I think the OP has a point.
However I do feel that the use of nigger as an insult is outdated. There are far worse insults just hanging about waiting to be used.
I have a couple of black friends, If I were to call them niggers, which I have done, I just get laughs. If I were to call them paedophiles I’d get a smack in the teeth.
[QUOTE=chowder]
I think the OP has a point.
However I do feel that the use of nigger as an insult is outdated. There are far worse insults just hanging about waiting to be used.
I have a couple of black friends, If I were to call them niggers, which I have done, I just get laughs. If I were to call them paedophiles I’d get a smack in the teeth.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but if my friends addressed me “nigger”, they would cease being my friends pronto.
This is fuckin’ idiotic. Of COURSE you don’t hurl false accusations at someone. That’s the most facile thing I’ve ever heard!
But if your boss addresses one of your black coworkers as “nigger”, and that coworker replies that the boss is racist, or you going to report both parties to HR for using equally inflammatory language?
If you read a history report and the writer calls Jim Crow an example of “institutionalized racism”, are you going to assume the writer is a wackjob, for using such inflammatory language?
You can falsely accuse someone of being racist. Can you falsely accuse someone of being a nigger?
If “racist” is suddenly a big bad taboo word, just as bad as “nigger”, then what are we going to call “nigger”? Is it not a racist word? Oops, I just said that “bad” word again. Better come up with a synonym for “racist”!
White people may feel like “racist” is their “nigger”, but that doesn’t mean this is reasonable. It sounds like so much whining. “Boohoo, that bad man called me a racist and I’m not!” Well, I’ve been called a “racist” on this messageboard, and no one reported the incident to a moderator. In one of the current Pit threads, I called myself a “racist”; no one tried to dissuade me from that position. That alone would suggest that “racist” is not anywhere CLOSE to being like “nigger”.
“Offenderati” comes to mind in this discussion. The next time a Doper rallies against the nebulous entity known as the “offenderati” and someone asks for some examples, I’ll post a link to this thread. I have a feeling doing so would reveal some of the posters here as hypocrites.
monstro I think the word is viewed with much more distaste in the USA than it is in the UK.
[QUOTE=monstro]
This is fuckin’ idiotic. Of COURSE you don’t hurl false accusations at someone. That’s the most facile thing I’ve ever heard!
[/QUOTE]
Uh, no it’s not. In your earlier post you said that
in response to **athelas’**comment about FALSE claims of racism.
Again, you’re completely ignoring the fact that I was talking about FALSE accusations of racism. If a person is called a nigger by their boss, of course they are justified in calling that racism. But if that doesn’t happen and a person is mad at their boss for another (non-race related) reason and wants to get back at them, they could falsely accuse the boss of being a racist and do them a lot of damage. THAT’S what I’m talking about.
Gotta get to work. I won’t get into a pit war with you over it, but for someone who’s apparently unwilling or unable to see the distinction here, I wouldn’t be so quick to call other people “fucking idiots.” :rolleyes: Or are you of the opinion that there is no such thing as a false accusation of racism?
We can argue about whether calling someone a racist or bigot carries the same weight as using the worst of racial epithets (I don’t think it does), but for sure, hell hath little fury like someone who thinks he is being falsely accused of bigotry. We’ve seen it here plenty of times. And whether the reaction is justified or not, it does not promote racial/ethnic harmony.
Once as a reporter who’d just started work at a radio news department in a large midwestern city, I was assigned to interview the head of the local NAACP chapter about his group’s goals and objectives. Instead of responding to my questions, he launched into a history of whites’ racist past and the civil rights movement, in a tone that suggested I was completely ignorant of this and no doubt at least a closet racist (the station I worked for had a country music format) who needed to hear the facts of life. If this was intended to win me over, it had the opposite effect. Afterwards I always gave him and his group a fair shake in news stories (objectively, they were a bunch of ineffective, squabbling idiots), but man - what a jerk.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
I’ve heard of the Irish being referred to as the world’s “white niggers” before.
[/QUOTE]
From what my grandparents and parents have inferred, this was somewhat the case in America up until John F. Kennedy was elected president. Certainly our history shows a strong anti Irish bias at certain times in the 19th century, but I think that was really superceded by each new arriving culture. It really can’t compare to the discrimination faced by blacks in America however.
[QUOTE=Rodgers01]
Again, you’re completely ignoring the fact that I was talking about FALSE accusations of racism.
[/quote]
It’s a given that making false accusations about anything is wrong. I mean, does this even need to be stated? Racism is hardly unique in this regard. You might as well be comparing accusations of sexual harrassment to “nigger”, which makes absolutely no sense.
What it seems that you and others are really saying is that it’s wrong to call someone (or perhaps their actions and ideas) racist, regardless of how they are behaving, because of the possibility that they aren’t really racist, they are some other thing that may, on the surface, look racist but technically isn’t and therefore you shouldn’t be trying to ruin their lives by saying they are something when you don’t have definite, rock-solid, irrefutable proof of it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s the vibe I’m getting here. Which would be fine, I guess, if this philosophy didn’t seem so restricted to racism. Interestingly enough, it isn’t. I’ve seen folks being called homophobic, sexist, classist, and anti-Semitic/Islamic for saying things that would not pass muster if racism was the accusation. Am I alone in this observation and if not, why should it be this way? Should we be applying a different set of rules for racism than we do for other -isms, just because whites are extra offended by the word?
I don’t think so.
[QUOTE=Rodgers01]
Yes, if the accusations are false. And even there, there’s a difference – if you claim that someone is a tax cheat, it’s fairly simple to prove whether it’s true or not. It’s also difficult to falsely claim that someone is a pedophile, since you have to find children who are willing to lie to back up the claim (though that’s not impossible, ie the McMartin case). But it’s very easy to claim that a person is a racist. So much of the racism we talk about today is of the unproveable variety anyways (looks, attitudes, inferences), that if a black person wanted to hurt a white person, he could very easily start accusing him of racism, with no proof at all. If he did it loudly enough the charge might stick, and a perfectly innocent person could have no way to exonerate himself in the eyes of friends and colleagues. As has been pointed out, that can have serious consequences on people’s lives and careers. It is, as has also been pointed out, the modern equivalent of accusing someone of being a Communist.
[/QUOTE]
Do you really think it’s easy to clear your name from a charge of being a pedophile? That’s pretty naive. Do you not remember the witch hunts that resulted around the time of the McMartin Preschool Trial?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
What it seems that you and others are really saying is that it’s wrong to call someone (or perhaps their actions and ideas) racist, regardless of how they are behaving, . . .
[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure that that was not Askia’s original position and (although it is always hard to be sure in threads where there are actually more opinions than posters) I don’t believe that that was the intent of other posters, either.
Specifically, Askia was addressing the case of the epithet “racist” being hurled at a white person with little or no context. Would the effect of that event resemble the personal distress that a black person suffer by being called nigger? It was Askia’s position that it was.
This was not a claim that “racist” cannot ever be used to describe the actions or attitudes of any white person.
It was a single situation description of a word that would cause the person so identified distress.
Everyone is still free to refer to the actions of David Duke or Don Black as racist.
Everyone is still free to call David Duke or Don Black racists to their faces.
Everyone is still free to identify actual racist actions undertaken by any white person and point them out (vide Michael Richards).
The only point made was that in other threads there have been comments made that there is no word that can inflict the same emotional distress on a white person as nigger inflicts on a black person and it was Askia’s perception that, when used as simply a context free taunt (or a deliberate effort to create a false context around a disafgreement), then using the word “racist” against a white person does, indeed, inflict emotional distress that resembles the distress felt by a black person who has been called “nigger.”
How about “Nazi”? It’s like “racist,” only even more baggage-laden, and mostly applied to white people. (Though I will say it’s been cheapened a bit by those who habitually use it to describe people with right-of-center political beliefs.)
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The only point made was that in other threads there have been comments made that there is no word that can inflict the same emotional distress on a white person as nigger inflicts on a black person and it was Askia’s perception that, when used as simply a context free taunt (or a deliberate effort to create a false context around a disafgreement), then using the word “racist” against a white person does, indeed, inflict emotional distress that resembles the distress felt by a black person who has been called “nigger.”
[/QUOTE]
But the implication is that the term is an insult because of the bad feelings that are elicited when it is used or because bad things can happen when someone is called a racist, and not because of the actual meaning of the word.
The problem as I see it is that if a term is labeled an insult, and those who take this view are encouraged to see it as a slur rather than a value-neutral way of describing a real-life phenomenon, then it follows that attempts to use “racist” in an objective, non-pejorative manner will be met with defensiveness and denial, even when there is good reason to believe someone is being racist. I can’t condone that.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
The problem as I see it is that if a term is labeled an insult, and those who take this view are encouraged to see it as a slur rather than a value-neutral way of describing a real-life phenomenon, then it follows that attempts to use “racist” in an objective, non-pejorative manner will be met with defensiveness and denial, even when there is good reason to believe someone is being racist. I can’t condone that.
[/QUOTE]
However, you have changed the terms of the discussion.
The original claim was not that the word, itself, is an insult, (meaning that its use in all cases is an insult).
The original claim was that its use as an insult has, in the particular culture that has developed in the U.S. since the mid-1960s, gathered sufficient cultural baggage that its now brings a measure of distress disproportionate to its raw meaning–just as the word nigger carries baggage (in the U.S.) that imparts emotional distress disproportionate to its raw meaning.
I have seen no claim that we need to retire the word because it is only used as an insult.
(And I have news for you: the fact that it does, indeed, carry a level of emotional distress means that it is already met with defensiveness and denial. That does not change its actual meaning; it does not make it off-limits for use where appropriate. I suspect that you are reacting to a percepton of the discussion that was not intended by Askia and you appear to be missing his point.)
On consideration, let me submit a concrete example.
If I get into an argument with a co-worker over the approach to a problem and that co-worker angrily calls mer a “dumb honkey” or a “stupid cracker” or a “fuckin’ white boy” because I fail to agree to his position, I am going to shrug it off as the words of an angry person who has let his temper get the best of him. (Substitute “her” for “him” as needed.)
If that same co-worker charges that I am refusing to agree with him because I am racist, I am going to be set back and hurt by that claim. The charge of racism has much greater weight than simple name calling, particularly in the context of American society over the last four decades.
(Some odd person on the street calling me names is not going to bother me, much, either way.)
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The original claim was not that the word, itself, is an insult, (meaning that its use in all cases is an insult).
[/quote]
This statement in the OP is why I disagree with you.
I take from this that whenever the term is used towards someone–regardless of intent–it is considered a racial insult. According to Askia, “racist” is a racial insult, and he does not limit this to a specific context.
I disagree with this claim, as I’ve already stated, but I also disagree with the portrayal of “racist as an insult” as being a black and white thing (no pun intended). Sure, a lot people probably use racist as an insult. But where do you, as an observer, draw the line between a sincere (if not mistaken) accusation of racism and one that is made solely with the intent to harm? That’s the question.
I understand that no one wants to be called a racist. I also understand that no one wants to think that they are racist. My point is that even in a context in which it may seem like someone is using “racist” as an insult, they may not be. In one of the longest threads this board has ever seen, I was accused of arguing ad hominem because I said another poster’s position was racist. The funny thing is that before I even uttered the “r” word, I called him stupid and plenty of other names that were most definitely insults. The ad hominem card wasn’t played until I had the audacity to say his ideas were racist. And by that time, the insanity was so mind-bleedingly obvious it was like pointing out the elephant in the room.
There seems to be a rather indiscriminate perception out there of what constitutes “racist” as a term used as a insult and “racist” as a term to describe a certain thought pattern and behavior. And because people respond to the latter as if they would to the former, it is hard to talk about race without arguing.
This isn’t news to me. I’ve had first-hand experience with it. I guess my question to you is, so what? What is the correct way to go about talking about racism when people are predisposed towards defensiveness and denial? I honestly want to know.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
What is the correct way to go about talking about racism when people are predisposed towards defensiveness and denial? I honestly want to know.
[/QUOTE]
If you identify an actual racist comment, act, or attitude, you point out that it is racist and why. That has not changed. Askia said nothing that would lead to a change in that approach.
The only point was whether there was a word that could be directed against whites that had the emotional impact of “nigger.” “Racist” is (generally) that word, whether it is used correctly or incorrectly. If used correctly, then the target should probably use the emotional response as a wake-up call that they need to adjust their approach to life. If it is used incorrectly, (as simply an emotional sledgehammer in the manner of Godwin’s Law), then the target should shrug it off and ignore the person hurling the insult.
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
How about “Nazi”? It’s like “racist,” only even more baggage-laden, and mostly applied to white people. (Though I will say it’s been cheapened a bit by those who habitually use it to describe people with right-of-center political beliefs.)
[/QUOTE]
It’s been cheapened by its application to a wide range of overbearing government actions, political positions (both right and left wing) that are sources of heated disagreement. and various minor inconveniences. Most people hit with accusations of being a Nazi nowadays would just shrug or laugh.
“Call him a Nazi, he won’t even frown,
‘Nazi - Schmazi’ - says Werner von Braun”
Tom Lehrer
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
wet dog.
[/QUOTE]
“Wet dog”? :dubious: As in, “Why do I smell wet dog?”
[QUOTE=Askia]
I observe that the accusation that Hispanic/Black/Asian/whatever-non-white person is racist simply doesn’t carry as much force, weight or damage as it does when flung at someone white.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, sorry, I didn’t know that your observations were to be given equal weight as factual data here. 
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Do you really think it’s easy to clear your name from a charge of being a pedophile? That’s pretty naive. Do you not remember the witch hunts that resulted around the time of the McMartin Preschool Trial?
[/QUOTE]
I brought up the McMartins myself in my post. My point was not that it’s easy to clear your name if you’re charged with pedophilia (I’m sure it isn’t), but that it’s slightly harder to make a pedophilia charge stick in the first place, because you have to get some kids who are coachable, who were alone with the person, etc. Claiming racism, in comparison, is easier.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
It’s a given that making false accusations about anything is wrong. I mean, does this even need to be stated? Racism is hardly unique in this regard. You might as well be comparing accusations of sexual harrassment to “nigger”, which makes absolutely no sense.
[/QUOTE]
I was clarifying a point that monstro evidently did not seem to get.
I don’t quite see how you’re getting that from what I or anyone else has said here. I haven’t seen anyone claim that you shouldn’t call clear-cut racism anything but racism.
But, now that you mention it…hmmm. I wonder if “racism” shouldn’t be saved just for clear-cut, proveable cases of racial discrimination. Given the serious nature of the charge and the heated emotions aroused by the term, maybe we should use something else to talk about suspected or unproven discrimination. As a comparison, if you knew a guy who liked to bounce kids on his knee a little too much, it might make you suspicious and a little cautious when you saw him around kids. But you wouldn’t immediately start telling people that you think he is a pedophile, because “pedophile” is such a loaded, emotional term, and the guy could be perfectly innocent. But, don’t hold me to this idea just – I’m just kind of talking out loud, and I’ll have to think it over…
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The only point was whether there was a word that could be directed against whites that had the emotional impact of “nigger.” “Racist” is (generally) that word, whether it is used correctly or incorrectly. If used correctly, then the target should probably use the emotional response as a wake-up call that they need to adjust their approach to life. If it is used incorrectly, (as simply an emotional sledgehammer in the manner of Godwin’s Law), then the target should shrug it off and ignore the person hurling the insult.
[/QUOTE]
How can you know that “nigger” impacts me and other black people the same way “racist” affects you or other white people? All you can say is that “racist” is an emotionally charged word that can be used as an insult. Why must people draw comparisons with “nigger” to illustrate such a simple point?
Comparing “nigger” and “racist” makes as much sense as comparing “cunt” with “sexist” or “kike” with “anti-Semitic”. Or “fag” and “homophobic”. There is no using the latter “correctly”. There is no going home to ponder whether or not the latter was used aptly to describe your behavior (Oh my goodness! I really AM a nigger! Let me fix myself!).
To me, that makes a world of difference.