I watched a boxing match on TV when the two fighters were virtually identical in build, wore the same color trunks, and had no real mark to distinguish them except that one was black, the other white. It quickly became extremely funny to me to listen to the announcers attempt to identify which fighter was which without using the simple and straightforward method of mentioning skin color.
What if they were all white? Then what would you have to rely on? You should be able to apply the same standards to any group without having to resort to skin color.
Can you rephrase that Scott? I don’t quite understand what you’re asking.
Sure, if you’re black. If not, you already know the answer and the reason why…so I’m not going to treat you as if you’re being dishonest. As I and others have said, white trash is a term created by whites and reserved for other whites and that’s an important part of deciding whether it’s an insult or a racial attack.
It’s origins makes it different than a white person saying nigger to insult a black person, then claiming that it’s just a bastardization of negro, so it’s okay. There is a history to that word and to white trash, they are not comparable…again if you want to make the point that it’s an offensive term, you’re going to step off the backs of black people to do it.
Sorry.
I didn’t say it was hate speech, I asked if you consider white trash hate speech, whether or not the term, high yella was as well.
The term refers to the status that comes with being lighter-skined, a social-economic advantage if you will and the perceived behaviour/attitude that comes with it. If you know anything about American history, being lighter could be an advantage in everything from employment to avoiding a rope and there was a strong caste system within the african-american community based on the color of skin.
So while white trash refers to whites who waste their whiteness, “high yella” can refer to african-americans that take advantage of theirs and make no bones about it. Both terms depend on the preception that members of their group, have about the BEHAVIOUR of representatives of that same group.
So in YOUR opinion, is high yella hate speech?
But we are not discussing how it sounds to you (which I would acknowledge it sounds racist). We are discussing how it is used. If you go back and read all the other threads discussing the use of “white trash” (going back even into the old AOL board) you will discover a very large number of people who are utterly surprised that there is any racial connotation. They are stunned that anyone would even impute a racial meaning to the phrase.
In a way that a huge number of people are totally unaware of the etymology of “gyp,” it is simply a word or phrase that they have picked up outside a racial context and never associate with racism until it is called to their attention. The argument can sound as hollow as you want it to–to you. The reality is that many people use it with no racial context and no racial component, regardless how “obvious” it might be to someone who eamines the phrase.
Shiftless nigger gets no pass because shiftless is simply one of dozens of adjectives used to describe the clearly delineated word nigger. You can probably find folks in the Caribbean who use nigger with no pejorative context, but not in the U.S. On the other hand, “white trash” is a phrase that is entire to itself and no longer carries its original meaning to people who grew up distant from Jim Crow or related social settings.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Go look up the dozens of threads we’ve had on this topic and see just how many people post in surprise that there is any racial component to “white trash.” I am not arguing that the term is not insulting. I am not going to get in the middle of your discussion with Giraffe[ regarding the appropriate rules of speech in the Pit. I have a single observation which is that IF you argue that the term should be banned as racist, THEN you will lose that argument because its usage in 21st century U.S. has wandered away from its original racist usage.
When distinguishing between any twon people, it seems only natural that you would mention the most prominent difference. I.e. “the red head”, “the man”, “the white guy”.
Am I allowed to laugh at dropzone’s Ole and Lena joke?
You dislike using the term “black” Usually, people use the term African-American, instead. It would be far better to refer to them by their given name, when talking about that person to a group. That is not always possible, however.
If you should meet a black person who was born in the U.K., then by referring to them as an “African-American”, you might cause offense. Not very much, true, but perhaps a little. Calling them “black”, however, does not carry such a (admittedly small) risk.
Well, if we weren’t before, we are now. Seriously, you’re what’s wrong with America’s view of the Left. Now, I’m as liberal as anybody, but the oversensitivity and that kind of bullshit is a major turn off for most of America. Turn off = lost voters. Lost voters = lost elections.
just one aside, unless I’m being whooshed.
I believe it’s Dyed in the wool, not “died in the wool”.
Not to nitpick, but the OP has stated that he is not a “Leftie” (an I still use that term?) so, absent Left leaning political motivations I am not sure why this is a hot button issue for him.
I was hoping to let Scott weigh in on this himself.
I agree, logically you should be able to just note the most distinguishing feature and move on. Sadly, logic has been swept under the PC rug.
I recall back when the guy shot the judge and the court officers in Atlanta(?). Before any pictures of the suspect were posted, only written descriptions were posted. None of them made any reference to the color of his skin. Now if you are on the lookout for a guy who has just shot a judge, skin color might be a helpful clue, yet this was not reported in the papers.
Are you making fun of the wool intolerant? Wool allergies are no laughing matter and claim literally hundreds of sheep per millennia.
Didn’t I do just that in post 100?
Sorry. That was my mistake.
Well, since I didn’t even set up the supposition until #102, I doubt it.
But never mind. The thread is now hopelessly off topic, we are no longer bashing white trash.
We aren’t about to create a list of forbidden words. Look, different people are offended by different things but we aren’t going to play mommy here. Context and intent matter. Terms like “nigger”, “raghead”, “spic”, “kike”, etc. are plainly and simply intended as suckerpunches to the gut, nothing more.
In the past, various posters have agitated to categorize “fundie” (for fundamentalist), “dems” and “demmies” (for Democrats) and “pubbies” and “repugs” (for Republicans) as hate speech because they don’t like 'em. I’m cynically suprised no one has agitated to ban any use of the word “fat” yet. IIRC, “cunt” and “bitch” have been suggested as well. Some of the overwrought discussions pro and con have been amusing in a distinctly surreal way, though. The etymology of victimhood, anyone?
Odds are most people would find something to be offended about in the Pit, if so inclined to look for it. We try to keep the most egregious, vicious insults under some control but we can’t–and won’t–sanitize the Pit to Disney PC blandness on demand.
Delicate sensibilities have their places, but the Pit ain’t one of 'em.
I agree with you. I don’t like saying black because it feels a little weird (and gets funny looks from my friends sometimes, like I just said ‘shit’ in church), but I do it anyway for the reasons you mention. It’s sometimes the simplest way to distinguish a person.
How dare you single out Disney! I for one, will not tolerate such intolerance.
For shame.
[Malcolm Reynolds]
I’ve somehow managed to find adequate ways to describe people without ever having had to resort to the term “white trash” (well, at least I think I haven’t), so make a rule or don’t; won’t make no difference to me.
That said, I also object to calling the OP a douchebag, as that would be an insult to the douchebag community.
[/Malcolm Reynolds]