Black leaders: End N-word in entertainment

Collin

Ahnimus wrote:

The connotation exists in the mind of the person taking offense.

It exists in the mind of the person using the word as well, otherwise he wouldn't use it.

What is much easier and more probable is to control their own interpretations of the word. If they choose not to take offense to the word alone, then the word has no deragatory meaning.

True, though I'm not sure it's much easier. One might argue that it's simply much easier if we stopped using it.

And what you just said goes for everything that is offensive. But is it really that wrong to be offended by something? Is it that wrong to want just a shred of respect?

If someone were to piss on my grandfather's grave, I could say "your actions, don't affect me, they don't affect the way I feel about my grandfather, you are merely pissing on a stone and that's all." If I choose not to be offended by this person's action, then his actions don't have a pejorative meaning.

darkcrow

no more use of (im going ot say it) nigger? thank god.. means the death of shit rap / hip hop

why did i say nigger? is it any more offensive to use it with "@ or -"? and also it is how you use the word. so please dont jump on me. im a paki anyway lol

Collin

darkcrow wrote:

no more use of (im going ot say it) nigger? thank god.. means the death of shit rap / hip hop

There's still all the bling bling, the cars, the bitches, the gold, the cristal champagne, the big phat spliffs and their mad skills, yeah!

Actually, there's some very good hip hop out there too.

darkcrow

Collin wrote:

There's still all the bling bling, the cars, the bitches, the gold, the cristal champagne, the big phat spliffs and their mad skills, yeah!

Actually, there's some very good hip hop out there too.

ah fuck! :( will it never end?! lol oh i know there is good hip hop. i grew up listening to nwa, cypress hill, biggy, luniz, etc etc.. right now it all seems to be vein twats who have nothing to say. at least with groups like public enemy it was great music with a message

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

It exists in the mind of the person using the word as well, otherwise he wouldn't use it.

Not necessarily. If I called you a nigger right now, no such connotation would exist in my mind, though you might believe it did. And that belief would be in your mind, not mine.

And what you just said goes for everything that is offensive. But is it really that wrong to be offended by something? Is it that wrong to want just a shred of respect?

Respect is internal, not external. There is no respect found in the forced silence of others.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

Not necessarily. If I called you a nigger right now, no such connotation would exist in my mind, though you might believe it did. And that belief would be in your mind, not mine.

In your mind, no. In general, however, the people who use the word "nigger" to refer to black people are racists and it also exists in their mind because if it didn't it would they would just call black people other pejorative words.

Respect is internal, not external. There is no respect found in the forced silence of others.

How do you mean?

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

In your mind, no. In general, however, the people who use the word "nigger" to refer to black people are racists and it also exists in their mind because if it didn't it would they would just call black people other pejorative words.

But I would think the first person who refused to judge people "in general" are the ones who despise racism, no????

It's an inescapable contradiction. I'm not going to respect the person who tells me that racism is bad because it generalizes people but who then turns around and takes offense at someone who uses the word nigger based soley on an assumed connotation based on the fact that the speaker is white.

How do you mean?

You asked two basic questions:

"But is it really that wrong to be offended by something? Is it that wrong to want just a shred of respect?"

The latter question implies that respect is related to the absence of offense. There is no respect found in simply silencing offense. Respect is found in the self-consciousness that you have earned admiration, and you cannot acquire admiration from a racist by telling him to shut up.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

But I would think the first person who refused to judge people "in general" are the ones who despise racism, no????

How about: people who refer to black people as "niggers" are racists because of the word's connotation and because of the fact they know that connotation.

It's an inescapable contradiction. I'm not going to respect the person who tells me that racism is bad because it generalizes people but who then turns around and takes offense at someone who uses the word nigger based soley on an assumed connotation based on the fact that the speaker is white.

Well, sure, but is it soley based on that or is it also based on the context? Take Bob Dylan, for example, he has used the word nigger in one of his songs, I doubt there are any black people who take offense to it. John Lennon also used it and there are several punk bands who have used it and I, again, doubt black people see it as racism.

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

How about: people who refer to black people as "niggers" are racists because of the word's connotation and because of the fact they know that connotation.

That's a false absolute. Sometimes that is the case. Sometimes it's not. However, those assumed connotations would always exist in the mind of the offended. Offense absolutely requires the assumption of such connotations by the offended -- whether or not the connotations exist in the mind of the offender is based on some kind of generalization, as you indicated above.

Well, sure, but is it soley based on that or is it also based on the context? Take Bob Dylan, for example, he has used the word nigger in one of his songs, I doubt there are any black people who take offense to it. John Lennon also used it and there are several punk bands who have used it and I, again, doubt black people see it as racism.

Sure. I'm not trying to say that the generalization based on race is universal. I'm just saying that a double-standard does exist and is based on some very faulty principles. Furthermore, I completely agree with Ahnimus' statement about the offense being a primary function of the offended, not the offender. Not that I'm excusing anyone who goes around calling people "niggers" -- I simply also won't excuse those who let such worlds hold an inherent power over themselves.

We see a similar dynamic everyday on this board. People, when backed into an intellectual corner, will often call another names instead of conceding or addressing the fundamentals of the argument. Those who play into it by crying offense or returning the behavior are the biggest losers. Those who simply ignore it or challenge the basic validity of the statements destroy the power of such tactics.

Skitch Patterson

so do be clear im reading FarFrom correctly...

really simply...

the problem is the stigma attached to the word, not the word itself... and banning the word would only increase the negative stigma on the word... Therefore making the situation even worse than it already is?

farfromglorified

Skitch Patterson wrote:

so do be clear im reading FarFrom correctly...

really simply...

the problem is the stigma attached to the word, not the word itself... and banning the word would only increase the negative stigma on the word... Therefore making the situation even worse than it already is?

Close, yes. The problem is not just the stigma attached. The problem is that the offended participate in the stigma by taking offense and, in doing so, give the tactics of the racist a sanctioned power. Let's look at the Kramer situation to see what happens:

1) Kramer is unfunny
2) Heckler calls Kramer unfunny
3) Kramer calls heckler a nigger
4) Elements of society take offense
5) #1 forgotten

The discussion now diverts from #1 which, subconsciously, is the entire purpose of Richard's tirade. Same with posters here who call names -- divert the issue.

If we reject such diversions based on their fundamental nature as opposed to their asthetic qualities, we eliminate their power. But, when we react by sanctioning the power the speaker is assuming in his words, we perpetuate them by validating the tactic.

Furthermore, we also validate them in our own minds. If I get up and say "2+2=5", mathmeticians don't get offended -- they laugh at me for being an idiot because they know that 2+2 does not equal 5. However, if I get up and say "niggers are idiots", people do get offended because I'm giving name to something they fear might be correct based on the racist ideology they've been taught. The difference is not in my statements which are both completely false -- the difference is in the inherent insecurities of the listener.

We will know that racism is breathing it's last breath when Kramer in a rage calls a heckler a "nigger" and it warrants nothing more than the derision you would give to the idiot who says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Banning the words accomplishes nothing. What you're fighting here is a mindset, and you cannot eradicate a mindset with law. You eradicate mindsets by proving them incorrect.

jeffbr

Collin wrote:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader, and others said Monday they will meet with TV networks, film companies and musicians to discuss banning the racial slur that is a derogatory term for blacks.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader, and others said Monday they will meet with TV networks, film companies and musicians to discuss banning the racial slur that is a derogatory term for blacks.

Collin

jeffbr wrote:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader, and others said Monday they will meet with TV networks, film companies and musicians to discuss banning the racial slur that is a derogatory term for blacks.

Yeah, I already said I was wrong.

yosi1

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

This will get complex. As Collin was hinting, Dave Chappelle uses the word all the time, yet he uses it in a celebratory way, reclaiming it in the context of black culture, with the attitude that "It's okay when we say it because we don't mean it in a racist context, and we're using a degree of irony."

Also, I think of great literature such as the Caribbean poet's Derek Walcott's "The Schooner Flight". He uses phrases such as "red nigger", which are steeped in all sorts of nuances that don't add up to anything like white on black racism, or even black on "red".

So, in these case, the word is used in a different context. One doesn't have to be a deconstructionist philosopher of language to work out that words don't have fixed meanings and can change according to when they're used.

However, this is beginning to give me a headache because it sounds like I'm saying: if a black person uses the word in context, it's free speech, and if it's used by a white person, it's hate speech. Well, how about when a white writer who understands black culture tries to use the word, in the context of portraying black characters? Are they to be banned from doing so? It gets very confusing.

I also think that banning words is no solution to ending racism. I'll use one of my usual analogies: it's like trying to ban skyscrapers by banning the word "skyscrapers". Changing the socio-economic structure of society, which causes racism in the first place, will be far more effective.

Great post. You hit all the crucial points with this post, and articulated very clearly why its a complicated issue.

Of course no wants one word to warrant such a big issue, with so much attention, but it does. That's the way of the world.

jeffbr

Collin wrote:

Yeah, I already said I was wrong.

Well, I hope you are. The problem is that even if the focus is now on studios, TV networks and entertainers, at some point they'll invite the gov't to join their caucus and then I'll start jumping up and down about first ammendment issues. But as long as the gov't isn't involved they can agree to whatever they want.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Close, yes. The problem is not just the stigma attached. The problem is that the offended participate in the stigma by taking offense and, in doing so, give the tactics of the racist a sanctioned power. Let's look at the Kramer situation to see what happens:

1) Kramer is unfunny
2) Heckler calls Kramer unfunny
3) Kramer calls heckler a nigger
4) Elements of society take offense
5) #1 forgotten

The discussion now diverts from #1 which, subconsciously, is the entire purpose of Richard's tirade. Same with posters here who call names -- divert the issue.

If we reject such diversions based on their fundamental nature as opposed to their asthetic qualities, we eliminate their power. But, when we react by sanctioning the power the speaker is assuming in his words, we perpetuate them by validating the tactic.

Furthermore, we also validate them in our own minds. If I get up and say "2+2=5", mathmeticians don't get offended -- they laugh at me for being an idiot because they know that 2+2 does not equal 5. However, if I get up and say "niggers are idiots", people do get offended because I'm giving name to something they fear might be correct based on the racist ideology they've been taught. The difference is not in my statements which are both completely false -- the difference is in the inherent insecurities of the listener.

We will know that racism is breathing it's last breath when Kramer in a rage calls a heckler a "nigger" and it warrants nothing more than the derision you would give to the idiot who says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Banning the words accomplishes nothing. What you're fighting here is a mindset, and you cannot eradicate a mindset with law. You eradicate mindsets by proving them incorrect.

Well said

yosi1

farfromglorified wrote:

Banning the words accomplishes nothing. What you're fighting here is a mindset, and you cannot eradicate a mindset with law. You eradicate mindsets by proving them incorrect.

A problem with this is, is that it does not take into account the fact that there are some people who intentionally use this word in an offensive manner. I think that is a major part of the reason why the word is still offensive, and why people take offense to it. I think in order to take away the stigma of the word, or the mindset of people being offended by the word, there would need to be noone who would use it in that manner.

Ahnimus

yosi wrote:

A problem with this is, is that it does not take into account the fact that there are some people who intentionally use this word in an offensive manner. I think that is a major part of the reason why the word is still offensive, and why people take offense to it. I think in order to take away the stigma of the word, or the mindset of people being offended by the word, there would need to be noone who would use it in that manner.

I totally disagree. If they didn't take offense there would be no use for the word to be used racially. Why do people call each other assholes? Usually because it's a general insult, it means virtually nothing in everyday context, it's used because it's hurtful. Even if they couldn't say "nigger" they would say "porchmonkey" or something equally as hurtful.

farfromglorified

yosi wrote:

A problem with this is, is that it does not take into account the fact that there are some people who intentionally use this word in an offensive manner.

That's what the preceding part of my statement was aimed at. People who intentionally use such words in an offensive manner are easily dealt with: do not give them what they seek. If you become offended when a person attempts to offend you with a word, you've given them what they want. You've rewarded their actions.

I think that is a major part of the reason why the word is still offensive, and why people take offense to it. I think in order to take away the stigma of the word, or the mindset of people being offended by the word, there would need to be noone who would use it in that manner.

Stigma does not stem from a word, it stems from a mindset. "Nigger", by default, carries no more stigma than "cheetah". Both are just words. It is the interpretation that gives them power, and interpretation stems from the mindset of the interpreter, not the speaker.

yosi1

farfromglorified wrote:

That's what the preceding part of my statement was aimed at. People who intentionally use such words in an offensive manner are easily dealt with: do not give them what they seek. If you become offended when a person attempts to offend you with a word, you've given them what they want. You've rewarded their actions.



Stigma does not stem from a word, it stems from a mindset. "Nigger", by default, carries no more stigma than "cheetah". Both are just words. It is the interpretation that gives them power, and interpretation stems from the mindset of the interpreter, not the speaker.

I see what you're saying, but, it sounds like you're not acknowledging how hard and long a process it can be to not take offense to something (or someone) when they are intentionally offending you.
If you are acknowledging how hard of a process that is, than we are in agreement.

This analagoy isn't perfect, but I'll throw it out there anyway: A person does not want to be hurt when they are hit by someone, and if they are they are in someway "giving in" too. But, that is not always something that can be controlled. The same goes often when someone is offended the use of deragatory words directed at them.