DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: MissusDe on July 07, 2007, 11:01:30 PM
-
Decades have passed since the mass marches of the civil rights and women's lib movements. But it's still common to hear chart-topping songs that contain casual but offensive terms for African Americans and women.
Rap and hip-hop artists are often the culprits, and now members of the NAACP hope to send a strong message: Enough is enough.
As part of a nationwide campaign to end the use of offensive terms and the objectification of women in songs and music videos, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People plans to hold a "mock funeral" for the word "nigger" on Monday during its annual convention in Detroit.
In the Puget Sound area, NAACP chapters are urging people to wear black ribbons Monday to show solidarity with the campaign to "bury" the word. The campaign also urges people to stop using the terms "bitch" and "ho" to refer to women.
Some hip-hop fans have argued it's acceptable for African-Americans to use the n-word casually and that doing so could strip it of its power to hurt. Others, such as longtime Seattle civil rights activist Oscar Eason Jr., strongly disagree.
"It was meant to degrade you, to put a certain amount of fear into the conversation," said Eason, who serves as president of the NAACP Alaska/Oregon/Washington State Conference. "And to have our kids to use it like this ... it's frustrating."
The "funeral" comes just months after high-profile instances of celebrities using the terms prompted public outrage. In November, former "Seinfeld" actor Michael Richards used the n-word repeatedly during a tirade against a patron at a Los Angeles comedy club. And in April, radio shock jock Don Imus referred to members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy headed hos."
Imus was ultimately fired.
After the Imus controversy, more and more voices called on popular hip-hop artists to stop using the words.
Eason hopes the funeral will help younger African Americans -- who may never have had it used against them as a slur -- rethink their use of the word in the future.
"We're constantly trying to get that word erased from people's vocabulary," he said.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/322507_nword05.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/322507_nword05.html)
-
The word's become neutral since it was picked up by young blacks and especially black artists. At this point, the significance of the word and whether or not it's offensive depends on who's using it and what it's being used for.
-
The word's become neutral since it was picked up by young blacks and especially black artists. At this point, the significance of the word and whether or not it's offensive depends on who's using it and what it's being used for.
I understand the "what it's being used for" part. That makes sense. What I don't understand is the "who's using it" part. That makes no sense. Words do not inherently change meaning based on the person using the word. How a person uses a word can alter the meaning, but simply being used by a person does not in and of itself change the meaning or significance of a word. The notion that somehow the meaning of a word depends on, in this case, the skin color of the person using it is an absurdity and a hypocrisy.
-
It is neither an absurdity nor that overused collection-basket of political pseudo-discourse, an hypocrisy. It is perfectly fair game, rational and perhaps even efficacious to wield a "tyranny of the word" by those formerly (and perhaps currently) afflicted by its use against that broad class of people (note "class," not individuals) who inflicted harm by hostile use of the word. It's just plain, raw, power politics, and it is on a matter that has very little capacity to harm seriously in the recoil blacks wish to create. To see the matter otherwise is simply tight-assed, small-minded.
-
<<Words do not inherently change meaning based on the person using the word.>>
Words can acquire deeply personal meanings shared by only two or three people or larger sub-groups, like black hipsters in San Francisco (to pick just one example from the top of my head.) "Rosebud" for example. Didn't have the same meaning for you and me as it did for William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies. "Gas" might have meant one thing on the lips of a black hipster and something entirely different on my lips.
Words are ony symbols and need to be interpreted in context. The speaker for sure is part of the context. So is the listener. "Nigger" WILL mean one thing coming from Dr. Dre and another coming from Trent Lott.
-
Words are ony symbols and need to be interpreted in context. The speaker for sure is part of the context. So is the listener. "Nigger" WILL mean one thing coming from Dr. Dre and another coming from Trent Lott.
'Bitch' and 'ho' are derogatory terms, no matter who uses them. And the saddest part is that young women have accepted their usage.
So what came first - the usage of those terms by almost every hip hop and rap artist, or the behavior of young black women?
A crowd of rowdy young men enter a mansion that?s staffed by an army of voluptuous, thonged and bikinied women. They shake and pop and gyrate, bend over and spread their charms, take it from behind and get busy with each other. The guys haul them around like sides of meat, pulling their legs apart and shoving their asses toward the camera. But it?s cool: the girls are smiling because these boys have plenty of cash, and that makes it all right. The bills shower down on female flesh, along with champagne?and whatever else might be flowing. The climax to this conjoining of sex and money? A grinning man swipes a credit card between a girl?s ripe buttocks.
That?s pretty tame porn, you might say, and you?d be right?but it?s not porn; at least it?s not marketed as such. It?s the video for rapper Nelly?s hit ?Tip Drill,? which has been beamed into millions of U.S. households via cable?s BET network, along with other rap videos in the same vein. Networks like MTV and VH1 show them, too. The ?Tip Drill? video leads the pack in raunchiness, but only narrowly, and its lyrics are mild compared to some.
Read The Bitch Ho Problem:
http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Cover_Story/2007/04/05/The_Bitch_Ho_Problem/index.shtml (http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/Cover_Story/2007/04/05/The_Bitch_Ho_Problem/index.shtml)
-
Bitch and Ho can be derogatory words. They don't have to be. A guy can call his girlfriend bitch, and she might think it's funny. They could be two white suburban kids pretending to be part of the gangsta subculture. They could be two black kids who aren't really gangsta. They could be Chinese kids who think it's cool. They could be actors in a movie about really bad people.
The varieties of context are infinite but the context DOES determine the meaning.
The video you described sounds funny. Like they're doing it for laughs. I can't see any harm done. Very few girls have the looks required to get them into the kind of situation depicted, and of those who do, some will find their own way there regardless of what's banned or allowed and others won't have any interest in that kind of environment anyway. Probably depends a lot on upbringing.
-
I was brought up to avoid being uselessly offensive.
In the Navy one can be severely disaplined for useing such "flag words" as a Civil Servant one can be fired.
Who really is paying the way for the popular use of offensive words in art?
-
It is perfectly fair game, rational and perhaps even efficacious to wield a "tyranny of the word" by those formerly (and perhaps currently) afflicted by its use against that broad class of people (note "class," not individuals) who inflicted harm by hostile use of the word. It's just plain, raw, power politics, and it is on a matter that has very little capacity to harm seriously in the recoil blacks wish to create.
Nonsense. There is nothing rational about it. And it is only efficacious is the desired result is to have black people using it in a derogatory manner toward each other. And apparently the leadership of the NAACP has an opinion more in line with my thinking than yours. So I feel certain that you have zero grounds upon which to talk about the matter as if this "tyranny of the word" had some unified decision behind it.
To see the matter otherwise is simply tight-assed, small-minded.
On the contrary, to see the matter as I do is broad-minded and rational. It shows some rational and adult consideration of the whole of the matter rather than a myopic, emotional, childish reaction.
-
Words can acquire deeply personal meanings shared by only two or three people or larger sub-groups, like black hipsters in San Francisco (to pick just one example from the top of my head.) "Rosebud" for example. Didn't have the same meaning for you and me as it did for William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies. "Gas" might have meant one thing on the lips of a black hipster and something entirely different on my lips.
The meanings you speak of were acquired by use not by merely being spoken by a person. Which only illustrates my point.
-
<<The meanings you speak of were acquired by use not by merely being spoken by a person. Which only illustrates my point.>>
Now you're talking about something else, acquisition of meaning. I was talking about meaning in the context of speaker identity.
Once the word has acquired its special or non-standard meaning in the course of a particular relation between (for example) two people, thereafter the word has its special meaning only when spoken by one of those two people to another.
Of course there is no reason to limit to two the number of people who can share in the special or specially nuanced meaning of a word.
-
Now you're talking about something else, acquisition of meaning. I was talking about meaning in the context of speaker identity.
I'm talking about the same thing I've been talking about. Your examples were of people who added to or altered the meaning of a word by how they used it. The meaning of 'rosebud' was not changed because it was physically formed by Hearst's throat and mouth. The meaning of the word 'nigger' is not changed by the color of the skin of the person who speaks it.
-
Now you're talking about something else, acquisition of meaning. I was talking about meaning in the context of speaker identity.
I'm talking about the same thing I've been talking about. Your examples were of people who added to or altered the meaning of a word by how they used it. The meaning of 'rosebud' was not changed because it was physically formed by Hearst's throat and mouth. The meaning of the word 'nigger' is not changed by the color of the skin of the person who speaks it.
I have yet to see in ANY dictionary 'nigger' as anything other than an EGREGIOUSLY NEGATIVE & INFLAMMATORY term, specifically referencing a black person. Perhaps Tee is again using some dictionary from his alternate reality, and trying to apply it to this one
-
uhm
the n-word hads too many truely ASSUMED rules
if we follows all the rules and the history behind it
doesn`t it mean non-american whites have the right to say that word and african americans should not be offended by it?
alot of european countries had no african slaves.
infact shouldn`t the irish be able to say that word
they didn`t exactly have superior standing at that time period
and money was exchanged for the service of irish folks in america
the 7 year contract was due to the fact very few live past 7 years
-
I certainly understand the intent here, but no one, and I mean no one can tell me what words I can and cannot use.
Slippery slope my friends ... slippery slope.
-
And I doubt very seriously that anyone is trying or even advocating what you can and can not say, Rich. If anyone is trying to stifle someone else's 1st amendment rights, it would be those who advocate for the Fairness Doctrine
-
So if they bury the word "nigger," that doesn't mean that I, a White guy, can't say it anymore? They're referring to Blacks only?
The point is, what's next?
No, I don' think it's wise to condemn people for a word. Regardless of who might be offended.
-
I've got to agree with Domer on this one.
Oftentimes derogatory words are used by the very groups they are intended to malign.
Quakers, for example were called that as an insult. Yet, they use the term to identify themselves today. Taking ownership of pejorative terms is a good way to remove the negative intent behind it. It is a linguistic version of evolution.
-
but did the quaker forbade other from using that nane and masde it exclusive for them only?
the n-word concept today is very poorly thought out
-
The word 'nigger' was NOT an insult a century or so ago, when Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn and named one of the focal characters 'Nigger Jim'. At that time, from the 1700's until the 1880's it was simply a dialect word used by Blacks and Whites alike, just as the words 'massa', 'brer', 'gwine' were used for master, brother, and going.
The minstrel shows, that made rural Blacks an object of derision, were simply the reverse side of the coin of works like those of Joel Chandler Harris, i.e. Uncle Remus.
'Black' was a far worse insult than 'nigger' until the 1930's or so.
'Nigger' became an insult during the 1950's and 1960's.
-------------------------------------
I don't think that staging a mock burial, or funeral, or whatever will have any impact whatever on the way that this word is used.
-
<<The meaning of the word 'nigger' is not changed by the color of the skin of the person who speaks it.>>
It's more than the skin colour. One black man can say it offensively and one can say it unoffensively. The context decides the meaning, not the dictionary. Two black guys kidding around, they say "nigger" with a whole different meaning than if the word was addressed by Trent Lott or the late Strom Thurmond to one of their racist buddies. And the group can be any size, it's not limited to two.
My point is that context includes a lot of things, identity of the speaker could be one of them.
<<I have yet to see in ANY dictionary 'nigger' as anything other than an EGREGIOUSLY NEGATIVE & INFLAMMATORY term, specifically referencing a black person. Perhaps Tee is again using some dictionary from his alternate reality, and trying to apply it to this one>>
No, just a little common sense. If you hear a parent say his kid is a little monster, do you think his meaning is restricted to whatever the dictionary says "monster" means? People are always playing with the language, it's a living thing, not dead and embalmed for all time in a dictionary. Did you know that "punk" in Shakespeare's time meant a prostitute? Meanings change over time, often because of playful misuse.
<<The meaning of 'rosebud' was not changed because it was physically formed by Hearst's throat and mouth. The meaning of the word 'nigger' is not changed by the color of the skin of the person who speaks it.>>
Rosebud means one thing when Hearst is speaking to Marion Davies and something entirely different when I am speaking to my gardener. If it hadn't have been for Orson Welles, nobody would ever have even known what "rosebud" meant to Hearst and Davies. They gave it a special meaning that only held true for the two of them and if either of them heard the word from anyone else, it would have a totally different meaning. Of course, the meaning depended on the speaker.
-
Oftentimes derogatory words are used by the very groups they are intended to malign.
Quakers, for example were called that as an insult. Yet, they use the term to identify themselves today. Taking ownership of pejorative terms is a good way to remove the negative intent behind it. It is a linguistic version of evolution.
I'm not arguing that people cannot accept derogatory terms and change their meaning. You mention Quakers, and that is an excellent example. Very few people who refer to that particular religious group these days do not call them Quakers. The Quakers did not, so far as I know, demand a "tyranny of the word". They did not claim only they could call each other Quakers.
-
Well, Quakers weren't exactly in a position to argue about it!
Is there something stopping you from using the n* word? I mean, all that is stopping you is that you are afraid?
-
Rosebud means one thing when Hearst is speaking to Marion Davies and something entirely different when I am speaking to my gardener. If it hadn't have been for Orson Welles, nobody would ever have even known what "rosebud" meant to Hearst and Davies. They gave it a special meaning that only held true for the two of them and if either of them heard the word from anyone else, it would have a totally different meaning. Of course, the meaning depended on the speaker.
No, the meaning, even by your own example, depended on how the speaker used the word. That a word may have a different meaning among a set group of people does not alter the fact that the meaning depends on the use. Look at specialized jargon for any group. Take the terms used by physicists to describe quarks. Up, down, top, bottom, strange and charm. One does not have to be a physicist to use these terms in relation to quarks. And scientists can use these words with their conventional meanings. The difference is not who says them, but how they are used.
-
So if they bury the word "nigger," that doesn't mean that I, a White guy, can't say it anymore? They're referring to Blacks only? The point is, what's next? No, I don' think it's wise to condemn people for a word. Regardless of who might be offended.
No, the point is more what's civil and what's not. I have no problem condemning anyone for using such a demeaning & deroggatory term. That doesn't equate to advocating that it be prevented from being said, or made illegal to say it. I have no problem however with demonizing anyone that uses it. Peer pressure is my tactic, but no more than that.
-
Is there something stopping you from using the n* word? I mean, all that is stopping you is that you are afraid?
W'huh? What makes you think there is something stopping me from using the word 'nigger'? I've used it at least once already in this thread. (Well, twice now.) And why would you think I was afraid? Of what should I be afraid? Does Domer have thugs on call or something? Goons perhaps? Hooligans?
-
W'huh? What makes you think there is something stopping me from using the word 'nigger'? I've used it at least once already in this thread. (Well, twice now.) And why would you think I was afraid? Of what should I be afraid? Does Domer have thugs on call or something? Goons perhaps? Hooligans?
Of course not, and I really didn't think it was a problem.
I'm just not sure I understand this reply:
The Quakers did not, so far as I know, demand a "tyranny of the word". They did not claim only they could call each other Quakers.
-
Of course not, and I really didn't think it was a problem.
Then why ask?
I'm just not sure I understand this reply:
The Quakers did not, so far as I know, demand a "tyranny of the word". They did not claim only they could call each other Quakers.
You said you were agreeing with Domer. He was defending what he called a "tyranny of the word".
-
hmm
I wonder do irish folks get offend if they are called gypsies?
I know somebody who calls them that.
and I`m pretty sure travellers (gypsies)are not a very popular bunch of folks
-
I wonder do irish folks get offend if they are called gypsies?
I know somebody who calls them that.
and I`m pretty sure travellers (gypsies)are not a very popular bunch of folks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are travelers (formerly itinerant tinkers from Ireland and Great Britain) and there are Gypsies (Rom, Romani).
Both groups in the US tend to specialize in ripping people off. They cruise shopping malls, offering to repair dents in cars, and neighborhoods, offering cheap roof repairs.
If you hire them, you will not be happy with the work, because they do not actually know how to do these jobs.
Once I was pressure cleaning the cement roof of my house and a Gypsy came by, telling me that he could make my roof "brighter than white", and pointed at my neighbor's roof. I asked "are you Chuck Jones? Did you do his roof?" and he said yes. I said "Wait a minute", and I walked across the street to ask my neighbor, who worked out of his home. My neighbor said "Hell, no, Jones has his name on his van."
Then I see a couple of these assholes spraying my roof. They were spraying it with Aluminum paint. Very thin aluminum paint, probably cut at least 50-50 with what smelled like kerosene.
The older fool said "See? Whiter than white!" I said get off my roof. He said "I'll do the rest of it for just $500. I said "Get the F off my roof. " He said, "Just $200 for what we have just done now".
I noticed he was wearing thinsoled Italian loafers. Not what any roofer would ever wear.
I said, "Here is the deal. Get off my roof NOW and I won't call the police. I never asked you to spray anything."
I repeated this about four times, and finally he said something in what I assume was Romani to the younger guy. They got in the van and ran off. Then I noticed that they had no plate on the back of the van.
A friend had a couple of Romani repair a dent in his fender. It was a wagon covered with fake "woody" vinyl. The guys promised to peel off the vinyl, repair the dent and put the vinyl back, so he would not even have to paint it.
They tore the vinyl off in small bits, and filled the dent with about 4 inches of Bondo without knocking out the dent. Then they asked him for $20 (after about 15 minutes) and promised to return the next day. He paid them, then they asked for another $20 "tip".
He didn't pay them twice, and the Bondo never dried, because they didn't mix hardener into it.
The other scam they are famous for is what is called "boojum". It involves phony lottery tickets or checks and bundles of bills with newspapers in the middle.
The travelers in Miami, I hear, live in North Carolina, and specialize in home repair scams, preferably with elderly women. I have not met any of them. But I doubt that being accused of being Gypsies is anything that bothers them much.
There are no doubt honest Romani and Travelers, but they do not live this life of ripoffs. There are good reasons people do not like these thieves. I have heard many stories about their crappy repairs, and have never heard of anyone even sort of satisfied.
In Miami, they start to appear around March or April. I have heard that this is just after they get evicted in NJ and NY.
-
in the movie snatch and hot fuzz travelers are not well thought of.
i think it`s not a just the U.S. .
-
In Spain and Hungary, Gypsies are admired for their music and dancing. Other than in these places, Gypsies and Travelers are generally acknowledged to be con men and ripoff artists everywhere they live.
I knew a Romani Gypsy in Aberdeen, WA once, who was in a little theater group with me. He had put himself through school and become an accountant. He was a nice guy who told me that he had to have an unlisted number, because distant Gypsy relatives would look him up and try to rip him off, telling him that Uncle This or Cousin That was dying of cancer or some other awful disease and he needed to contribute.
According th him, Gypsies in his family tended to rip one another off more often than non-Gypsies.
-
I can`t tell how many time I hear people blame onething or another about family
it`s not just gypies
all families got somebody crappy or stupid
I know a guy who got a 2nd and 3rd mortgage took the money,leaving the debt for his wife and daughter to deal with.
I know parents who on purpose made their kids not graduate so they won`t be above the parents.
-
>>No, the point is more what's civil and what's not.<<
No, the point is the word is to be buried. People who are civil doen't use the word NOW. So if someone says "this word is forbidden," that implies a penalty.
>>That doesn't equate to advocating that it be prevented from being said, or made illegal to say it.<<
You may not, but as you said earlier, the people (liberal/communists) who support things like the fairness doctrine, hate crimes and politically correct speech certainly do plan to have some sort of penalty. If they don't, then what's the point?
-
>>No, the point is more what's civil and what's not.<<
No, the point is the word is to be buried. People who are civil doen't use the word NOW. So if someone says "this word is forbidden," that implies a penalty.
*snicker*.....I hate to tell you this Rich, but you can't bury a word, or a phrase, or a thought, or a feeling. What "penalty" would you be referring to if someone where to dare utter such?? Again, scorn & ridicule are perfectly acceptable responses, as they have no effect outside of making someone feel uncomfortable, perhaps even guilty for saying such. So, what tangible penalty are you alluding to??
>>That doesn't equate to advocating that it be prevented from being said, or made illegal to say it.<<
You may not, but as you said earlier, the people (liberal/communists) who support things like the fairness doctrine, hate crimes and politically correct speech certainly do plan to have some sort of penalty. If they don't, then what's the point?
That's what I'm trying to find out. No one's telling anyone they can't say anything. Part of the 1st amendment right we have though is the ability to criticize critical speech. That's NOT the same as advocating that someone can't say something asanine, simply that it can be critizied for being asanine. See the diff?
-
Is there something stopping you from using the n* word? I mean, all that is stopping you is that you are afraid?
Can't afford the rehab time.
-
The travelers in Miami, I hear, live in North Carolina, and specialize in home repair scams, preferably with elderly women. I have not met any of them. But I doubt that being accused of being Gypsies is anything that bothers them much.
South Carolina. Just north of Greenville, near the NC border.
-
In Spain and Hungary, Gypsies are admired for their music and dancing. Other than in these places, Gypsies and Travelers are generally acknowledged to be con men and ripoff artists everywhere they live.
In Austria as well. There are many very good Gypsy restaurants in Austria, complete with live music and dancing during the meal.
-
>>What "penalty" would you be referring to if someone where to dare utter such?? [ ... ] So, what tangible penalty are you alluding to??<<
You really don't pay attention do you. This isn't that hard to understand.
What's the penalty for running afoul of the Fairness Doctrine? Having your FCC license taken, correct? What's the penalty for hate crimes? More time added to your sentence. Now, what's the penalty for calling someone a nigger? Today, nothing. However, given the liberal/communist proclivity for banning thoughts and words, it's doesn't seem much of a leap to assume a penalty is likely in the future.
Is that clear enough for you?
-
Your speculating Rich. This isn't about the Fairness Doctrine or the FCC. It's about a completely symbolic (read nothing tangible) act, that carry's no legslative weight in any sense of the word. So, there are no tangilble substantive repercussions on the table, as it relates to "burying offensive words". This is all symbolism over substance, so I'm not sure what your beef is, since I, a rabid supporter of the 1st amendment see no problem with this symbolic act, since it is in no way is substantively preventing anyone from spewing garbage.
I mean, Brass was all over himself claiming how Bush had basically declared war, from the pulpit, on anyone who wasn't a Christian,.....minus of course ANY actual validity, quotes, or truth to the accusation. That's nearly as offensive as some of the personal & derogatory terms being considered needing to be buried. You don't see me wanting that garbage prevented. You see me showing it to be the garbage that it is
Capice'?
-
>>This isn't about the Fairness Doctrine or the FCC.<<
You brought up the Fairness Doctrine.
I'm done going around in circles with you on this. I'm sure my point was clear for anyone willing to see it.
-
>>This isn't about the Fairness Doctrine or the FCC.<<
You brought up the Fairness Doctrine.
To actually bring a tangible example of the 1st amendment being trampled upon into the discussion, vs mere speculation, which is even more than this thread of a "mock funeral" would add. You're the one appearing to imply serious repercussions if such a funeral were allowed to go uncriticized, minus any credible references, claims, or examples.
I'm done going around in circles with you on this. I'm sure my point was clear for anyone willing to see it.
Ummm, if you say so ;)