Christine the Lioness (3118)
Christopher the Pyro (1985)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1216)
Trouble the Pirate (592)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (527)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
Ben2 the Soldier (56) Christine the Lioness commented
I agree that the PC stuff has gone haywire.
And it’s even more ridiculous that the ‘PC’ words go in and out of style faster than Britney can suck down shots of Absinthe. They apparently change because they begin to have a “negative connotation.” But if several words that replace each other end up having a negative connotation, don’t you think it might be the subject the words describe– not the words themselves?
We went from “retarded” to “slow learner” to “Mentally disabled” to “Mentally challenged” to “Special Needs” finally turning the word which accurately described a condition to one that makes it seem like a gift.
I understand that being referred to as “retarded” is insulting. But what people need to realize is just because someone uses the word “special needs” instead of “retarded,” doesn’t mean that individual thinks any more highly of you. It doesn’t mean they won’t discriminate against you, or look down on you, or any of those things. They just know which word to use to make themselves sound “sensitive.” I think if people stopped placing so much importance on a word and actually focused on breaking down the barriers and prejudices coupled with discrimination, it wouldn’t really matter what word people use– it wouldn’t seem negative.
It’s much easier to freak out about the use of a politically incorrect word than it is to focus on creating a solution. Even if the word “nigger” was eradicated from every person’s vocabulary, there will still be racism. If no one ever said “retarded” again, people would still look down on people with low IQs. Focusing on the word choice is like popping a zit on a leper. It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference, but it sure is easier than treating leprosy.
Christine the Lioness added
I think what Christopher is trying to say here about equality is… if a group of people (whether it be blacks or women or Asians or what) really want white people (and everyone else) to look at them and NOT instantly see them for their race, gender, etc., then they can’t go around expecting special treatment because of their race.
For example, if you want to be treated by a white person the same way that white person treats other white people, then you can’t be offended when that person uses a word (like “lynch”) to make a joke about a black person when no white people would be offended by the use of the word referring to themselves.
You either want people to not make race an issue, in which you can’t, then in turn, constantly make race an issue. OR you want people to recognize that you should be treated differently because of your race (as in, put in the effort to use only politically correct words around you as not to offend), in which case, you can’t complain if people make assumptions about you based on your race. If I censor “lynch” out of my vocabulary when making jokes around black people, then I am making an assumption that they’ll be offended by the joke because they’re black and therefore, have to make assumptions about them based only on their race. You can’t really have it both ways.
Mara the Peacemaker scribbled
“For example, if you want to be treated by a white person the same way that white person treats other white people, then you can’t be offended when that person uses a word (like “lynch”) to make a joke about a black person when no white people would be offended by the use of the word referring to themselves.”
It is not the word that is offensive, it is the context in which the word is used. Saying that someone is going to lynch a white person is NOT the same, is not in any way equal to saying the same thing about a black person. Why? Because the context of those statements are completely different.
If it is so difficult for you to see why making jokes about black people being lynched is wrong or just merely offensive and not wrong, by all means, freely make them. Just be prepared for people not liking it. As you said in earlier posts, people should be able to say and think what they want. In the same vein, people should be allowed to be offended if you make jokes about black people being lynched.
Mara the Peacemaker stated
“Focusing on the word choice is like popping a zit on a leper. It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference, but it sure is easier than treating leprosy.”
Well, the focus should be on both because words do have incredible power in and of themselves because of the context in which they are used. Words express what we cannot express merely with actions or even with other “substitute” words. Personally, I don’t think we should stop people from using harmful, offensive, racist, etc words, but I think it is important that people are aware of what the words mean and how their meanings can shift when the context surrounding them changes. People should have the freedom to say exactly what they want to say without fear of the kind of censorship some like people like Sharpton have called for. I don’t want someone telling me I cannot say the word nigger. It’s my right to say it. However, I also understand the implications when I say the word, especially in certain contexts.
I think people are really misguided when they focus on the word itself without any context. Context is what defines the words and is what gives the word meaning.
Random question: Can I go back to being a Lil Devil??
Mara the Peacemaker uttered
“I mean when was the last time someone was lynched?”
1998 in Jasper, Texas.
Christine the Lioness thought this
“If it is so difficult for you to see why making jokes about black people being lynched is wrong or just merely offensive and not wrong, by all means, freely make them. Just be prepared for people not liking it.”
But now you’re avoiding the point of the thread which is that people apparently CAN’T freely make comments because the fact that some people are offended (which I believe is their issue– not the issue of the person making the comment) does affect the person speaking. This woman was suspended from her job because someone (we still don’t know who exactly besides Al Sharpton) was offended. THAT is the problem. It’s not just people not liking it… it’s that they feel the need to force everyone else into what they– in all their hyper-sensitivity– feel is politically correct.
Christine the Lioness penned this
Random question: Can I go back to being a Lil Devil??
Nope… onwards and upwards. Why is it that no one likes the Oracle? Those lips are kinda cool…
Christine the Lioness scribbled
“I don’t want someone telling me I cannot say the word nigger. It’s my right to say it. However, I also understand the implications when I say the word, especially in certain contexts.”
Here’s the problem with that. I, being white, cannot use that word in ANY context. Freedom of speech is a freedom that’s not just reserved for people who’s skin is black. But at this point, in our society, it is.
Mara the Peacemaker thought this
“But now you’re avoiding the point of the thread which is that people apparently CAN’T freely make comments because the fact that some people are offended (which I believe is their issue– not the issue of the person making the comment) does affect the person speaking.”
Well, no I am not. I am simply conceding that people can say whatever they want. That doesn’t mean that what you say is without consequence or that it might be so offensive that your peers will not allow you to say it in certain fora. We don’t live in a censor free society. We censor each other all of the time under various circumstances. People are free to use the word “Fire” but yell it in a movie theater and you might get into some trouble. People can use the word bitch but we don’t let news anchors do it while delivering the weather report. That is us censoring each other.
So I think your argument presumes that we do not censor each other when in actuality we really do and for various reasons. Perhaps the issue is really, what is worthy of our censorship.
Also, I was really trying to be a smartass with my comment and it didn’t work. 
The point I was making is that you are free to complain about how far you think PC has gone and why people shouldn’t be offended at certain words, etc all day long. But there is a flip-side to your argument and one I thought worth mentioning: people are FREE to be OFFENDED as well.
Mara the Peacemaker commented
“Here’s the problem with that. I, being white, cannot use that word in ANY context. Freedom of speech is a freedom that’s not just reserved for people who’s skin is black. But at this point, in our society, it is.”
I don’t think that’s true. You merely saying the word is not what will get you into trouble. It’s what you say with the word.
Mara the Peacemaker chimed in with
The other thing I wanted to say, Christine, is that you are free to say whatever you want. You just can’t do it without consequences which is what you seem to want. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean speech without consequence, speech without offense.
My freedom of speech is not impaired because someone will be offended by what I say.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent quibbed this
Christine said: “Here’s the problem with that. I, being white, cannot use that word in ANY context. Freedom of speech is a freedom that’s not just reserved for people who’s skin is black. But at this point, in our society, it is.”
Mara said: “I don’t think that’s true. You merely saying the word is not what will get you into trouble. It’s what you say with the word.”
Actually, Mara, I’m confident there are quite a few places in my area where just uttering only the N-word would draw people’s ire.
Christine also said: “Nope… onwards and upwards. Why is it that no one likes the Oracle? Those lips are kinda cool…”
I think that comment was entirely racially motivated!!!
Is it coincidence that Mara is African-American and her new icon is a set of lips????
Is it coincidence that Christine says “onward and upward” as if Mara is a below her — struggling to climb the social ladder to the white woman’s status???
I think not…
Trouble the Pirate spake, and sayeth
Watch-it people! Smart chicks talkin’ here…
You guys keep this up, and we’re going to reach two inevitable conclusions… #1. Freedom of speech as dictated by the constitution of the USA is a facade at best …and #2. I’m gonna have to go home and wash my jeans… 
Trouble the Pirate mentioned
…Actually PJ, the correct term is now “American-African”…
Trouble the Pirate up'n wrote this
Mara… What is your ethnicity as PJ mentioned… In your own description?
…and may I correct your statement re- last time someone was lynched… That may have been the last one you recall witnessing through the media, but it was most certainly, by definition, NOT the most recent occurrence…
Mara the Peacemaker uttered
Trouble, Black. I’m not certain 1998 was the last time someone was lynched but that was something that got a fair amount of media attention, occurred somewhat recently and thus, something Christopher could verify pretty easily. There is a method to my madness.
PJ, Okay, yes there are some places where merely uttering the word would get Christine into trouble. But there is a difference between freedom to speak and freedom from the offense people may take at what you say.
Mara the Peacemaker added
I like American-African. Although I must admit, I never got the term African-American since I’m not from Africa, but okay…
Trouble the Pirate asserted
“I don’t think that’s true. You merely saying the word is not what will get you into trouble. It’s what you say with the word.”
Actually Mara… Saying the word alone, even with the unlikely non-assignment of ulterior meaning, WILL get you into trouble. That’s precisely why it’s called the ‘N’-word now… It’s not what you say “‘with” the word, but WHERE & WHEN you say the word… Don’t believe me?
Take a person who has one black parent and one white parent, but who for all intents looks white [it happens] and stand them in a group of black people… Give them the following list of words; fruit, dandelion, hotel, mountain, nigger…
Have them read the list slowly and aloud. Please note the exact time that your subject is ‘lynched’…
Freedom of speech refers to the right of an individual or group to express themselves publicly, and in opposition of, without fear of persecution from the government…
Mara the Peacemaker pontificated
Trouble, yes, I admitted that probably saying the alone could get Christine into trouble. Like my play on words? Anyway, yes, I’ll concede that after I thought about it more deeply. But I don’t think that has anything to do with freedom of speech (of which I was writing in more general terms and was not referring to constitutional freedom of speech).
Trouble the Pirate got all philosophical
Hmm, I guess I type too slow… I did see your comment after I refreshed… and I did get the wordplay too…
So, Mara, you are Black… An inconsequential fact of which I was previously unaware…
How you read the above statement will decide its meaning… Do I mean that the fact that you are Black makes you inconsequential to me, or that the fact that you are black is of no consequence to how I perceive or treat you? There really is only one way to correctly interpret it… But if one is still unsure, one could consider the source of the comment for additional clarification…
Problems will arise when people don’t consider the influence of context…
Freedom of speech in the more general sense you are speaking of, I understand… You are free to say what you want, and you are also free to reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences of what you say… I firmly believe this… it is another way of putting “with great power, comes great responsibility…” which extends it to encompass actions as well…
Many Americans do not understand the difference between your constitutional right, and your moral right, as I was trying to clarify…
Christopher the Pyro commented
The sad fact is that choosing to be offending by words actually encourages racism by making race an issue at all. The people I know who are least racist and I tend to think most people are racist most just don’t realize it, but the people I feel who are least racist really don’t notice color. Ever. Now for more people to be like this it is important for the political correctiness that has to do with race to vanish. Christine you are incorrect about your retard example. It is only insulting because of PC. Before retard was insulting it was just a term to describe a “retard”
Mara the Peacemaker scribbled
“The sad fact is that choosing to be offending by words actually encourages racism by making race an issue at all.”
Maybe or maybe not. It depends on the context in which the words are used. If the words used are meant to be offensive when said, then my offense at the words does nothing to encourage racism. For example, let’s say you call me a nigger and you called me one because you meant it as a racist insult. The fact that I am offended by your use of the word (or to as you put it, choose to be offended) does nothing to encourage racism because it was already there.
But language is very interesting because the n-word by itself is not something I find offensive and I think to some extent, many people are offended by merely uttering the word perhaps because some words, like that one, come with their own surrounding context, i.e., association which is inescapable. I do think context should be given greater weight that it apparently is (take Trouble’s example of just randomly shouting the n-word but not directly it toward anyone in particular). But I suppose that is another topic for public debate.
Trouble the Pirate chimed in with
Language is the most powerful tool utilized by humans…
As we also know, any tool can effectively be used as a weapon…
Hence, the most effective tools, also make the most effective weapons…
The effectiveness of a language as a communication tool, is entirely reliant on the mechanism of the level of familiarity of the communicating parties with the particular language being utilized…
Unfortunately, this same mechanism which dictates how effective it is used as a tool… Also dictates how it is efficiently used as a weapon.
Familiarity.
If a black person is familiar with the fact that the word ‘nigger’ connotates a slur of racial inferiority, then when it is directed at them by someone of a different racial identity, it will effect the intended reaction. If that same person is not aware of the historical context of the word, then it will not.
In the absence of the familiarity mechanism, the effectiveness of the weapon is lessened.
An example of this would be in Johannesburg during Apartheid… If a black person were called a nigger, it would have meant significantly less to them than if they were called a ‘kaffir’… Now, bear in mind that the word “kafir” came about in the 18th century, and referred to an infidel or skeptic of the Islamic religion… It wasn’t until it was capitalized and used to reference the Nuristani and Xsosa peoples, that it evolved into a really derogatory term pointed at black people. Hence the black person in Africa in the 1940’s/50’s would have to be familiar with the recent historical change of meaning of the word, and its ‘new’ intent, in order to be fully injured by its utterance… And, as we know, we are mimics of our parents, so even though we may have more worldly or open-minded views that they, it is difficult to shake the components of the language they taught us in our formative years. Many younger Afrikaans called black people Kaffirs with no real malace in their hearts… Simply because that is what they knew them to be.
The real sad fact is this: Empty, self-loathing people who continue to bolster their own inadequacies, by manipulating the language of the time in order to direct hatred or injury towards another whom they perceive as inferior, in a vain attempt to convince themselves that they are anything more than a parasite on the earth… Will always exist.
Trouble the Pirate remarked
I tell my 10 & 8 year-old sons this: There are no “bad words”… Only bad people who misuse good words with the intent of hurting others.
They know that they can ask me about any words they want, and I will explain to the best of my ability… I tell them why some words are considered ‘bad’ and why I would be disappointed to hear of them using them. Just 2 weeks ago they asked me about ‘bitch’, and ‘affair’, and I explained thoroughly. I had to fight long and hard to sever myself from the language of my parents and grandparents, who grew up in different times to me, and I’ll be dammed if I will leave my children to fight that battle, I will give them the tool, and they will be free to decide how they use it.
Christine the Lioness pontificated
But just because some people manipulate the language doesn’t mean all do. The point is… of course there are consequences to one’s actions. And yelling “Fire” in a theatre is illegal because it causes a panic and people can be trampled trying to get out. I get it. But if a white woman can’t make a joke about lynching without being suspended from her job because some people were OFFENDED (not potentially injured, but offended), when I don’t believe it was intended to offend anyone and DID NOT offend the specific black person it was directed toward. If people want to ignore the point she was making and turn this into an issue that it isn’t, then that’s pretty pathetic. And if those people are the same people whining about how the world is racist, then I have to wonder if they aren’t a part of creating that experience for themselves.
BTW, Trouble, now that you know Mara is black, you’ll have to reconstruct all the fantasies about her so that she can be reflected in her true form…
Mara the Peacemaker up'n wrote this
“If people want to ignore the point she was making and turn this into an issue that it isn’t, then that’s pretty pathetic.”
I’m sorry but what was the point she was making? That lynching someone who is black is funny? That ANYthing about lynching, is worth a chuckle or two? Anyone with any sense of historical perspective and a brain should find this offensive. I don’t give a damn about Tiger’s opinion. That doesn’t make what she said right. Look, she knew what she said. The POINT of the joke was its poor taste. And if she doesn’t know that she shouldn’t say shit like that on national television, then she needs to get the fuck out of broadcasting. Give me me a break.
Trouble the Pirate spake, and sayeth
“BTW, Trouble, now that you know Mara is black, you’ll have to reconstruct all the fantasies about her so that she can be reflected in her true form…BTW, Trouble, now that you know Mara is black, you’ll have to reconstruct all the fantasies about her so that she can be reflected in her true form…”
What made you assume that she wasn’t already black in my fantasies?
“That ANYthing about lynching, is worth a chuckle or two?”
This was one of my original sentiments, but I think I put it forward before we jumped to this thread… But according to South Park, you can joke about anything provided you wait the 20-something.something years after it has happened… I don’t know if anyone but me has noticed this [back me up Chris & PJ], but the media face has morphed from wrinkly old, grey-haired men… to vivacious, young women in the last decade [I wonder why?]. Even previously male dominated areas of broadcasting like sports, video-gaming, and the speed-channel have followed suit… Now bubbly, blonde chicks report on the latest spring-over-axle conversion kits for your off-road jeep, and serious-looking redheads run the play-by-play for Monday night football, gamer-chicks have forever changed the face of their genre from Revenge of the nerds, to swimsuit calenders… That’s why she’s in broadcasting… not for her ability to sensitively, and objectively report just the facts mamam…
Mara the Peacemaker chimed in with
Well, Trouble, I do not doubt you but frankly, I am not interested in any defenses, excuses or justifications for what she said. I cannot even believe there is an actual discussion about whether she knew the ramifications or if it was okay. I guarantee you, if Tiger was Jewish and she said the only one way he could be beaten was to cast him in an oven, there would have some hell to raise so people need to just cut the bullshit. She has a degree in history and political science. She knows. That was the point of the joke. This is not rocket science. There are many inappropriate subjects about which to joke that are funny. Lynching doesn’t happen to be one of them. Period.
Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this
I think what this is proving is that not everyone takes this whole reference to lynching thing as serious as Mara does. So why, Mara, don’t you see that maybe this girl didn’t take it so seriously either. Just because something offends one person (or a group), doesn’t mean it offends everyone.
Honestly, if white people made this big of a deal every time a black athlete or black rapper said something like “the ‘MAN’ got you under his thumb,” all we’d have time to do is run around and call each other racist. And trust me, if a group of white people ever told a rapper he couldn’t say anything anti-white, the blacks would just see it as more fodder to be angry about the ‘white man’ trying to control them.
The only way for equality to be achieved and for everyone to really accept everyone else as individuals and not a product of a particular race, is to stop being so hyper-sensitive, stop picking and choosing who you’re going to be offended by, stop trying to punish people for saying something that offends you (if you don’t like the joke the girl made, don’t watch her show again), and stop having two sets of rules for people of other ethnicities. Anything else is going to perpetuate stereotypes, resentment, and racism.
Mara the Peacemaker uttered
“Just because something offends one person (or a group), doesn’t mean it offends everyone.”
Well if people aren’t offended by this then that says more about the rest of you who aren’t offended than it does about me. I cannot believe that I’m even having this conversation. The rest of your post is too boggling to even address because I am completely baffled by how you, whose intelligence has been demonstrated time and again on this site, could not seriously see why people find this offensive, why people SHOULD find this offensive and why she deserved to get called onto the carpet for what she said. Lynching (especially of black people) is one of the most terrifying, horrific, vile and disgusting phenomena of OUR, i.e., AMERICAN history. I’m sorry but if you cannot understand why making a joke out of lynching a person is not amusing then I don’t know what else to say. I’m done with this conversation.
Mara the Peacemaker mentioned
“The only way for equality to be achieved and for everyone to really accept everyone else as individuals and not a product of a particular race, is to stop being so hyper-sensitive, stop picking and choosing who you’re going to be offended by, stop trying to punish people for saying something that offends you ”
Speaking of equality, you know, I find it interesting that whenever Jewish people find something offensive or anti-semitic there is no DEBATE about that whatsoever. A professor could lose his job at a prestigious university for making a statement in class to the effect of “I’m not sure if the holocaust happened as is reported in history books” yet a woman gets on national television, jokes about a black man being lynched and anyone who is offended (or is it only black people who are offended in your opinion?) is hypersensitive.
And I’ll say it again: If Tiger was Jewish and she’d said he should be thrown into the oven, she would have unequivocally lost her job in a heartbeat. No one would have care that she was joking, that she didn’t mean any harm or even that Tiger wasn’t offended. Lynching is the the gas chamber and the ovens for black people. That is what makes this so offensive and so absolutely NOT funny that you cannot make jokes about it on LIVE television. To in any way justify or defend what she said is beyond ludicrous. And believe me. It’s not only black people who think so.
Christopher the Pyro pontificated
… People use lynching in phrases all the time.. I just can’t believe that I’m suppose to somehow feel I inappropriately ued a word because it’s referencing a black person.. sorry that is just silly. Like I said.. at various points in history every race has been lynched.. it’s a little ridiculously that a word describing an act during a joke is now offensive enough to have someone suspended if it refers to a black person. If this is the case then murder, rape, robbery, stealing, drop out rates, and a million other words and phrases should be equally offensive.
Mara the Peacemaker got all philosophical
“I just can’t believe that I’m suppose to somehow feel I inappropriately ued a word because it’s referencing a black person.. sorry that is just silly.”
Christopher, you don’t have to. The point isn’t that she referenced a black person using the word lynch. It’s that she made a joke about it. And frankly, Christopher, if you knew anything about the history of lynching in this country, particularly of black people (which you indicate that you don’t since you said practically every race in history has been lynched, a statement which totally glosses over how it was much more prevalent against black people in say, oh, the last 150 years), if you saw the pictures of families taking pictures with dead men hanging from trees, then you would find nothing funny about it. If you had any sensitivity whatsoever, you could stretch your imagination and understand (perhaps not agree with but understand) why black people would find it offensive. And if you do find anything funny or remotely amusing about lynching, then I would check your sensitivity meter. Any one who is a human being and has any semblance of humanity whatsoever would understand this.
So let me sum it up for you: There are lots of inappropriate subjects to joke about that can be funny. Lynching is not funny to black people. Tell a friend. Pass it along. Let them know that if they tell a joke about lynching a person and especially if said subject of the joke happens to be black, they might get their ass kicked (depending on where they are). They might be ostracized by their peers. Is it fair? Well, you don’t get to dismiss those who find this joke personally offensive even if you do not. So if you say something that you know people are going to deeply offended by, then YOU are responsible for the consequences, not the person who is offended. You have the freedom to say whatever you want. You are not immune from the consequences of what you say.
And as for Christine’s comment that perhaps not everyone takes the whole lynching thing seriously as I do, the anchor was suspended from her job. So obviously her network did.
Christine the Lioness stated
No, Mara. The network responded to the “outcry” which was created by Al Sharpton, the same outcry, I might remind you, that totally destroyed the lives of several Duke college students when everyone jumped to the side of a black stripper who completely made up a story about them. Trust me. Networks and politicians would rather err on the side of not offending anyone ever.
You missed the point about the joke. She wasn’t making a joke about lynching… oh, haha, isn’t it funny that we lynched black people… it was a joke about Tiger Woods specifically. Now since he was the butt of the joke and he wasn’t offended, how can you explain that the joke should never be made around a black person? Obviously a joke exactly like that, made in front of him, about him, didn’t offend him… and isn’t he black?
So to assume that when the butt of your joke isn’t offended, but that other people will be, is really stretching things. We’re not talking about Don Imus here who made a racially-insensitive joke about some black girls whom he didn’t know, who were put down and insulted in his joke. The joke this woman made was actually a compliment to Tiger and he took it as such, so did the white person she was saying it to (there was simply no ill intent and to try to assign some is just hypersensitivity).
And I have to say the phrase “they’re gonna take that guy out and lynch him” is a real phrase that people do use. I mean seriously… how far does this go? At what point can we not use the words “fried chicken” and “watermelon” in the same sentence as the name of a black person (I’m obviously referring to the stereotype).
“Let them know that if they tell a joke about lynching a person and especially if said subject of the joke happens to be black, they might get their ass kicked (depending on where they are). They might be ostracized by their peers. Is it fair? Well, you don’t get to dismiss those who find this joke personally offensive even if you do not. So if you say something that you know people are going to deeply offended by, then YOU are responsible for the consequences, not the person who is offended.”
Actually, you just made my point. Some people apparently feel that “being offended” warrants physical violence in return. If I make a black joke, and someone beats me up, that’s assault and they should go to prison. There are people here who believe that the owness of being offended is on the offender. It is not. In this case, Tiger was the butt of the joke and he WASN’T offended. If someone says something that offends you, it is not okay to express the fact you were offended by trying to get them fired, or beat them up, or any of those things. They had a right to say whatever they said. You have the right to form an opinion of them based on what they said. That’s all. I honestly can’t believe someone with a law degree could possibly suggest that assaulting someone is justified because they said something to offend you.
We’ve become such a culture that’s scared to offend anyone that some races now do not have freedom of speech at all.
“You have the freedom to say whatever you want. You are not immune from the consequences of what you say.”
That implies that any consequence given is appropriate. It’s not. And forcing people into being so scared that if they say the wrong thing and offend a black person they’ll lose their job, or get beat up, or get sued, only makes white people not want to hire blacks because no one wants to spend their lives censoring their words when someone can say something that’s not racist and be accused of being racist anyway.
Christine the Lioness pontificated
Look at it this way.
If she made a joke about a bunch of white golfers taking a black golfer out and lynching him, blacks are offended.
If she’d made a joke about a bunch of black basketball players getting rid of a white basketball player by getting him in a drive-by, blacks would be offended because it’s implying that black people commit drive-bys.
It’s the same joke, but no matter who the “victim” is, it’s blacks being offended, not whites. In the first joke, it’s actually shedding the white guys in a bad light, in the second one, it’s shedding the black guys in a bad light… yet both are offensive to blacks.
Why? Because she’s white. Had she been black, I highly doubt blacks would be offended by either joke.
“No, Mara. The network responded to the “outcry” which was created by Al Sharpton, ”
The network didn’t have to respond. It did. Enough said.
“You missed the point about the joke. She wasn’t making a joke about lynching… oh, haha, isn’t it funny that we lynched black people… ”
The humor in the joke was that Tiger was black, not Tiger Woods generally. That’s what made the joke offensive. Even if she meant something else entirely by the joke, the fact is, the joke was still grossly inappropriate. And secondly, it doesn’t matter that Woods himself wasn’t offended because when she made that statement on public airwaves, it became a matter of the public and not merely an exchange between friends. If she’d said it to him over dinner and he didn’t care, case closed. But she didn’t. What she said entered the homes of millions of Americans, which by the way, would be sufficient for a cause of action against the FCC and that network. So yes, it is my right and anyone else’s right who heard or watched to be take offense at what she said.
“I honestly can’t believe someone with a law degree could possibly suggest that assaulting someone is justified because they said something to offend you.”
I don’t think assaulting someone for saying something offensive is justifiable. I was being facetious to make a larger point which you apparently didn’t get. So let me clarify. My point is that just like you have to right to say whatever you want, people have a similar right to be offended by what you say, even if you don’t agree that they should be offended. It’s their right, it’s their prerogative. Your argument has essentially been, black people shouldn’t be offended by this and this and to a lesser degree, if only black people are offended by this, then obviously what this woman said wasn’t offensive. You’ve made this argument before on other topics and it’s one that I find absurb. Who are you to tell me what I should be offended by or what should/should not offend me? I object to the audacity that you have to even suggest that I should not be offended by that joke. If you disagree with it then fine. But don’t sit here and presume to tell people how they should feel and what should affect them.
“That implies that any consequence given is appropriate. It’s not.”
The consequences are decided in the public forum. We as a society constantly negotiate and re-negotiate what those consequences are going to be and as citizens of this world, each and every member has the right to assert views that are in their best interest. That’s the way the world works. Your complaint is that black people are offended. So what. Your complaint is better served if directed to the fact that we as a society have grown overly sensitive or PC or whatever instead of bitching about what black people may or may not find offensive. It’s a waste of time.
“And forcing people into being so scared that if they say the wrong thing and offend a black person they’ll lose their job, or get beat up, or get sued, only makes white people not want to hire blacks because no one wants to spend their lives censoring their words when someone can say something that’s not racist and be accused of being racist anyway.”
Well, if this little incident forces people to think twice about telling a joke about lynching, I have no problem with that. It’s not a funny joke to tell under any circumstances and I wonder at those who carelessly throw the word around as though it is something to joke about.
“We’ve become such a culture that’s scared to offend anyone that some races now do not have freedom of speech at all.”
You have free speech. I don’t know why you think that should include the freedom from anyone being offended by what you say and calling you on it.
“Why? Because she’s white. Had she been black, I highly doubt blacks would be offended by either joke.”
You think wrong. I would be offended regardless of whoever said it. Jokes about lynching are not funny. They are equivalent to joking about Jews in the gas chamber.
Mara the Peacemaker chimed in with
Obviously those last two were from me.
Mara the Peacemaker spake, and sayeth
Another thing on freedom of speech since you keep bandying the phrase about…
Speech in our society on a constitutional basis and even more generally has never been completely “free.” There are limits on free speech imposed by the constitution (e.g., yelling fire in a theater, using fighting words, etc) and there are those we impose on ourselves when we engage in self-censorship (e.g., newspapers pulling Aaron McGruder’s comic strip when the subject matter “offended” white people). We censor ourselves when we refrain from using language that is offensive (which is decided in the eye of the beholder and negotiated on a larger level in the public forum) in certain situations (such as being on television), when we’re around certain people (such as a high govt official such as the President)…I mean, I could go on.
So if you mean to say that your freedom of speech should be completely free from any sort of restraint whatsoever in the context of this discussion, well that simply is not the reality of the world in which we live. If you feel that it is wrong for you to constrain your speech because it might offend someone…well, you do that anyway.
Christine the Lioness chimed in with
No one’s saying it should be “completely free.” We’re just saying that (1) the same rules should apply to everyone and (2) certain people are exhibiting, as a group, an extreme hypersensitivity and trying to use that to perpetuate an ideal that they are more oppressed than they really are.
A perfect example is the criticism that Hilary Clinton is coming under for being “racist” because she stated a true fact that Martin Luther King’s ideals couldn’t have realized had the president of the United States NOT supported them and it was his signature that was on the laws.
“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Clinton said. “It took a president to get it done.”
Now of all people who spend a lot of time THINKING about the ramifications of their words before they say them, it’s a presidential candidate. And somehow now this statement is taboo also?
Seriously, it’s this kind of shit that makes white people want to stay as far away from blacks as they can.
Is it true that civil rights laws couldn’t have been passed without the signature of a President? Yes. So could have MLK accomplished what he did all alone without the president’s support? No. But somehow to point that out is “racist.” Anyone who believes that the Civil Rights laws would have been passed without a signature from the President doesn’t understand how laws get passed in this country.
To draw attention to the fact that the success of the Civil Rights movement was based on more than one black man– the support of some very influential whites to be honest– is somehow belittling MLK’s efforts. Uh… huh? Yet how often does it happen when we celebrate the success of a white person do we have to hear from blacks about all the behind-the-scenes support the blacks were giving and not getting credit for?
If Barack had said the same statement, no one would be suggesting he’s racist. They’d be taking the same statement to mean that if he were president, he’d bring what LBJ brought, which is presidential support of equal rights. Seriously, if you’re not seeing this, you aren’t opening your eyes.
Christine the Lioness uttered
The gist of what I’m saying is… the constant whining and paranoia that all these things are racist when quite frankly, they aren’t, doesn’t help the blacks’ cause very much. I’m surprised they don’t see that it does the exact opposite.
If blacks want to break down the barriers of racism, you don’t do that by constantly whining about everything being racist. The more these situations come up that people get accused of being racist when they aren’t, the less sympathetic people become toward hearing about racism. I truly think this is a way for people who don’t do anything to earn respect and get power in their own lives to try to have some by showing they have enough clout to get someone suspended from their job for a couple of weeks because something she said “offended” them. For a brief moment, they have power over her and they become “important.” The thing that sucks, is this game of calling everyone out for all their “racist” practices and remarks actually has a negative impact on how whites see blacks overall and in turn, a negative impact on the hardworking, reasonable, sensible blacks who aren’t out to sue a company so they don’t have to work anymore and all that. Like Hillary’s black spokeswoman said this morning in a CNN interview this morning… “You can’t transcend racism and then use it to further your agenda.”
Mara the Peacemaker up'n wrote this
“We’re just saying that (1) the same rules should apply to everyone and (2) certain people are exhibiting, as a group, an extreme hypersensitivity and trying to use that to perpetuate an ideal that they are more oppressed than they really are.”
Well, again, what you see as hypersensitive is not to the person who is offended. And this is what I’m talking about — YOU telling someone else that THEY are being hypersensitive. It isn’t your call to make. That belittles and devalues their opinions and their right to decide what offends them. Not everything that offends you would offend me and vice versa. Does the fact that you’re offended by something that I am not make you hypersensitive? Well, according to your reasoning, it does. And the same rules do not apply for everyone because context defines everything. You said earlier that if black people want to be treated equally then they shouldn’t be offended by something that wouldn’t offend white people if they said it to each other. Well, that’s actually a little bit silly because some things are by definition, only offensive when said in a particular context. The n-word is a perfect example. That is not a word that would offend a white person if another white person said it to them because the n-word is a racial slur not intended for white people. Some things are particularly offensive to a particular group and not to others. Whether white people are offended is NOT the measuring stick and it should not be.
“A perfect example is the criticism that Hilary Clinton is coming under for being “racist” because she stated a true fact that Martin Luther King’s ideals couldn’t have realized had the president of the United States NOT supported them and it was his signature that was on the laws. ”
I quoted you here not to respond to this statement directly to but address your points more generally. Something I take issue with is your overgeneralization of black people which is what you’re doing here and what you’ve done in earlier posts. Just because some black people find something racist or offensive does not mean that all people do. Now, I’m sure you know this intuitively. You would probably say, well duh. But your arguments lead me to think otherwise because you constantly impute the actions of a few to an entire race of people. In your flawed logic, somehow the criticism that Clinton received is indicative of what ALL black people think and makes people want to “stay as far from blacks as they can.” This sounds more like white people making an issue out of race than blacks if you decide that you’re going to avoid or criticize an entire race of people based on something a few members of that particular race said. And frankly, that sounds a little racist.
Mara the Peacemaker mentioned
“The thing that sucks, is this game of calling everyone out for all their “racist” practices and remarks actually has a negative impact on how whites see blacks overall and in turn, a negative impact on the hardworking, reasonable, sensible blacks who aren’t out to sue a company so they don’t have to work anymore and all that.”
Again, that says more about whites than it does blacks. If you base your perception of an entire race of people based on what Al Sharpton and a few of his cronies said as portrayed in the media, then I shouldn’t have to say anything else. You’ve proven my point for me.
Mara the Peacemaker remarked
Because I cannot go back and edit my posts…
“Just because some black people find something racist or offensive does not mean that all people do” should read “Just because some black people find something racist or offensive does not mean that all black people do.”
Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this
“Well, again, what you see as hypersensitive is not to the person who is offended. And this is what I’m talking about — YOU telling someone else that THEY are being hypersensitive.”
Of course they don’t think they’re being hypersensitive. That doesn’t mean they aren’t.
This implies that there’s no such thing as being hypersensitive at all then. Which is not the case. Someone who is scared constantly, in situations where others wouldn’t be, could be called “paranoid.” Of course to them, they feel their fears are justified.
In reality, there are people who are more sensitive than others, there are also people who project things onto other people to compensate for a whole host of things (everything from their own insecurities to punishing others for a former experience they’ve had in their own lives). To blame other people for calling them on is just a way to justify it.
People can be within a range of being sensitive but when you start to get offended for other people, about comments that aren’t intended with any malice, and can’t accept a fact (like in the Clinton/MLK situation) without assigning it as being racist, and you consistently find that most people of another ethnicity are racist– then I think YOU might be the problem.
Mara, surely you can accept that there are people who exist who will assign meaning to something that isn’t there.
Christine the Lioness added
” Again, that says more about whites than it does blacks. If you base your perception of an entire race of people based on what Al Sharpton and a few of his cronies said as portrayed in the media, then I shouldn’t have to say anything else. You’ve proven my point for me.”
Not really. If whites are put in a position where they honestly don’t know that what they say will offend black people (which I don’t think Clinton knew when she stated that fact about LBJ and MLK, that she would offend some blacks) or not (because quite frankly, you’ve stated yourself that some blacks are offended and some aren’t so there is apparently no set rules for what will be found offensive), then why would any intelligent white person put himself in a position where he surrounds himself with someone who might be offended by something, be called a racist, and be sued? He can avoid the whole thing by hiring a white person or a Hispanic person instead. So if you take a minute to see it from his perspective, WHY should he put himself in that situation?
If these situations with the reporter and Clinton didn’t happen, then I’d be more likely to say that the white guy’s assumption is wrong. But each time this stuff happens, it reinforces this feeling whites have that they have to walk on eggshells around blacks so that they aren’t offended by something that isn’t racist to begin with. But as we’re seeing in the media even this past week, whites being called racist for practically anything they say is prevalent.
Mara the Peacemaker commented
“Mara, surely you can accept that there are people who exist who will assign meaning to something that isn’t there.”
Sure, but who is to say when something is and is not offensive or is and is not racist? Based on what you’ve written in previous posts, white people make the call on that one. If white people aren’t offended, it isn’t offensive. It white people say something isn’t racist, then it isn’t.
Mara the Peacemaker stated
“Not really. If whites are put in a position where they honestly don’t know that what they say will offend black people (which I don’t think Clinton knew when she stated that fact about LBJ and MLK, that she would offend some blacks) or not (because quite frankly, you’ve stated yourself that some blacks are offended and some aren’t so there is apparently no set rules for what will be found offensive), then why would any intelligent white person put himself in a position where he surrounds himself with someone who might be offended by something, be called a racist, and be sued?”
To be concise, this is bullshit. You are responsible for the assumptions you make about an entire race of people based on isolated incidents, not anyone else. That is a fault of YOUR ignorance and you don’t get to put that on the black people who go on television because they were pissed at what Clinton said. If you aren’t intelligent and enough of a decent human being to know that not all black people think the same (or any other race for that matter), then that’s your bad, not mine.
Not every white person embraces the ignorance that just you displayed. Unlike some people, I don’t hold that against every other white person because you happen to be one.
Mara the Peacemaker chimed in with
“Not really. If whites are put in a position where they honestly don’t know that what they say will offend black people”
Notice again what you’ve done. What would make any individual white person know or NOT know for that matter what offended all black people based on an isolated incidents not involving the individuals THEY actually have to deal with? Why would you be worried about what is going to offend me based on what Al Sharpton said?
“So if you take a minute to see it from his perspective, WHY should he put himself in that situation?”
Oh, I can. To me, that looks racist. I have more sense than to assume that the person I was dealing with would or would not be offended based on something I saw on television. I’d find out the usual way. Ask them.
Mara the Peacemaker penned this
Let me put it to you this way, Christine. You say the fact that some blacks are offended and some are not (i.e, there are no RULES to define what is/is not offensive) is even MORE confusing to white people because, my goodness, they have NO idea what to do around black people. I mean, some blacks are offended, some are not. How will I ever know whether I’m going to offend this black person? Better to just avoid black people altogether and hire the hispanic.
This sounds to me that you either do believe all black people think the same or think that it would be easier for white people if they all did. Because then white people would know exactly what to do. They’d know what not to say or what they could say. They wouldn’t have to worry about treating black people like the individuals they are. If this what you’re saying? I don’t want to put words into your mouth.
Mara the Peacemaker mentioned
“He can avoid the whole thing by hiring a white person or a Hispanic person instead. ”
One more thing: why do you assume that a white person or a person of any other race would not be offended in the same situation? Surely you realize that blacks are not the only people offended by racism (or perceived racism) just like gays are not the only ones offended by homophobia? You put yourself in a position to offend someone whenever you deal with people period.
Christine the Lioness pontificated
Obviously, Mara, that everyone has a different range of subjects they’re sensitive too. I’ve already stated that. But even some of my black friends get annoyed with people who call every single little thing racist because they feel it causes white people (the people who happen to be the ones that the blacks would most like to have understand the phenomenon of racism the most) to not take it as seriously when it does happen. I’m certainly offended by homophobia and racism and sexism when it happens, but I don’t automatically assume that everything that’s even remotely questionable or is a fact about MLK or is a joke that wasn’t on any level a joke about lynching being funny, is racist.
When a man points out the differences between men and women, is he suddenly sexist? No. Granted, there are women who will accuse a guy of being sexist simply if he points out that because she’s a woman she might need help lifting something, or that she’d get hurt playing football with the boys, etc. Are those statements fact or are they sexist? The women who make a big deal about stuff like that are just looking for things they can use to reinforce their idea that there’s an incredible amount of sexism in the world. You can choose to see things that aren’t there in the same way you can choose to ignore things that are there.
To say that people aren’t racist, is untrue. Some people are. But to suggest Hillary Clinton is racist because she pointed out a true fact about Civil Rights laws is really assigning meaning to something that simply isn’t so.
And yes, we are all in a position to offend people all the time. I’m sure this blog offends some people. Would it be fair for those offended to try to have our blog taken down or should they just not come back? We’ve become a culture where we somehow feel if we’re offended by something, there needs to be a repercussion to the person who offends us. THAT, I disagree with. You can be as hypersensitive as you want about any subject, but that’s no one else’s issue but your own. And trying to teach the world that lynching is not a funny subject by being punitive only succeeds in making white people scared to say anything in front of black people.
In general, you don’t see white people or Hispanic people or Indians or Native Americans reacting this way. There is some new thing in the news every single day about how some white person offended blacks with some comment. Some, truly are inappropriate for sure. But others, like the ones we’ve used as examples here, are ambiguous at best and I find it interesting that blacks would rather make an example of these people rather than give them the benefit of the doubt.
Seriously, do you really think anyone wants someone around who is “offended by everything?” White or black or whatever? No. But if you look at the ones who are crying racism every five minutes… it’s black people. If there were actually black people coming to the reporter’s defense and saying, “Come on you guys… this is not what racism is,” then they’d be less likely to be lumped together. But no one is.
I’m simply saying that if you think this hypersensitivity is helping race relations, get back to me in about twenty years and let’s see how far forward or backward we end up. My prediction is that accusing people of racism at every turn (whether it is or not) only makes people resent them. And no one wants to live their lives walking on eggshells, so they’ll cut the people out of their lives who make them feel like they have to. That’s human nature.
Christine the Lioness quibbed this
“Oh, I can. To me, that looks racist. I have more sense than to assume that the person I was dealing with would or would not be offended based on something I saw on television. I’d find out the usual way. Ask them.”
Well if that works as a solution, then the reporter who DIDN’T offend Tiger shouldn’t have been suspended from her job. Or was she supposed to call every black person who watches her show and ask them first if her joke was offensive? Come on. Let’s start dealing in reality.
Mara the Peacemaker commented
“Well if that works as a solution, then the reporter who DIDN’T offend Tiger shouldn’t have been suspended from her job. Or was she supposed to call every black person who watches her show and ask them first if her joke was offensive? ”
I’m only going to address the second part of your question because I’ve already discussed why the fact that this was said on television and not privately changes the nature of the consequences this anchor should/could suffer for her remark. Your question assumes that only black people would have been offended by the joke (i.e., why only call black people?). From where would you get such an assumption? I’m not Jewish, don’t have any Jewish relatives, etc but I am offended by jokes about the holocaust. You again, unwittingly imply that either black people are the same or that somewhere in your subconscious, you want them to be. I don’t think it’s stretch to think that a joke about lynching would be offensive to SOMEone somewhere.
Secondly, because we are social creatures, we inevitably run the risk of offending someone in the course of exercising our free speech and occasionally, we offend someone with enough political or social capital to cause some us some concern. That I will agree is a matter for public debate and I understand that you disagree with the consequences. I’m interested in your views on this since I don’t think you’ve really expressed them.
Mara the Peacemaker commented
“We’ve become a culture where we somehow feel if we’re offended by something, there needs to be a repercussion to the person who offends us. THAT, I disagree with.”
Okay, I understand that. But you do understand that we already have repercussions. So the question is not really should be there a repercussion for what offends us? The question is when should there be repercussions and what are they?
“And trying to teach the world that lynching is not a funny subject by being punitive only succeeds in making white people scared to say anything in front of black people.”
Well, this is the fault of white people who allow the actions of one to determine how they perceive and deal with an entire race of people. You cannot justify the ignorance in doing so by this statement and this is why. The fact that a contingent of black people with direct access to the media get on news programs to berate some politician, radio DJ or news anchor, etc for some perceived racist remark is really a non-issue in terms of how any one white person chooses to deal with the black people they encounter. Al Sharpton (or insert name of other media whore self-proclaimed leader of all people black) does not equal black people. Al Sharpton is one black man who happens (strangely enough) to possess some social and political capital. But he is one man. Offended. By something. But in the frustration (or even fear) at not knowing what to say to black people because Al Sharpton is offended, you’ve engaged in racist logic. You’ve imputed the actions of one to all. You’ve said “that if Al Sharpton is offended by this, then I have to assume all black people are offended by this.” I have encountered dozens upon dozens of ignorant white people in my life. I see them on television daily spewing utter nonsense. But I don’t impute their ignorance to all every other white person in this country. You simply cannot justify a white person doing so for blacks.
“In general, you don’t see white people or Hispanic people or Indians or Native Americans reacting this way. There is some new thing in the news every single day about how some white person offended blacks with some comment. ”
Just because you don’t see something happening on the news doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. Unless, of course, you believe the news is completely unbiased and reports every single thing that happens and do not think broadcasting corporations make judgments about what is interesting and relevant enough to be considered “newsworthy.”
“But if you look at the ones who are crying racism every five minutes… it’s black people.”
But again, even if this is true, are the black people on that you see crying racism on the news all black people? This should not even be relevant in how you treat people.
“If there were actually black people coming to the reporter’s defense and saying, “Come on you guys… this is not what racism is,” then they’d be less likely to be lumped together. But no one is.”
How do you know this didn’t happen? I mean, lots of black people agree with Tiger Woods. It’s a non issue. I wonder why they aren’t on the news?
“And no one wants to live their lives walking on eggshells, so they’ll cut the people out of their lives who make them feel like they have to. That’s human nature.”
If you judge how you deal with me based on what Al Sharpton or some other black says on television, then you have bigger problems than feeling like you have to walk on eggshells. You have no excuse for this racist reasoning. It’s one thing to watch the stuff on television and stare in utter disbelief because you cannot believe someone would think x, y and z is racist and that so and so lost her job over it. It’s one thing to discuss it among your friends or even in the public forum. It’s another to base how you treat and interact with other individuals of that same race on what you saw on television/read in the news, etc.
Mara the Peacemaker uttered
“I’m simply saying that if you think this hypersensitivity is helping race relations, get back to me in about twenty years and let’s see how far forward or backward we end up.”
I never stated my opinion about it one way or another. But I’ll guess we’ll both have to see.
Trouble the Pirate pontificated
Shit, I leave for one day and all hell breaks loose…
After reading and re-reading all the posts in this thread, I have come to a few conclusions:
Mara… Christine has not said anything racist, as you have several times accused her. I will not quote those instances, you can re-read what you have written if you don’t believe me… But bear the following in mind when you do…
1) If black people do not always agree with what your high-profile spokespersons are saying, then why do you allow them to speak for you, why does someone else not stand up and challenge/clarify what they say, and why are you surprised when everyone takes what they say as the opinion of all black people?
2) Have you ever listened to black comedians? Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Paul Mooney, Dave, Chappelle, Chris Rock, Adele Givens, or Mo’Nique? I have at times had to change the channel because I felt so physically awkward after hearing some of the things they have said about white people… In my opinion, some of the MOST blatantly prejudiced things that have ever passed my ears… BUT they’re jokes, so it okay? I do understand though how much comedians HAVE furthered race relations in the USA though, they get everything out in the open, on the table so-to-speak, and force people to really look at themselves… Still, I can say that I glad I was not one of the white people in the audience…
3) How do you think the two lesbian women raising the 4-year old boy feel, when they turn on the TV and see 2000 oiled-up men in thongs, and Daisy-Dukes prancing down the street grabbing each other’s ass, all in the name of forcing the world to accept them as normal every-day folk?
4) By your arguments, you have actually backed-up much of what Christine objectively stated. You almost sound like you are badgering her at times, and she has made no personal attacks on you as a person, but you have taken practically every comment she has made, and picked-it apart, throwing away most of its value, and concentrating only on the spin that it goes against the black agenda… I’m sure that’s the lawyer in you talking, but personally, If I were judging the debate, I’d have to give that Christine makes the more compelling argument…
Bear in mind that I am of Chinese decent. My family was brought to British Guyana in the 18/19th century as indentured labour, as sugar-cane cutters, and for those who do not know what ‘indentured’ means, it equates to slavery. One was ‘bonded’ to the plantation owner for life, given enough food and water to keep you alive until you got sick and died. If you disobeyed or tried to escape you were severely beaten, sometimes to death. At the turn of the 19th century, a good, strong male cane-cutter made an average of 12 cents a day, females made half that. For comparrison, a small loaf of bread cost 6-8 cents. Many lost their lives to the fer-de-lance in the cane-fields every day. Your children were born into bondage, and if somehow they could save enough money, they could buy their freedom. The Chinese people were brought there under the same conditions as the Africans and Indians, and they were expected to intermarry with them in order to pacify them through genetic dilution. My family [and I mean from great, great grandfather on up], have fought tooth-and-nail, to get where we are today… Which ain’t much, but is far better than it was…
The difference is, that that situation/history does not define who I am, to tell-the-truth I hardly ever think about it, and I rarely consider mentioning it to anyone, not for shame or anything… It’s just got nothing to do with me really, that was my ancestors problem, and they worked hard to make it better for me… If I made it an issue which regressed the process, I would only be insulting them. I just wanted to outline to Mara that others have a history of oppression.
My sister’s husband [and one of my closest friends] is black, my girlfriend is black, my best friend is black… I do understand ‘black’ issues, yet I have also been called a nigger-lover [by a black person], and a cracker also…
Mara the Peacemaker hunt n' pecked this
“If black people do not always agree with what your high-profile spokespersons are saying, then why do you allow them to speak for you, why does someone else not stand up and challenge/clarify what they say, and why are you surprised when everyone takes what they say as the opinion of all black people?”
I do not know what you mean by “allow” as if I have some control over whether Al Sharpton gets on a news program and accuses someone of racism. Furthermore, why do you assume that no one else challenges what they say? There are MANY black people who do not agree with people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and have spoken out about it. There are somewhat high profile black republicans, for example, who think people like Sharpton and Jackson are buffoons. Those people don’t have access to the media like Sharpton and Jackson though. So perhaps that is why you do not hear about it. That you assume they represent all of black people is a mistake on your part, not mine. Why am I surprised that anyone takes what someone who gets on television as the opinion of all black people? Because to do so is ignorant, that’s why. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make a leap that black people do not all think the same and that perhaps, Al Sharpton doesn’t speak for every black American. But you’d first have to believe that black people are individuals in order to reach that conclusion.
“Have you ever listened to black comedians? Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Paul Mooney, Dave, Chappelle, Chris Rock, Adele Givens, or Mo’Nique? …”
I don’t see what relevance any of this has to the discussion.
“By your arguments, you have actually backed-up much of what Christine objectively stated. You almost sound like you are badgering her at times, and she has made no personal attacks on you as a person, but you have taken practically every comment she has made, and picked-it apart, throwing away most of its value, and concentrating only on the spin that it goes against the black agenda… I’m sure that’s the lawyer in you talking, but personally, If I were judging the debate, I’d have to give that Christine makes the more compelling argument…”
Firstly, I take issue with your assertion that I have some so-called black agenda. I really do not what that is. So please clarify that one.
Secondly, I have never personally attacked Christine. Ever. Taking apart her arguments and isolating the faulty reasoning contained therein is not a personal attack. I have, however, taken apart some the statements she has made because quite frankly, the reasoning she uses forms the basis of racist thought. That is not calling Christine a racist. If I thought Christine was racist, I would have said she was. I don’t know enough about Christine to even make that kind of statement. All I can do is respond to what she says, which by the way, I do not assume represents her actual views about anything. What I have SAID is that it is IGNORANT to base your perception of an entire race of people on what a few members of that race say. That reasoning forms the basis of racist thought. There is no rational or logical reason to say to yourself that because Al Sharpton gets on the news and cries racism, that must mean that every black person agrees with him. None whatsoever. There are millions of black people in this country. Millions. If you allow yourself to judge an entire race of people, not even based on your personal experiences with black people but on something you see on television, then you have engaged in racist reasoning. It’s as simple as that.
Moreover, I have attacked some of her other assertions because they were wrong. To say that no one black sided with that reporter and use that as a justification for lumping black people together is wrong because many black people do agree with Woods. To say that no other race cries racism because you don’t see it on the news is also wrong. There are tons of online newspapers, blogs, chat forums, etc where other races discuss what they perceive as oppression. So if you perceive that as a personal attack on Christine, then I don’t know what to else to say.
I have no idea why you felt compelled to share your personal background with me. I mean, I suppose it’s nice to know a little more about the people you chat with in the blogosphere, but I fail to see why any of what you’ve said is remotely relevant to this discussion. I have never anywhere on site ever said that no one else has been oppressed. I am very well informed on that score.
Christine the Lioness quibbed this
“What I have SAID is that it is IGNORANT to base your perception of an entire race of people on what a few members of that race say.”
When Sharpton gets up there and says that the reporter’s joke was “racist,” HE’S the one lumping all blacks together.
Personally, I think every single one of Trouble’s points has merit, but Mara, you keep coming back to the same arguments and I don’t get the sense you’re reading what he’s saying.
Mara the Peacemaker said this
“When Sharpton gets up there and says that the reporter’s joke was “racist,” HE’S the one lumping all blacks together. ”
Wow. That’s really unfair, Christine. How do you figure this? Does the very act of accusing someone of racism somehow magically lump everyone together who happens to be of the same race as the speaker? What if I personally get on television and say something is NOT racist? Have I lumped people together there? Why is that not simply just Sharpton’s or my opinion? I do not understand how you think this is even remotely logical. That’s the same reasoning that was used in the Don Imus situation — black rappers call black women bitches and hoes so I shouldn’t be offended. I’m lumped together based on what some ignorant rapper, whom I’ve never even heard of, said about black women? How is that logical? This is not a rhetorical question.
I understand your point about people crying racism all of the time. I mean, look, there are those who, if you were asked to physical describe them and you said they were black, would take offense and claim that by you mentioning their race, you’re racist. There are people who think you’re racist cause you were born a white woman. I’ve had people tell me that I’m a sell-out because I help send black men to prison as if there is something inherently racist about being black and being in jail. But that doesn’t mean you have to right to impute those views onto every other person who happens to be of the same race, especially if your response is to discriminate or hold a prejudice against all other members of that race. That is racism, Christine. It isn’t just thinking your race is superior to others, it’s also discriminating or harboring prejudices against people because of their race.
“Personally, I think every single one of Trouble’s points has merit, but Mara, you keep coming back to the same arguments and I don’t get the sense you’re reading what he’s saying.”
You’re absolutely right, I don’t know why Trouble posted what he did. He spent the first point asking why black people don’t speak out against Sharpton. I explained that they do. So what was his point? I’m not being catty when I ask that so please do not read something in the tone of this post that isn’t there. I’m simply asking, if you know that there are black who don’t agree with Sharpton, who do speak out against Sharpton, then what relevance does that point have? His second point about black comedians telling racist jokes was simply irrelevant unless he meant that to say “see, black people tell racist jokes too.” But that really isn’t the point of the discussion. And I never called you a racist or personally attacked you so I don’t know what he meant there. And finally, his brief history lesson is irrelevant as well because I’m not asserting that blacks are the only people who fight oppression or anything remotely close. So, no, I do not the sense of what Trouble was saying. But since you did, perhaps you can explain it or he can clarify.
In any case, if I keep coming back to the same argument, it is only because I am responding to you who has made the same argument in every single post that you’ve written (including the one you just wrote). So it’s a little unfair for you to criticize me on that score.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent mentioned
Hi guys! What’d I miss over the weekend?
*oh shit* 
Mara the Peacemaker got all philosophical
Trouble, I’m going to address your 2 and 3rd points directly, because I think I may have some sense why you brought that up (you can thank Christine that her response prompted me to reread your post). And let me just state from the outset that my training as a lawyer does not make me argumentative, i.e., it is not the lawyer in me. My training helps me to identify arguments more effectively and the reasoning behind them. Identifying the arguments helps us define what we’re really talking about and that becomes difficult when you conflate several issues as you did in those 2 points. So if I seem nit-pickety by deconstructing arguments, well that is what you do in debate to get down to the core of the issue, so to speak.
Anyway, I think what you’re trying to say is that it’s a double standard for Sharpton to get on the news anchor for making a joke (and for the sake of argument and we really have to assume this for your point to work — let’s assume that the joke was racist) but not criticize black comedians for making racist jokes about white people. In other words, he only criticizes white people for their actions, but not blacks for the same actions. Well, this is true. He does. But really what are we talking about? If we’re talking about the hypocrisy
of Al Sharpton and blacks who agree with him, well that discussion is separate and distinct from whether all black people in America share his views because they happen to be of the same race (and similarly, that I can base the way I treat and think of black people generally on what he says). I actually didn’t see anyone bring this up as an argument so I really don’t know why you did. If we’re talking about the hypocrisy of black people in general, then there are some assumptions you have to make to engage in that discussion, namely, that all black people think the same and/or that the same black people who found that joke offensive are the same black people who think blacks making racist jokes is okay. Whether we assume one or both of those points significantly changes the discussion that follows. If we assume that all black people think the same, then we’re operating within a racist paradigm because in this context, blacks are not individuals, they’re just the one black person. And that is racist because it deprives individuals of their voice, their identity, individual personalities, etc. In short, in deprives them of their humanity. If you accept the latter, but not the former, then there would be no reason to discuss hypocrisy of black people in general which is what you seem to suggest with point about black comedians.
So in conclusion, I think I get WHY you made the point. I just don’t know what you’re trying to say with it exactly since you’ve conflated several issues.
You ask how lesbians might feel? Well, I’d gather they might hope that people watching that program will not think that all gays and lesbians are that way, that being gay is not just about oiled men dressed in thongs and will not form prejudices against all gay people based on what they see on television. Is this not the point I was making?
Trouble the Pirate uttered
Actually Mara, the reason you may be having difficulty understanding why I wrote that last comment, is most likely because I was addressing the theme of the thread, and not simply rebutting one or two parts of the latest comment. I find that the letter method of commenting, works well when the subject matter is humorous, but in serious matters tends to be inflammatory.
Conversely, for the purposes of being more clearly understood, I will address the points of the last two comments you aimed at me directly.
“I do not know what you mean by “allow” as if I have some control over whether Al Sharpton gets on a news program and accuses someone of racism.”
I mean “allow”. When it behooves people they are an individual, weak and uninfluential, it is easier to win sympathy as a victim that way. But the last time I checked, the USA still claims to be a democracy. If Sharpton or Jackson got on their pulpit and said “MARA said this or that…” would you be more inclined to “allow” it?
“Furthermore, why do you assume that no one else challenges what they say? There are MANY black people who do not agree with people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and have spoken out about it. There are somewhat high profile black republicans, for example, who think people like Sharpton and Jackson are buffoons. Those people don’t have access to the media like Sharpton and Jackson though.”
I rarely make assumptions. That entire paragraph was intended to inspire the reader to question WHY, a spokesperson [one who speaks for another or group] is given leave by those people whom they purportedly represent, to pursue their own personal agenda, over a career spanning 15-20 years uninhibited. If as you say, the “high profile black republicans” don’t have access to the media as Sharpton et al do, then I humbly suggest that they are obviously not a viable solution to said problem…
“That you assume they represent all of black people is a mistake on your part, not mine.”
I reiterate that “assumption” is not one of my strong points. Though empty barrels may make the most noise, it is not merely conjecture that the loudest voice is most easily heard. Please do not forget that I AM NOT an American, nor am I black, hence I share no patriotic/sympathetic emotion whatsoever when I make my observations. I observe what I observe… Uninfluenced by personal feelings [objectively.] So if I am mistaken, then perhaps it is not entirely my own fault.
“Why am I surprised that anyone takes what someone who gets on television as the opinion of all black people? Because to do so is ignorant, that’s why. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make a leap that black people do not all think the same and that perhaps, Al Sharpton doesn’t speak for every black American. But you’d first have to believe that black people are individuals in order to reach that conclusion.”
Here is a prime example of the type of inflammatory tone you have been using with Christine. You are attempting to walk the fine line between speaking hypothetically, and personally attacking me by inferring your point. However you are leaning aggressively toward the latter. You are insinuating that I AM IGNORANT because I take the silence of the American-black people where their spokespersons are concerned as consent? Not to jump ahead, but I DID state that my brother-in-law and my girlfriend are black, and though YOU could not fathom why I would tangent in such a way, one of my precise reasons for such was to outline in no uncertain terms that I DO see black people as individuals…
