OT: Marvin Miller dared Curt Flood to begin his letter requesting free agency with “I am free, black, and 31.” The actual missive was a bit more tepid.
I never get away with using “renegger”. 
Oh, come on, don’t be niggardly with your language.
Awesome.
My take- I have only heard “real white…” and “real Christian…” “of you” used ironically and knowingly, meaning ‘not really that generous.’
Yeah, like the guy who wondered why all those Jews and A-Rabs couldn’t all just get along like good Christians.
No. Not like that at all.
Another Brit agrees on ironic use
A similar expression in the United States is “That’s mighty white of you”, meaning, “Thank you for being fair”, although it has come to be used ironically, particularly by African-Americans.
The term “play”, in African American slang, can sometimes mean “cheat” or “swindle”, and “the white man” is often a reference by minorities for the historical collective oppression of Caucasians upon non-Caucasians. Thus if used by non-whites, the term “play the white man” may carry a connotation of “cheat the oppressor”.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that “white man” derives from “white man,” “[a] man of honourable character (such as was conventionally associated with one of European extraction).”
In my experience, it was not intended as a negative or racial statement (unless used sarcastically); the casual racism of its origin was simply embedded in the phrase. It was still heard occasionally until the 1970s, after which it became impossible to use it without racial implications.
You quote the OED as noting its racial implication, then dismiss it?
Associating “honorable” with “European” is pretty much a direct case of associating good qualities with an ethnic or racial population. Had the association been one of “European culture,” one might make a case that it was not racial in nature, but “European extraction” pretty much nails it as biological.
No, I’m not dismissing the racial implication. I’m simply noting that in the past, for most users, the racism was implicit rather than explicit, and casual uses did not necessarily have an intended racial implication.
I find casual racism to be worse than deliberate racism, as the unquestioned attitude is nearly impossible to change. I am thankful to whatever hypothetical omnipotent being there may be that we have learned better over this past century, and I apologize to my descendants for whatever unquestioned horrors I am guilty of promulgating.
And we all know about “niggardly.”
May I interject that there are things said about women (and men too) that are very sexist, but it’s so easy not to think twice about the underlying insult and the words are used casually. I’m mentioning this to show how unconscious the putdown is – or that it may not be intended as an insult.
For example, we’ve pretty much stopped calling teenage males “boys.” But “girls” is still used to designate women of all ages. I still use it myself when I’m talking about the women of the club I belong to. "I’m getting together with the girls.
Finally, in another direction, it seemed strange to me to hear Dr. King’s speech again with its references to “Negroes.”
Not to mention the National Association for the advancement of Colored People!
Devalued terms alternate and change meaning. Black was once an insult before it was reclaimed, the NAACP has stuck with a term that is now suspicious.
We currently refer to ‘people of color’- this too will become a term of abuse.
Similarly with ‘Gay’ which in British school usgae noe=w means bad, stupid, undesirable etc. Previously to its usurpation by people who were homosexual in orientation, it meant happy. Generations meaning happy, a quarter century meaning homosexual, and now it is s pejorative term!
Damned language!
I would agree that there are people who, having heard the phrase without understanding its context, would use it, themselves, without the racial implication. However, the question of the OP was the origin of the phrase and that is clearly racial as noted by the OED.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:24, topic:667211”]
Let me repeat Strassia’s call for a cite.
All of the evidence so far provided here says that the phrase means, “that’s something a white person would do,” with “white person” being European Protestant, as opposed to Jewish, American Indian, African, or some other race that wouldn’t do such nice things.
I would definitely consider it a racist phrase, given both my experience with people who say it and the etymological data provided in the LanguageLog link.
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine)
+1
I’m sure, too, they mean technically “north European”; the Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards with a tint to their skin are only technically “white”. As for the French, who knows? 
Seriously, the fine Anglo-Saxon / Celtic roots of the original USA settlers had real problems with the wave of mediterranean people with funny names, tinted skins, funny cooking and annoying languages who were arriving about 1900. Of course some of these annoyed people were the Irish, many of whom came over after the famine of the late 1840’s, to much the same prejudice. The operative concept in all this, still operative today - a large influx of unfamiliar foreigners were people who were to be shunned and feared. Large collections of locals who also were a separate community - ex-slaves, Indians - were also to be feared and shunned and kept away.
Prejudice is nothing new.
What’s surprising to me is that in MLK’s speech he pronounces it “nih-groes”. I assume that is a southern accent and explains the where the derogatory term came from.
Yes, today’s politically correct term is tomorrow’s insult. Mentally retarded used to be the polite form in my childhood in the 1960’s. Imbecile used to be a technical term. I already hear “special” (as in “special education”) used as an insult. (You must be “special”…) Given the right inflection or cicrumstance, anything can be an insult.
My typical white grandmother, born in Southern Virginia in 1898, pronounced it as “nig-gra” to my ears in 1955.
Southern it was.
This could be interesting linguistic field to plow. I’m 24 and I refer to groups of people mostly as guys irrespective of gender, but I’m definitely more likely to say girls or boys when referring to my peers than I am to say women or men.