The term lives on, with a few meanings. One refers to any noisy or disorderly group of spectators. Another is a racial slur. During vaudeville’s heyday, the cheapest seats were usually high up in a balcony, a section often reserved for Black patrons. As a result, “peanut gallery” is now among a long list of terms becoming socially unacceptable because of apparently racist origins.
But since those seats were also occupied by poorer people and immigrants, there is some debate over whether the expression was racially motivated or was a more general derogatory term for less affluent people.
“Peanut gallery” is just one of many phrases whose problematic origins have become obscured, in this case by smiling, excited children laughing at a cowboy puppet. It’s more common for terms to acquire an unsavory connotation over time.
Your intent was evidently not racist but in context you were perceived (by many) to use an ethnic slur, and a strongly worded modnote should be the end of it. It is the prerogative of the moderators to control the tone of a discussion, and a modnote is akin to the host of a party taking you aside and saying “don’t do that”.
Normally if I learn I accidentally offend someone or see someone offended it makes a strong impression on me. If it’s bad I’ll get a gut wrenching feeling. I think that’s because I can see people’s faces and hear their tone of voice. Not so much over a text based medium (where I haven’t met the other person). If I’m just reading faceless, voiceless text it’s much easier to forget mental notes like “don’t mention alcohol around …” or “don’t use the word ‘hysterical’ on the dope” after a couple months. So I do keep a personal list of such admonitions. But that’s a personal shortcoming. I don’t know if it’s because I text and use social media so infrequently or what. I assume most people, having read once that something is offensive in some contexts, will have no trouble remembering so months or years later.
Exactly. Now if it had been a warning, then a thread about “banned words” may have been appropriate.
But you can’t have “banned words”. Take the word “Bitch”- here on this board we do not apply that as an insult to females. But in other contexts such as a female dog, or telling us your Brother is always bitching about things, etc, it can be Okay.
The name of a major character in Huckleberry Finn is N***er Jim, and in context spelling out the word is appropriate.
I think I’ve heard this word used aloud only twice. Once by Clarence Thomas in his confirmation hearings, and the other by. . .
Gomer Pyle! (Sorry, don’t recall the episode, but he was referring to stuck-up Whites)
Anyway, having said that, I thought I’d look thru newspaper archives predating, oh, 1960, to see references to ‘uppity,’ and, yeah, as noted, too many of them were references to Blacks.
ButI did find one humor piece (such as it was) where a Black American soldier allegedly smacked an Algerian soldier (WW I) for being ‘uppity.’ As the story went, the American soldier was trying to engage the Algerian in conversation because he saw that he was ‘one of us.’ Algerian soldier responded in gibberish (presumably Arabic), and after a couple of attempts, the American felt he was being dissed and smacked him.
Can’t post a direct link, but if anyone wants to read for themselves, it’s “The Philadelphia Inquirer” Oct. 9, 1918. (But personally, I think it’s a work of fiction.)
I have only ever heard/read uppity used for an African American who “didn’t know their place”. They were trying to act like they were a higher (upper) status where they didn’t belong.
Me too. It goes to show why some education in Black studies is important for everybody.
Mr. Dibble succinctly summarized the moral of this story:
For me, that’s the take away lesson: Privilege can do wonders at shielding people. The ignorance of harm maintained that way is inherently part of the privilege.
Some people are able to live lives in a bubble that automatically shields them from learning certain unpleasant things.
Some people are able to live lives that give them the ability to make decisions that result in their avoiding learning certain unpleasant things.
That’s privilege.
People without your privilege aren’t shielded from learning these things and they don’t have the option to make choices that will allow them to avoid learning these things.
There should have been some point in your life when someone—say a teacher—sat you and your peers down and said “Look, this is what living in this world is like for people who aren’t like you.” That might have broken down some of the shielding of your privilege.
Where did I claim to not have privilege? I didn’t. I’m someone who has reflected plenty on her privilege, not least in Black studies. (This goes again to my belief that all Americans need education in Black studies.) Many others here are expressing incredulity that a well-read, intelligent longtime Doper could really be so ignorant of racial matters and intersectionality. You could be feigning ignorance as a rhetorical move (the Socratic method), which is not necessarily a disreputable tactic. I can’t tell.
But I agree with Mr. Dibble that privilege is a very effective shield against knowing, and it’s all too possible for the sort of ignorance on display in your recent posts to be genuine. This just feels like the sort of debates we were having around privilege and intersectionality 5–10 years ago, and I’d thought we’d pretty well settled those questions already back then.
The rest of us are pleading with you, don’t get defensive. This is not a personal criticism of you. I personally hold you in esteem as a well-read, intelligent longtime Doper.
The way that privilege can blind even educated, intelligent persons to its own existence is a tragedy of society, not a reflection on your character.
That’s the wrong lesson. The lesson should be that every single one of us should pay more attention to our own privilege and how to break through the bubbles that it creates.
And let me be clear, it’s great to have privilege. The right solution isn’t that privilege goes away, it’s that everyone gets it. We should all be heard. We should all be respected.
But yes, it means I’m not always aware of things that are a problem for less privileged people. The solution is to listen. At least, that’s part of the solution.
I think broader learning in Black studies is a great idea.
One time I recall a coworker (not myself luckily) being chastised for using “gal” to refer to a woman. She was told that in the South, it was a derogatory term for Black women. The coworker (who, funny enough, was a Black woman and was being chastised by an older white man) was stunned to hear it. Both she and I had always thought it was just the female version of “guy”.
I’ve looked it up since then and can’t find any citations for it. It was certainly weird. I think he was just mistaken.
I will say though that if nothing else, it gave us a reason to pause and think about it. So maybe in that sense it wasn’t totally useless.