Political Corectness Makes Me Gag

[Boricua]

Boricua #2:
Why would you question whether he would use the n* word or not? Why do you care if sounds ignorant or not?

Because it bothers me that he implied the only reason he did not use it is because he would be banned. Why wouldn't it bother me?

I think you are incorrect, media outlets do specify that they're white, the same way they're black if thats what is specific or important at the time. I hear criminals being referred to as white, black, asian, Mexican, etc. all the time. I'm sure you could find several clips of news shows talking about blacks, several not mentioning that a person's white...that doesn't mean its prevalent. You're calling "racism" on the media. Its easy to call "racism", but its nothing more than calling a black person a n*. You're using an inaccurate pejorative term, with little evidence to support the point, but ignoring contradictory evidence.

I may have generalized. I did read several studies on it in a media class (I wish I had kept the pdfs) showing how even from 2000 to (around) 2005 media outlets in major markets (LA, NYC, Chicago, etc) still would mention the race of the criminal if they were a minority in +/-85% of the time vs +/- 65% for white criminals.

Your third point shows some insight, but I think you're making a hasty generalization regarding us from being privileged backgrounds. I don't think you should make characterizations about people you know nothing about...thats what racism is about.

I didn't mean to imply everyone here was privileged. I was including myself in a group that a ) is participating in a hobby that most people with limited money could not b ) have the time, technology, etc to participate in this forum - and in general speaking of how most of us enjoy several privileges - we might be poor but male, straight, educated, etc all examples.

Additionally, I don't know where you're getting your information, but blacks were given the right to vote 3-Feb 1870. A little more than a generation ago.

Agreed, I should have been more specific. Blacks were given the right to vote in 1870 through a constitutional amendment but later through Jim Crow laws in several state they were disenfranchised (paying poll taxes, pacing literacy tests, etc_ - until the Civil Rights act of 1964

its the same line of reasoning that makes you imply whites hold the majority of power in society and Hellcat imply that blacks are responsible for most of the crime.

Here, I disagree. Being white (and male, straight, christian, etc) provides people with many privileges in this society. Just because we have a black President it does not mean the power dynamics in the country are changing. It's an issue of who has the easiest and most frequent access to education, business, political power, etc. How many black senators do we have? 1 (well now one but he might be on the way out) How many minorities were elected to the US Senate in 2008? 0

I don't think that all the problems in parts of America can be solely attributed to slavery. I think thats silly. I will agree that blacks have been fucked over repeatedly, but I don't think the recent shit has anything to do with race, simply economics. The monies versus the non-monies.

I agree and disagree. It is indeed an issue about economics but in the US - money and race are very related. Is it impossible for minorities to come from money/get rich/etc? No. Can it be harder for many? Yes. Is it all about race? No. Does that mean that racism doesn't matter anymore? Absolutely not.

I think the US is progressing in leaps and bounds compared to many other countries (example: most of Europe) but racism/sexism/ and many other types of inequalities are alive and well. I think it's a very important issue that deeply affects the lives of many and should be treated as such.

I would recommend reading White Like Me by Tim Wise. Not the greatest book, quite simplistic often - but still a good introduction on the matter.

Finally, I agree - this thread sucks

[Bye bye now have fun]

Because it bothers me that he implied the only reason he did not use it is because he would be banned. Why wouldn't it bother me?

actually that was the ONLY reason i didnt say it. holy shit i said nigger and didnt direct it at anyone. point being i can say wha ever i want as long as its true (and not sign a NDA and what not). i chose to censor myself so i dont get banned. its all about choice. id never call any of my blackfriends a nigger but if some black dude beat the fuck out of me unprovoked would i call him one? possibly. its like talking with your friends at a bar vs an interview

I may have generalized. I did read several studies on it in a media class (I wish I had kept the pdfs) showing how even from 2000 to (around) 2005 media outlets in major markets (LA, NYC, Chicago, etc) still would mention the race of the criminal if they were a minority in +/-85% of the time vs +/- 65% for white criminals.

because we all know that big media is the fairest and isnt trying to sway the population at all.

Agreed, I should have been more specific. Blacks were given the right to vote in 1870 through a constitutional amendment but later through Jim Crow laws in several state they were disenfranchised (paying poll taxes, pacing literacy tests, etc_ - until the Civil Rights act of 1964

thats the past. how many irish people do you see bitching that they were oppressed back in the day? it clearly wasnt nearly as bad but it sure wasnt a cake walk

I agree and disagree. It is indeed an issue about economics but in the US - money and race are very related. Is it impossible for minorities to come from money/get rich/etc? No. Can it be harder for many? Yes. Is it all about race? No. Does that mean that racism doesn't matter anymore? Absolutely not.

that doesnt make logical sense, you are saying it matters but it doesnt

[HellCat]

Because it bothers me that he implied the only reason he did not use it is because he would be banned. Why wouldn't it bother me?

actually that was the ONLY reason i didnt say it. holy shit i said nigger and didnt direct it at anyone. point being i can say wha ever i want as long as its true (and not sign a NDA and what not). i chose to censor myself so i dont get banned. its all about choice. id never call any of my blackfriends a nigger but if some black dude beat the fuck out of me unprovoked would i call him one? possibly. its like talking with your friends at a bar vs an interview

I may have generalized. I did read several studies on it in a media class (I wish I had kept the pdfs) showing how even from 2000 to (around) 2005 media outlets in major markets (LA, NYC, Chicago, etc) still would mention the race of the criminal if they were a minority in +/-85% of the time vs +/- 65% for white criminals.

because we all know that big media is the fairest and isnt trying to sway the population at all.

Agreed, I should have been more specific. Blacks were given the right to vote in 1870 through a constitutional amendment but later through Jim Crow laws in several state they were disenfranchised (paying poll taxes, pacing literacy tests, etc_ - until the Civil Rights act of 1964

thats the past. how many irish people do you see bitching that they were oppressed back in the day? it clearly wasnt nearly as bad but it sure wasnt a cake walk

I agree and disagree. It is indeed an issue about economics but in the US - money and race are very related. Is it impossible for minorities to come from money/get rich/etc? No. Can it be harder for many? Yes. Is it all about race? No. Does that mean that racism doesn't matter anymore? Absolutely not.

that doesnt make logical sense, you are saying it matters but it doesnt

FTW +1

[judgeposer]

I've interpolated my reply.

I think groups redefining the terms that people use for them is absurd. I don't want to be called fat, I want to be called a rotund-American. Who cares? I'm fat. Your calling me fat doesn't reduce or damage me. If I say it does, then I'd call myself overly-sensitive. We should try to use the appropriate terminology, if we feel like it. If a phrase obviously upsets a lot of people, try using a different word, for Christ's sake. Be the person you want to be, try to be considerate, but don't be so driven to be considerate that you start being subject to people's whims.

Rotund American - love it! As for an observation (so, take it for what it's worth) about why certain groups have repeatedly redefined themselves by referring to themselves differently at different times, it seems to me symptomatic of their lack of identity or history. Of course such re-labeling can produce the opposite effect of confusion, or internal, group-schizophrenia.

As a person of mixed race, I, for one, would appreciate being called a human, person, man, though not necessarily in that order. I don't mind at all being called, and often self-employ, terms like man or person of color, bi-racial, or simply black, even despite its inaccuracy with respect to what I actually am or how I look. As Eric said...one shouldn't care, and I really don't. I too consider much more weighty how someone treats me, their actions, way above how the person expresses himself. How a person expresses himself usually indicates to me his level of education or attention to detail, but these, I know, cannot always serve as true indicators.

On the other hand, I don't understand why "black" became pejorative. If someone can explain that, I wold appreciate it. I think the term African-American is inaccurate and misleading...we're all Americans irrespective of our ancestry. I knew a Panamanian guy who referred to himself as a Panamanian-American. The black or African-American had nothing to do with it (Panamanians are Americans, too, Central Americans...). Are you going to tell him that he should refer to himself as an African-American? Probably not, since his statement isn't inaccurate, then I don't think anybody should be correcting anybody else for that matter.

Sorry, I can't...even being part black myself! I take my parents' lesson to heart: just do what you have to do, and do it well, beyond reproach even. My mom, though not often taken to the practice of self-labeling, doesn't care much about how anyone refers to her: as black vs. African-American, etc. I think she was just too busy maintaining a family and seeking our best interest to worry about how others referred to her race. The responsibility of survival, maintenance, and family often take priority to what society calls you.

That said, did "black" really become pejorative? I didn't get that memo!

Your fifth post: Again, blacks were granted the right to vote 130 years ago...I don't think a study of the power elite is important. On the other hand, before granting of civil rights to blacks (other than voting), when segregation was still the rule, there was a complete parallel economy for blacks in the U.S. It was smaller than the white economy, obviously, but where is that economy now? Largely decimated, bought out by the white power elite. Think about it for awhile.

Flesh this out for us. What "parallel economy," and "decimated"?

Somewhat on topic is a book I read years ago that some of you might find interesting: Lawrence Otis Graham's Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class. He offers an interesting and unexplored socio-historical account of upper-class black Americans. I found it fascinating, but I'm a bit of a (sociological) voyeur like that.

Judge Poser, good as always. Much more pluralistic. How else could you and I hang out and associate we have? Such a thing was unthinkable 40 years ago. Yay for pluralism!

I just keep thinking that I have to find some shorter friends! For those of you who haven't had the pleasure of Eric's (Sonthert's) company or friendship, he's a good 6'4", give or take an inch. Edited March 23, 2009 by judgeposer

[Rani]

---> Even though slavery was 400 years ago, why do people still regard its existence as a great crime, so much to the effect that many black and white people live with a strong bias of the other purely on this basis which in turn leads to much larger racial separation in the social stratification system in american society today.

Why is it such a big deal? Look who still has the most economic power in this country. Guess why? Yup, it goes all the way back to slavery, then general disenfranchisement. How do you expect a people to automatically achieve equality and parity when only 5 decades ago they didn't even have the right to vote?


The state of most black communities today are linked to slavery and to the hundreds of years of abuse and oppression, simple as that.

I think some people might better understand it this way: If you're born black it's like you 'owe' someone $500,000 in terms of all the adversity you have to fight against (crappy schools due to lower property values in ethnic neighborhoods, lack of connections, covert racism in hiring, etc etc) while when you're born white (especially a white male) is like you came to this world with $500,000 in the bank in terms of all the advantages you get in this society.


Not saying it's your fault for being white, but you look at white activists working on race and they say they do what they do because it's everyone's responsibility to change a society that is still plagued by heavy overt and covert racism.

You're making the most logical sense here in my opinion - in all your posts not just this one.

My personal opinion...........First of all, if you're going to knowingly wound somebody verbally, how about just not doing it? It is not in any way necessary to diminish another human being for any reason. It doesn't build you up, it doesn't make you better and it shows you actually lack something rather valuable in my opinion - common courtesy and compassion. Second of all, until words that are descriptive such as black, white, etc., become purely descriptive and have no emotional impact, they shouldn't be used. I'm Native American. I don't look it, and you'd be positively amazed at the things I hear because a lot of people don't realize they're talking to a "minority". Does it really cost you something to offer someone dignity even though it's through nothing more than a job title? What do you lose by letting them have that titular dignity? People will live up or down to your expectations. How about we give them more reasons to live up than down?

'Rani

[Sonthert]

Boricua: No personal attacks. I agree with your sentiments, but saying a person shows no real thought on the matter or that their opinion is beyond ridiculous and ignorant. I think Gnu is a conservative, but makes some salient points. Not all conservatives are ignorant. I would offer Judge Poser, he is conservative and incredibly educated. Just because somebody offers a stereotypical FoxNews blahblahblah pundit opinion doesn't make them ignorant. Its a good indicator...

If another moderator comes along, we're all busted! If you want me to edit your posts, I will.

Gnu: Chill, man. You were doing fine. Its just a political discussion, not the end of the world. I'll edit the n* word out of your posts, too, if you want. That might get you busted...I don't really want to post in the Mods. Section to ask, either...

[Bye bye now have fun]

Just because somebody offers a stereotypical FoxNews blahblahblah pundit opinion doesn't make them ignorant.

how am i taking foxes side?

[Sonthert]

First, I think we're laboring under a false assumption. There is no perfect society that lacks racism and discrimination. Obama being elected attests to the incredible progress that we've made in a short span of time.

Boricua: Why does anybody not choose to do something? Because they're afraid of the ramifications of their actions. I believe its wrong to judge people in their speech, its only to judge people in their action, otherwise humor and rhetoric would go out the window.

20% more often? Seems like a flood rather than an undercurrent! Maybe people just assume that the criminal is white if they don't say anything, so they don't need to say that the person is white.

Who says we're all straight, male and educated? I flunked out of high school. Maybe I'm gay. Maybe I'm a woman. Maybe I'm black. Why do you assume such things? Assumptions about people are the fuel of the fire of all the nasty, negative things that make up racism, prejudice and discrimination. Its a good mental exercise to abandon assumptions about people and treat everyone as an unknown quantity. How can you expect that we can reduce these things in society when your mind isn't free of them, too? If I make an assumption about Jason, because he's black, and therefore he must have been in prison...is that any different than assuming everyone on a forum must be a straight, educated male? (Yes, I'm looking at you Boho...) The assumptions lead to the prejudiced thinking.

Thats OK on the voting thing. Until I looked it up on Wiki, I thought it was 1869.

Blacks in the Senate? Hmm...well you have a point there...sort of, but you are looking to justify your position with flawed numbers. How many blacks are there in the House of Representatives? 39. Not including the 7 that left the House of Representatives in 2008 and 2009. If we extend it to all minorities, there are 70 people from minority groups in the U.S. congress. Its not like minorities are unrepresented in Congress, at all. 90 years ago, there were none. So...progress?

Jason: There was a shift from blacks to African-Americans, and in some circles, at least out here in California it is considered pejorative. As the Canadian guy mentioned, in Canada it is pejorative.

You're of mixed race? Doesn't change a thing...I love you like a brother.

In primarily segregated states, there were separate institutions/businesses specifically for colored people (non-whites). That is, for instance, there were white undertakers and colored undertakers. They were separate and insulated due to racial barriers. When the racial barriers were removed, it allowed white businesses to buy out black businesses becasue there was less stigma attqached to mixing business clientele. The white businesses were obviously larger and more powerful and getting rid of the black business leaders was easy (and convenient for keeping the Chamber of Commerce white). There are much, much fewer black businesses than there were 50 years ago. Hence, decimated.

Source? I'd have to get back to you on that I remember this only from my sociology of race and ethnicity class. I found it quite interesting at the time and read another source about it.

Don't keep joshing them, Jason, I'm really a short, black, lesbian woman, but I tell everyone to say I'm a big, white, heterosexual guy. You can see why, now, I'm sure.

Boho: Like I said further up, judge people by their actions, not their words. How could we reasonably judge someone who didn't speak English? By their actions. That test works the best, in my opinion.

I agree with your point in general regarding using emotionally connoted words, but ultimately bad words change over time...get rid of one, another one takes its place...I remember there used to be a converted Denny's down the street here, in the poorer area west of here...it was called "Sambo's"...does anybody realize that Sambo was/is a racially derogatory term? I don't think I've ever heard somebody refer to a Sambo. In fact, what it specifically details, I don't know. Its a black person, I know that. Can we use Sambo now? I don't think so. So, I don't think, following your logic, that once a term achieves emotionally-charged status it can ever be used again...its not like Clerks 2...we can't take "porch-monkey" back. Although, I must confess an occasional weakness for sitting out on milk crate, drinking a 40 with some homies, shooting the shit. Seriously. I laugh aloud sometimes when I hear some of the racial slurs people use...porch monkey. I like hanging out on hot days drinking. Or black people like watermelon, ribs and fried chicken? Shit. Who doesn't? I do. A lot of these words/stereotypes would lose their impact if people just laughed and ignored them. I've hung out with white racists, drinking beer, too. Its funny. If we all could just sit down and drink a beer together, maybe we could laugh about these things instead of getting all spiny and sensitive about them.

As to your last point, if people are given shitty job titles, wouldn't that be more of an incentive to get a better job if job titles were objectively generic and descriptive? eh?

[Boricua]

Boricua: No personal attacks. I agree with your sentiments, but saying a person shows no real thought on the matter or that their opinion is beyond ridiculous and ignorant. I think Gnu is a conservative, but makes some salient points. Not all conservatives are ignorant. I would offer Judge Poser, he is conservative and incredibly educated. Just because somebody offers a stereotypical FoxNews blahblahblah pundit opinion doesn't make them ignorant. Its a good indicator...

If another moderator comes along, we're all busted! If you want me to edit your posts, I will.

I guess that could be construed as a personal attack - if you think it would be a problem, please do edit it. Regardless, I vote for this whole thread to be closed/deleted/burned/sent to a Guantanamo, etc

I think it would be much more productive to have a discussion on race/racism (if people do indeed want that) on a thread that begins on a different note.

As for the Fox News spewers: I guess I do jump to making assumptions sometimes. I don't mind having a conversation with someone conservative, liberal, socialist, anarchist, etc - as long as they are open minded and can listen to what others say. Personally I believe, people who don't give other people's ideas any validity aren't smart at all.

[Boricua]

Who says we're all straight, male and educated? I flunked out of high school. Maybe I'm gay. Maybe I'm a woman. Maybe I'm black. Why do you assume such things? Assumptions about people are the fuel of the fire of all the nasty, negative things that make up racism, prejudice and discrimination. Its a good mental exercise to abandon assumptions about people and treat everyone as an unknown quantity. How can you expect that we can reduce these things in society when your mind isn't free of them, too?

Again, I wasn't assuming most people/everyone here was of a certain group. I was just saying that because the great majority of us enjoy some sort of privilege (gender, race, socio-economic class, etc) or have friends, family who do not enjoy certain privileges this is an issue that concerns us all.

Blacks in the Senate? Hmm...well you have a point there...sort of, but you are looking to justify your position with flawed numbers. How many blacks are there in the House of Representatives? 39. Not including the 7 that left the House of Representatives in 2008 and 2009. If we extend it to all minorities, there are 70 people from minority groups in the U.S. congress. Its not like minorities are unrepresented in Congress, at all. 90 years ago, there were none. So...progress?

I wasn't trying to explain my position with flawed numbers. I was just making a point. Two things to keep in mind:
-While there is a decent numbers of black Representatives in Congress now, they are still underepresented
-The reason why I pointed out the example of the Senate: as you all well know, in our Legislative system real power resides in the Senate. Not that the House is not important but the Senate is a good indication of political power because of all the financial and political backing that is needed to gain a seat in that body.

[Sonthert]

Just because somebody offers a stereotypical FoxNews blahblahblah pundit opinion doesn't make them ignorant.

how am i taking foxes side?

I didn't mean you specifically. some liberals feel that mass-produced conservative views are the product of too little education and too much TV (Fox News, in point).

[Bye bye now have fun]

ya im all for the back to PC. racism really doesnt have anything to do with political correctness. it could be implied the other way tho. (i think but i could have the arrows backwards)

[TheScotsman]

---> Even though slavery was 400 years ago, why do people still regard its existence as a great crime, so much to the effect that many black and white people live with a strong bias of the other purely on this basis which in turn leads to much larger racial separation in the social stratification system in american society today.

Why is it such a big deal? Look who still has the most economic power in this country. Guess why? Yup, it goes all the way back to slavery, then general disenfranchisement. How do you expect a people to automatically achieve equality and parity when only 5 decades ago they didn't even have the right to vote?


The state of most black communities today are linked to slavery and to the hundreds of years of abuse and oppression, simple as that.

I think some people might better understand it this way: If you're born black it's like you 'owe' someone $500,000 in terms of all the adversity you have to fight against (crappy schools due to lower property values in ethnic neighborhoods, lack of connections, covert racism in hiring, etc etc) while when you're born white (especially a white male) is like you came to this world with $500,000 in the bank in terms of all the advantages you get in this society.


Not saying it's your fault for being white, but you look at white activists working on race and they say they do what they do because it's everyone's responsibility to change a society that is still plagued by heavy overt and covert racism.

You're making the most logical sense here in my opinion - in all your posts not just this one.

My personal opinion...........First of all, if you're going to knowingly wound somebody verbally, how about just not doing it? It is not in any way necessary to diminish another human being for any reason. It doesn't build you up, it doesn't make you better and it shows you actually lack something rather valuable in my opinion - common courtesy and compassion. Second of all, until words that are descriptive such as black, white, etc., become purely descriptive and have no emotional impact, they shouldn't be used. I'm Native American. I don't look it, and you'd be positively amazed at the things I hear because a lot of people don't realize they're talking to a "minority". Does it really cost you something to offer someone dignity even though it's through nothing more than a job title? What do you lose by letting them have that titular dignity? People will live up or down to your expectations. How about we give them more reasons to live up than down?

'Rani

Verbally wound someone?
How the hell does that work?

If anyone thinks they run a risk of being "verbally wounded" they need mental help.
Words are words, nothing more. Weather they "wound" you or not, is your own choice.

[Bye bye now have fun]

If anyone thinks they run a risk of being "verbally wounded" they need mental help.
Words are words, nothing more. Weather they "wound" you or not, is your own choice.

id have to agree with you but im some court cases ive seen in class slander and libel arent the nicest of things

[neil555688]

politician concreteness is fascism for pussies

[Rani]

---> Even though slavery was 400 years ago, why do people still regard its existence as a great crime, so much to the effect that many black and white people live with a strong bias of the other purely on this basis which in turn leads to much larger racial separation in the social stratification system in american society today.

Why is it such a big deal? Look who still has the most economic power in this country. Guess why? Yup, it goes all the way back to slavery, then general disenfranchisement. How do you expect a people to automatically achieve equality and parity when only 5 decades ago they didn't even have the right to vote?


The state of most black communities today are linked to slavery and to the hundreds of years of abuse and oppression, simple as that.

I think some people might better understand it this way: If you're born black it's like you 'owe' someone $500,000 in terms of all the adversity you have to fight against (crappy schools due to lower property values in ethnic neighborhoods, lack of connections, covert racism in hiring, etc etc) while when you're born white (especially a white male) is like you came to this world with $500,000 in the bank in terms of all the advantages you get in this society.


Not saying it's your fault for being white, but you look at white activists working on race and they say they do what they do because it's everyone's responsibility to change a society that is still plagued by heavy overt and covert racism.

You're making the most logical sense here in my opinion - in all your posts not just this one.

My personal opinion...........First of all, if you're going to knowingly wound somebody verbally, how about just not doing it? It is not in any way necessary to diminish another human being for any reason. It doesn't build you up, it doesn't make you better and it shows you actually lack something rather valuable in my opinion - common courtesy and compassion. Second of all, until words that are descriptive such as black, white, etc., become purely descriptive and have no emotional impact, they shouldn't be used. I'm Native American. I don't look it, and you'd be positively amazed at the things I hear because a lot of people don't realize they're talking to a "minority". Does it really cost you something to offer someone dignity even though it's through nothing more than a job title? What do you lose by letting them have that titular dignity? People will live up or down to your expectations. How about we give them more reasons to live up than down?

'Rani

Verbally wound someone?
How the hell does that work?

If anyone thinks they run a risk of being "verbally wounded" they need mental help.
Words are words, nothing more. Weather they "wound" you or not, is your own choice.

Words do wound - deeper than the physical. Your body will heal and forget, your mind does not. It is not a personal attack to say that you have likely never been abused to say that. There is a 9 year old girl living alone with her mom next door to me. The walls are thin. I hear her mother speak to her badly almost daily and over the 2 years they've lived there, I've watched the change in that beautiful little girl as she begins to believe what her mother says about her. When the opinion of someone matters to you and that opinion negates or diminishes you, you are wounded.

'Rani

[Rani]

First, I think we're laboring under a false assumption. There is no perfect society that lacks racism and discrimination. Obama being elected attests to the incredible progress that we've made in a short span of time.

Boricua: Why does anybody not choose to do something? Because they're afraid of the ramifications of their actions. I believe its wrong to judge people in their speech, its only to judge people in their action, otherwise humor and rhetoric would go out the window.

20% more often? Seems like a flood rather than an undercurrent! Maybe people just assume that the criminal is white if they don't say anything, so they don't need to say that the person is white.

Who says we're all straight, male and educated? I flunked out of high school. Maybe I'm gay. Maybe I'm a woman. Maybe I'm black. Why do you assume such things? Assumptions about people are the fuel of the fire of all the nasty, negative things that make up racism, prejudice and discrimination. Its a good mental exercise to abandon assumptions about people and treat everyone as an unknown quantity. How can you expect that we can reduce these things in society when your mind isn't free of them, too? If I make an assumption about Jason, because he's black, and therefore he must have been in prison...is that any different than assuming everyone on a forum must be a straight, educated male? (Yes, I'm looking at you Boho... ) The assumptions lead to the prejudiced thinking.

Thats OK on the voting thing. Until I looked it up on Wiki, I thought it was 1869.

Blacks in the Senate? Hmm...well you have a point there...sort of, but you are looking to justify your position with flawed numbers. How many blacks are there in the House of Representatives? 39. Not including the 7 that left the House of Representatives in 2008 and 2009. If we extend it to all minorities, there are 70 people from minority groups in the U.S. congress. Its not like minorities are unrepresented in Congress, at all. 90 years ago, there were none. So...progress?

Jason: There was a shift from blacks to African-Americans, and in some circles, at least out here in California it is considered pejorative. As the Canadian guy mentioned, in Canada it is pejorative.

You're of mixed race? Doesn't change a thing...I love you like a brother.

In primarily segregated states, there were separate institutions/businesses specifically for colored people (non-whites). That is, for instance, there were white undertakers and colored undertakers. They were separate and insulated due to racial barriers. When the racial barriers were removed, it allowed white businesses to buy out black businesses becasue there was less stigma attqached to mixing business clientele. The white businesses were obviously larger and more powerful and getting rid of the black business leaders was easy (and convenient for keeping the Chamber of Commerce white). There are much, much fewer black businesses than there were 50 years ago. Hence, decimated.

Source? I'd have to get back to you on that I remember this only from my sociology of race and ethnicity class. I found it quite interesting at the time and read another source about it.

Don't keep joshing them, Jason, I'm really a short, black, lesbian woman, but I tell everyone to say I'm a big, white, heterosexual guy. You can see why, now, I'm sure.

Boho: Like I said further up, judge people by their actions, not their words. How could we reasonably judge someone who didn't speak English? By their actions. That test works the best, in my opinion.

I agree with your point in general regarding using emotionally connoted words, but ultimately bad words change over time...get rid of one, another one takes its place...I remember there used to be a converted Denny's down the street here, in the poorer area west of here...it was called "Sambo's"...does anybody realize that Sambo was/is a racially derogatory term? I don't think I've ever heard somebody refer to a Sambo. In fact, what it specifically details, I don't know. Its a black person, I know that. Can we use Sambo now? I don't think so. So, I don't think, following your logic, that once a term achieves emotionally-charged status it can ever be used again...its not like Clerks 2...we can't take "porch-monkey" back. Although, I must confess an occasional weakness for sitting out on milk crate, drinking a 40 with some homies, shooting the shit. Seriously. I laugh aloud sometimes when I hear some of the racial slurs people use...porch monkey. I like hanging out on hot days drinking. Or black people like watermelon, ribs and fried chicken? Shit. Who doesn't? I do. A lot of these words/stereotypes would lose their impact if people just laughed and ignored them. I've hung out with white racists, drinking beer, too. Its funny. If we all could just sit down and drink a beer together, maybe we could laugh about these things instead of getting all spiny and sensitive about them.

As to your last point, if people are given shitty job titles, wouldn't that be more of an incentive to get a better job if job titles were objectively generic and descriptive? eh?

Eric, love you to death, you know I do, but......... What is a "better" job? Climbing the traditional ladder of success isn't always what someone aspires to. Who is more successful? The "Maintenance Technician" who is happy and at peace every single day at his job going home to take his kid to the park? Or the million dollar a year CEO stressing all day who has to go home and have 3 martini's before he can face his family over a dinner table? It's not the guy with the most toys (or titles) who wins in the gave of life, it's the guy with the most happiness. Having said that.....

The world would definitely be a better pleace with more sitting down over beer together and less rhetoric.... I believe opening the lines of communication is everything to making the world a better place.

'Rani

[smokeytheclown]

Boricua, there are places where the " whitey keeps us down" philosophy is a wonderful vote-getter for polticians. Being originally from (and working in downtown )Montgomery, AL, the idea that the civil rights movement never really happened is widely promoted by career politicians who continue to collect paychecks from a black constituency that seems more than happy to languish in poverty instead of taking control of their lives and pulling themselves out of their living conditions. It's so much easier to blame someone else and give up than to accept that it's no longer the 1960's and take advantage of the myriad programs available to the underprivileged, start a new promising career, and live the American dream. This is the twentyfirst century. The only thing holding blacks back is VICTIMHOOD.

Yes, my view is tainted. I lived through the civil rights movement, and I am sick of modern day politilcal ' robin hoods ' keeping most of their voting bloc ignorant and powerless by repeating the mantra " We Shall Overcome " decades after it already happened.

[Sonthert]

Boho: I seriously doubt your comparison between a complete stranger and your mother is real. I think you're losing your argument in the extreme case. If the person is happy in their job such that they don't feel they need to climb the ladder, I would doubt they care what they are called. Its only for people climbing a ladder that they care what their job title is...for making their resume look good and whatnot. A better job is whatever each person decides for themselves it is.

General note: Your comments are interesting, smokey, but here's an idea we run around for awhile. Maybe we can just treat everybody as independent and useful people, not like some demographic to be market-tested. I don't think victimhood is solely responsible for the problems in black society. Its a purely American idea that any complex problem can be distilled down to one cause. I would offer that people live up to (or down to expectations). American expectations for blacks in the U.S. is incredibly low, hence the white woman clutching her purse tighter when she sees a black man walking towards her. If you expect the worst or less from somebody, they will abide you often.

[Sylren]

It sounds to me that most people here are white, and don't see why it is such a big deal sometimes. You forget that just a few decades ago minorities didn't even have the right to vote, etc. This wasn't centuries ago, this was just a generation ago.

A few decades ago women didn't have the right to vote either, but I'm not all upset about it. ;p
But seriously. Some people, regardless of race, are just more sensitive. And there's no reason to hurt people if you can help it.

[Rani]

Boho: I seriously doubt your comparison between a complete stranger and your mother is real. I think you're losing your argument in the extreme case. If the person is happy in their job such that they don't feel they need to climb the ladder, I would doubt they care what they are called. Its only for people climbing a ladder that they care what their job title is...for making their resume look good and whatnot. A better job is whatever each person decides for themselves it is.

General note: Your comments are interesting, smokey, but here's an idea we run around for awhile. Maybe we can just treat everybody as independent and useful people, not like some demographic to be market-tested. I don't think victimhood is solely responsible for the problems in black society. Its a purely American idea that any complex problem can be distilled down to one cause. I would offer that people live up to (or down to expectations). American expectations for blacks in the U.S. is incredibly low, hence the white woman clutching her purse tighter when she sees a black man walking towards her. If you expect the worst or less from somebody, they will abide you often.

Huh? I wasn't comparing my mother to anyone...so I'm confused by your statement. If you mean "the" mother next door, then I disagree. For this reason: It's really hard (insert impossible) for anyone not actually in someone's shoes to know and understand why they feel how they feel. For all that we can argue PC is for the overly sensitive, unless you grow up seeing yourself differently because of the influence of not just your immediate family but society in general, you cannot know how they feel. Being Native American, I can understand my heritage, history and how society has always made me feel. I cannot identify with any other ethnicity or circumstances other than my own. As such I would vastly prefer to err on the side of political correctness than to risk inadvertently adding to the emotional baggage our civilization has become so adept at giving us on top of what we grow up with in our immediate families. As we have both said here people live up or down to expectations. Since our genetic make-up doesn't include mind reading the only meter we have for measuring someone's thoughs about us are what comes out of their mouths. Words are the trailer for the movie that our actions are. They are the preindicators. Sometimes, you don't want to see the movie because the trailer's so bad.

The Dalai Lama says every word or expressions has four actual meanings depending on the levels of understanding:
i) The literal meaning;
ii) The g

'Rani

[Rani]

Boho: I seriously doubt your comparison between a complete stranger and your mother is real. I think you're losing your argument in the extreme case. If the person is happy in their job such that they don't feel they need to climb the ladder, I would doubt they care what they are called. Its only for people climbing a ladder that they care what their job title is...for making their resume look good and whatnot. A better job is whatever each person decides for themselves it is.

General note: Your comments are interesting, smokey, but here's an idea we run around for awhile. Maybe we can just treat everybody as independent and useful people, not like some demographic to be market-tested. I don't think victimhood is solely responsible for the problems in black society. Its a purely American idea that any complex problem can be distilled down to one cause. I would offer that people live up to (or down to expectations). American expectations for blacks in the U.S. is incredibly low, hence the white woman clutching her purse tighter when she sees a black man walking towards her. If you expect the worst or less from somebody, they will abide you often.

Huh? I wasn't comparing my mother to anyone...so I'm confused by your statement. If you mean "the" mother next door, then I disagree. For this reason: It's really hard (insert impossible) for anyone not actually in someone's shoes to know and understand why they feel how they feel. For all that we can argue PC is for the overly sensitive, unless you grow up seeing yourself differently because of the influence of not just your immediate family but society in general, you cannot know how they feel. Being Native American, I can understand my heritage, history and how society has always made me feel. I cannot identify with any other ethnicity or circumstances other than my own. As such I would vastly prefer to err on the side of political correctness than to risk inadvertently adding to the emotional baggage our civilization has become so adept at giving us on top of what we grow up with in our immediate families. As we have both said here people live up or down to expectations. Since our genetic make-up doesn't include mind reading the only meter we have for measuring someone's thoughs about us are what comes out of their mouths. Words are the trailer for the movie that our actions are. They are the preindicators. Sometimes, you don't want to see the movie because the trailer's so bad.

The Dalai Lama says every word or expression has four actual meanings depending on the levels of interpretation:
i) the literal meaning
ii) the general meaning
iii) the hidden meaning
iv) the ultimate meaning

I agree and believe the ultimate meaning should always be one with compassion and kindness. The problem is that it's rarely the case anymore.

'Rani

[Rani]

And the forum glitches again..... Sorry for the double post.

'Rani

[Sonthert]

What I was saying was you were giving an example of a mother and a child. Your assertion was that stranger's words hurt (as per the direction of the thread, currently ). Your example of a mother and a child is significantly different than whether a stranger's words hurt or not. It would be reasonable to believe that a parent can hurt their children through repeatedly harsh words. I don't think that necessarily applies to X calling Y a n* when X and Y aren't related, perhaps even strangers.

I was raised in a fashion to believe in myself and my own abilities and disregard other people's harsh words...i.e. you can't hurt my feelings. Other people might not have been raised in that fashion. If another person says something that hurts that other person's feelings whose fault is it? Nobody's fault. The person who feels hurt by another person's words should try to become more self-reliant. If you can get emotionally hurt by a person, then you don't have that all-important self-reliance or sense of humor that is essential to live in a free society. I can see a bunch of people saying "Well, its not that simple, because..."I understand that some things for no rational reason upset any given person. The same way some people are afraid of snakes or spiders for no reason whatsoever. There might be a perfectly good reason that you get upset at inconsiderate people or spiders. X calling Y a n* might upset Y due to the connotation of n*. Nonetheless, its not the spider's fault for me being upset by it. In human circles, however, the Politically Correct movement assumes that it is the spider's fault, or the the fault of the second person offending the first person. If a person gets in your face and tries to upset you, I understand if you want to belt them in the mouth or even get somebody to do it for you, the same way a person who's afraid of spiders gets another person to squash it for them (or squashes it themselves). Its still not the spider's fault. Don't blame the spider (or the person being a jackass) for you getting upset.

I think that encapsulates the anti-PC attitude.

I've met some people who are positively afraid of dogs. They don't like dogs. Dogs make them uncomfortable, nervous, etc. If you owned a dog and your neighbor came to you and said "I don't like dogs around they upset me." Would you get rid of your dog to accommodate the person? I'd guess not. In the same sense, why do the PC people expect people to accommodate other people's negative reactions to what another person says or does? Its not reasonable to believe we can get rid of all the things that upset people. In the case of my free speech, I'll try to keep in mind that saying such and such upsets you, but I'm not going to spend all of my spare time remembering what upsets who and where. Some people don't have as good a memory as others and are incapable of remembering all these details...so why make another person feel bad for saying something thoughtlessly? Just ignore it...or go somewhere else. Will people who are afraid of spiders ever feel comfortable with them? probably not, but learning to live with things that upset us is important. I have an ex-girlfriend who was fired from a government job for sexual harassment for something absolutely bullshit. She put two Chap-Stics on this guys desk with a sticker (that was affixed by a health-care provider for a health fair) that said "Kiss me, I'm healthy." I have a customer who is being legally harassed by another employee where he works, claiming that he acted inappropriately. So now he feels uncomfortable at work worrying if he's saying or doing the right thing. Chances are he's going to be fired for this, but he is miserable right now. Ultimately, society has decided who its OK for to feel uncomfortable or offended and who its not. Since this person at his work filed harassment charges, he gets to feel uncomfortable, even though she probably never felt exceptionally uncomfortable (he claims he never said or did anything that would upset her). Whether he did or not isn't the point. The rules exist to stop other people from being made to feel uncomfortable...so somebody is going to end up feeling uncomfortable...society has decided who its OK for and who its not OK for. If this is true in every case, somebody is going to feel uncomfortable, what is the best situation? To err on the side of honoring people's rights to freedom of speech...everybody's guaranteed them. If we go the other direction, towards Political Correctness nobody will be assured of their right to speak their minds ultimately.

We have to learn to get along with others and ignore people who make us feel uncomfortable. Yes, I know how it feels to be insulted, derided and constantly bugged by people...I went to school, same as everyone else. I learned to ignore them.

[Rani]

What I was saying was you were giving an example of a mother and a child. Your assertion was that stranger's words hurt (as per the direction of the thread, currently ). Your example of a mother and a child is significantly different than whether a stranger's words hurt or not. It would be reasonable to believe that a parent can hurt their children through repeatedly harsh words. I don't think that necessarily applies to X calling Y a n* when X and Y aren't related, perhaps even strangers.

I was raised in a fashion to believe in myself and my own abilities and disregard other people's harsh words...i.e. you can't hurt my feelings. Other people might not have been raised in that fashion. If another person says something that hurts that other person's feelings whose fault is it? Nobody's fault. The person who feels hurt by another person's words should try to become more self-reliant. If you can get emotionally hurt by a person, then you don't have that all-important self-reliance or sense of humor that is essential to live in a free society. I can see a bunch of people saying "Well, its not that simple, because..."I understand that some things for no rational reason upset any given person. The same way some people are afraid of snakes or spiders for no reason whatsoever. There might be a perfectly good reason that you get upset at inconsiderate people or spiders. X calling Y a n* might upset Y due to the connotation of n*. Nonetheless, its not the spider's fault for me being upset by it. In human circles, however, the Politically Correct movement assumes that it is the spider's fault, or the the fault of the second person offending the first person. If a person gets in your face and tries to upset you, I understand if you want to belt them in the mouth or even get somebody to do it for you, the same way a person who's afraid of spiders gets another person to squash it for them (or squashes it themselves). Its still not the spider's fault. Don't blame the spider (or the person being a jackass) for you getting upset.

I think that encapsulates the anti-PC attitude.

I've met some people who are positively afraid of dogs. They don't like dogs. Dogs make them uncomfortable, nervous, etc. If you owned a dog and your neighbor came to you and said "I don't like dogs around they upset me." Would you get rid of your dog to accommodate the person? I'd guess not. In the same sense, why do the PC people expect people to accommodate other people's negative reactions to what another person says or does? Its not reasonable to believe we can get rid of all the things that upset people. In the case of my free speech, I'll try to keep in mind that saying such and such upsets you, but I'm not going to spend all of my spare time remembering what upsets who and where. Some people don't have as good a memory as others and are incapable of remembering all these details...so why make another person feel bad for saying something thoughtlessly? Just ignore it...or go somewhere else. Will people who are afraid of spiders ever feel comfortable with them? probably not, but learning to live with things that upset us is important. I have an ex-girlfriend who was fired from a government job for sexual harassment for something absolutely bullshit. She put two Chap-Stics on this guys desk with a sticker (that was affixed by a health-care provider for a health fair) that said "Kiss me, I'm healthy." I have a customer who is being legally harassed by another employee where he works, claiming that he acted inappropriately. So now he feels uncomfortable at work worrying if he's saying or doing the right thing. Chances are he's going to be fired for this, but he is miserable right now. Ultimately, society has decided who its OK for to feel uncomfortable or offended and who its not. Since this person at his work filed harassment charges, he gets to feel uncomfortable, even though she probably never felt exceptionally uncomfortable (he claims he never said or did anything that would upset her). Whether he did or not isn't the point. The rules exist to stop other people from being made to feel uncomfortable...so somebody is going to end up feeling uncomfortable...society has decided who its OK for and who its not OK for. If this is true in every case, somebody is going to feel uncomfortable, what is the best situation? To err on the side of honoring people's rights to freedom of speech...everybody's guaranteed them. If we go the other direction, towards Political Correctness nobody will be assured of their right to speak their minds ultimately.

We have to learn to get along with others and ignore people who make us feel uncomfortable. Yes, I know how it feels to be insulted, derided and constantly bugged by people...I went to school, same as everyone else. I learned to ignore them.

I think this is one of those agree to disagree things among friends..... I don't see the spider connection because the spider isn't on an equal footing with the human they frighten. They aren't raised in the same society and subject to the same rules of behavior. In the case of humans being considerate to each other, we are raised in the same society. Other nations included as well. If we don't bother to at least touch bases of other cultures, and insult them because we didn't know better, I see that as our own failing. I sometimes travel in the Middle East. I cover my head. With my short spiky hair it's not always attractive or comfortable to do so. But it costs me nothing to take into consideration the feelings and culture of others. The difference in your dog owner subject is that it would cost the dog owner something (emotional loss) to give up their dog. We don't have to give up anything to take into consideration the feelings of others. I tend to be politically correct (though I can vent in 4-letter words like the best of them - in several languages), however, in no way do I feel I'm relinquishing my freedom of speech. It's that are you allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater debate on freedom of speech. I do agree we need to learn to get along with people who make us feel uncomfortable, but I don't believe that should necessarily include ignoring them. If you simply ignore them, they never know they've impacted you in a negative way. And shouldn't they know? This happens to be one of my weaknesses. For a very long time if someone or something in any way injured or offended me, I simply shut down and shut them out. I would literally freeze them out of existence in my personal world. And then a very good friend pointed out, then how do they learn they have offended? Don't you just leave them confused, not knowing why you froze them out? And ignoring someone diminishes them as well. A girlfriend I froze out because she had drug issues got back in touch recently and as part of her working through her straightening out her life she and I talked and she told me how that had made her feel. As though she didn't exist at all. The problem wasn't so much because I'd done it, but because anytime she "acted up" in her life she was ignored and closed out. I'd just reinforced the issue. She would have much rather been straight up informed "Hey, you offended me" because she would have then known what it was exactly she did, been held accountable for it, rather than just being ignored. Which she felt put her in the category of not being worth enough to correct.

The catch-22 is whether or not that's even possible in the society we live in. In Nirvana we could all openly tell each other when they say or do something we personally consider offensive - without getting into an ego match of who's on the right side of the offense - oversensitivity or freedom of speech. In the society we have now.......? I'm not sure it's possible. Throughout my entire working life I've never lost or alienated a single customer. Despite the fact that construction is a verbally explosively industry. Why? Because I apologize easily if my voice mail screwed up and I return a call too late, or a delivery is delayed, etc. And why am I willing to accept blame for something that's not my fault? Because it costs me nothing to do so. It costs me nothing to be kind and considerate to others. Very few people can truly stand on their own without the opinions of others. Look at the bandwagons the general populace jump on. So and so sports figure says something and suddenly everyone is in agreement and talking about how wise he is. In my perfect world the only bandwagon people would jump on is treating each other better.

So does any of this settle this debate? Not at all. I think in the long run, we're all left with the only option we have. We behave according to the best principals of our own personal conscience. Some of us will always be "politically correct" and some of us will always think otherwise. So long as we each respond and act according to our own conscience and debate it freely and without rancor, we'll make progress and someday find a way to meet in the middle.

(And when we get to the front porch discussions - I'll even buy the beer!)

'Rani