed accurate, then the irony in this thread is thick like a good milkshake.
It’s quite funny to sit here an listen to you people argue about which semantic usage You (in your oh so sensitive mind frame) find to be reprehensible when other words don’t hurt your inner gloria. Face it, you’ve surrendered your freedom of speech to your white guilt (or whatever applies)
Your voices are your tools to express yourself, of course, on a board like this, if your viewpoint doesn’t agree with the prevailing “battle against ignorance hive like mind” then you run some risk of running across the pc police.
Granted, however, in the 5th post above yours Monty says
And in other threads he has said that he would be more than willing to confront people he felt to be bigots face to face (It’s quite late where I am and I’m too tired to search for the links but if you insist on seeing them I’ll search for them tomorrow. If memory serves me correctly he made a comment to that effect in Testy’s recent thread about the recent Saudi suicide attack called ‘The religion of peace strikes again’).
Anyway, the point I’m trying to get to is that I personally have no doubt that Monty would, if opportunity presented itself, call out Kuniochi’s Grandfather in person. Obviously that’s not what he’s doing at the moment but were Kuniochi’s Grandfather to sign up tomorrow Monty would have no qualms about calling him out.
A hijack? Yes. A strawman? I disagree. Monty said in the 4th post above yours
His thread may have been initially about Kuniochi’s actions but as this quote evidences the issue of his Grandfather was, at the very least, prominently tangental and as such fair game for a good ol’ fashioned hijack. I’ve only been addressing the issue of Monty’s denigration of Kuniochi’s Grandfather and in that respect I don’t think I’ve used any strawman.
Well, this is the $64,000.00 question. I’ve thought about this a lot before I started typing this and I honestly must confess that I don’t know precisely where the line should be drawn.
In fact, I think the idea of looking for a precise and clear cut line on this issue is rather futile since the amount of possible scenarios precludes the rather idealistic notion that one single dividing line would be enough to deal with all of them.
Having said that, I believe that if a person has suffered greatly at the hands of an ethnic group then any mild bigotry he demonstrates towards them should be considered in the light of that suffering, which may very well have warped his judgement somewhat in that regard. Obviously I don’t intend this to be inclusive of anything much stronger than the mild bigotry Kuniochi’s Grandfather exhibits. A white man who beats up a black man in retaliation for being mugged by another black man the week before shouldn’t have any emotional trauma he suffered at the hands of his mugger taken into account at his trial. He has committed a gross transgression and if he was genuinely so emotionally disturbed by the mugging that he felt his trauma would vindicate him then he’s either a callous racist or a lunatic and should be commmitted. If I witnessed such an event then I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever in testifying against him no matter how disturbed he had been by the mugging. Yeah, yeah, I know. Mighty white of me, eh?
On the other hand, if I heard a Holocaust survivor mutter “Kraut” under his breath as he walked past a Bratwurst stall, I’d consider what he’d been through and although I’d acknowledge the remark as a bigoted one, I wouldn’t condemn him for it. Monty, it seems, would get all up in his face about it right then and there. To me that’s just as insensitive as the original bigoted remark.
So y’see, there is a dividing line, IMO. However, it’s very blurred and impossible to clearly define. Extreme examples at either end of the spectrum can clearly be placed on the proper sides of the line. However, there’s a lot of grey. In regards your specific examples: [ul]
[li]If I’m savagely beaten by a black guy, do I have the right to refer to all blacks as “niggers”? [/li][/ul]
This is not about rights, this is about empathy with the supposed bigot. In this example I personally would have patience with you up to a point. For example, I have a very good friend who’s long term girlfriend was raped by a black man (He’s still at large btw). Ever since the attack she has been nervous and panicky around black people (this is but one of a whole host of anxious neuroses she’s developed since the attack) and routinely refers to them as coons and golliwogs (English racist slang). However, she has never said this to the faces of any black people. I know what she’s been through and I’ve even been in the distinctly unenviable position of having to talk her through a panic attack which hit her when she was giving me a ride and the car wouldn’t start. She’s getting better but seemingly random things can set her off. When I hear her use racist slurs it bothers me a bit but I let it go. I don’t confront her. While I know what she is doing is morally wrong, I honestly can’t say that had something comparatively awful befallen me, I’d be able to keep a perfectly functioning moral compass too. So I don’t judge.
Monty shows a complete lack of respect for Kuniochi’s Grandfathers history and as such does him a disservice by condemning him as a bigot as though his choice in ethnic label gave Monty enough grounds to condemn him as a human being entirely.
[ul]
[li] What if I’m kidnapped by a radical, psychotic sect of the Nation of Islam and tortured for days on end? [/li]
[/ul]
Frankly, something like that’d fuck anybody up. I’d suspend all judgement on a persons use of the n-word if I could ascertain his bigotry could be directly traced back to such a hellish experience.
[ul]
[li] What if a black guy just spits in my coffee at Starbucks?[/li]
[/ul]
Then obviously you have no excuse.
He certainly has the right to be offended. I’m offended when my friends girlfriends uses racist terms. However, I would hope that the offence would be tempered with some understanding. That is what has so irritated me about the stance Monty has chosen to take on this. He hasn’t shown any understanding or empathy.
I don’t want to speak for Monty and I think my stance on this will be more clearly illustrated if I supplant myself in his place in your example. I can tell you in complete hand on heart honesty that while I would be offended, and while I would view my anger as perfectly acceptable, was I to know that Kuniochi’s Grandfather had spent time in POW camp or something then I would at least hope that I would be man enough to take that into consideration and not judge him so harshly as Monty seems to have done. Then again, in the heat of the moment, I might not. But I doubt Monty was able to type his entire OP in the ‘heat of the moment’.
I gotta confess that I’m not familiar with this. I’m only 20 and I’m not an American. I’m reading about it at the moment but wouldn’t like to comment on it until I knew all the facts and at the moment google is being uncooperative. Sorry. I’ll post my thoughts on this tomorrow if you’d like.
Monty
I didn’t mean to give that impression if I did. If you could tell me what I said that made you think that I’d be happy to clear up any misapprehension that may exist. Skillet38
Welcome to an adult conversation. If you’re not up to it then by all means go back to whatever it is you were doing. Judging by your rambling, nonsensical post what you were doing was blatently ignoring the warning labels on aerosol cans while busily engaged in your mission to munch your weight in amphetamines.
Skillet, I’d suggest you make an airborne attempt at intercourse with a revolving pastry, but you’d likely dismiss me as “pc” in order to justify your own little worldview.
Ben, as for my labeling of all this nonsence as (which version of semantics causes you the least amount of guilt/trauma/personal turmoil), my opinion surely doesn’t indicate me as one who is predisposed towards huffing aerosols or doing, I’m sorry, to use your term “munching” my weight in amphetamines.
words are words, and we as a community, give them the power they hold sway over us. Obviously you are deeply troubled by some words. Here, let me try out my Ben Hicks impersonation,…
" if your nazi ass doesn’t stop snorting its way throught a J-low rear end sized line of coke and start making our over-wrought self-righteous diatribes sound erudite then try huffing some deodorant can’s full of aerosol. I only say this cause I care about you man. Huff as much toxin as you can.
