Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gailbraithe wrote:No, I'm using the Afrocentrist definition of racism. The one that Afrocentrists use which was developed using Critical Race Theory.

Fixed that for you.

Your definition of Racism is an alternate definition, one that attempts to view Racism in historical and sociological terms rather than ideological and biological ones. Unfortunately your definition leaves much to be desired as Afrocentrism is pretty much based and founded on pseudoscience and more importantly, pseudohistory. If you deleted every instance of a color in your definition you'd be closer to the one that sociologists at large use. Your definition is really only useful when looking at Racism as it exists in the West, most specifically, in the United States as it relates to the relationship between whites and blacks. Go to Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, and try applying your definition to the rise of Ethnic Nationalism. Or the racism that existed in the Arab ruled Caliphates. It doesn't work that well.

Also, some words have more than one definition. That's in the dictionary too

I learned that in Sociology class from my crazy bandana wearing bearded hippy professor. I want a cookie!

LordofHats wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:No, I'm using the Afrocentrist definition of racism. The one that Afrocentrists use which was developed using Critical Race Theory.

Fixed that for you.

Your definition of Racism is an alternate definition, one that attempts to view Racism in historical and sociological terms rather than ideological and biological ones. Unfortunately your definition leaves much to be desired as Afrocentrism is pretty much based and founded on pseudoscience and more importantly, pseudohistory. If you deleted every instance of a color in your definition you'd be closer to the one that sociologists at large use. Your definition is really only useful when looking at Racism as it exists in the West, most specifically, in the United States as it relates to the relationship between whites and blacks. Go to Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, and try applying your definition to the rise of Ethnic Nationalism. Or the racism that existed in the Arab ruled Caliphates. It doesn't work that well.

Or Rwanda.

Who was white in that travesty, exactly?

Or more recently, Dafur.

Ktulhut wrote:Or more recently, Dafur.

You're only allowed to comment on Darfur if you have a Doctorate, actually.

Sorry.

I've got a masters in argumentology from the University of Internets, does that count?

Ktulhut wrote:I've got a masters in argumentology from the University of Internets, does that count?

Only on participating forums. Additional charges of "You don't No Nothing!" may apply.

Gailbraithe wrote:
That's a radical redefinition of racism which I am deeply suspicious of, as I've only seen it promoted by white supremacists who wish to turn every discussion of race into a discussion of "reverse racism," to deflect attention from the giant elephant in the room (white supremacy).

Well, 'reverse racism is itself a nonsense concept. Either something is racist or its not.

Regardless, the definition that I'm proffering is basically the accepted standard; carrying absolutely no association with any political or social cause. It doesn't attempt to hide the elephant at all, in fact its explicitly associated with it, as white supremacism is racism.

Compare this to your definition which explicitly marginalizes incidences in which race is used to define human interaction that are not associated with whiteness. This is a definition that was popularized by American reform thinkers like Christopher Doob with the express purpose of pushing other forms of racism out of the conversation. Its about as radical a definition as you can get, and it follows directly from the storytelling process featured in critical race theory; making it, to my mind, utter nonsense. Not because CRT is incapable of producing good work, but because the storytelling process is designed to control the manner in which people think by manipulating language. It isn't out to find truth, because it explicitly rejects the notion that truth exists.

LordofHats wrote:

Only on participating forums. Additional charges of "You don't No Nothing!" may apply.

Thankfully, this forum accepts my masters (I checked). Also, I'm exempt from "You don't no nothing!" charges, as I'm very good at ignoring f**kwits.

Ktulhut wrote:And we're back on "sins of the father" again...

As a member of the race that pretty much monopolises expensive suburban housing, the vast majority of urban "greenspace" and higher white-collar jobs... I can safely say that I have no problem with feeling guilty for one more thing...

I, on the other hand, quite simply refuse to be held accountable for other peoples' actions because I happened to be born the same colour as them.
Does that mean I ignore injustice, race-based or otherwise? No.
Does it mean I ignore all the terrible things my ancestors or their relatives may have done? No.
Does it mean I ignore all the prejudice and disadvantage that a lot of people experience, their only "crime" having been their race? No.
Does it mean I sit idly while these things occur? No! I'm quite politically active, and in the summer I do volunteer work in my community.

But hell if I'm going to feel guilty over something I didn't do.

How come the board doesn't sensor gay, but it sensors the "omigawsh n word"

Because gay has multiple meanings and isn't an insult. please fine me a meaning where N isn't?

Frazzled wrote:Because gay has multiple meanings and isn't an insult. please fine me a meaning where N isn't?

Jay-Z songs?

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Because gay has multiple meanings and isn't an insult. please fine me a meaning where N isn't?

Jay-Z songs?

sorry that just proves my point. Jay Z songs are their own special abomination...

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Because gay has multiple meanings and isn't an insult. please fine me a meaning where N isn't?

Jay-Z songs?

sorry that just proves my point. Jay Z songs are their own special abomination...

But... but... he's got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one!

Positively Shakespearean. Moliere got nothing on Jay Z.

Frazzled wrote:Because gay has multiple meanings and isn't an insult. please fine me a meaning where N isn't?

To me, the only way gay is an insult, is when childish idiots use it as a descriptive term for something they don't like. I think maybe i will start saying "I don't like beans, they are down right hetro (or straight)." Or "That guy is so straight, what an idiot"

Mel

oh and also...

N-word is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people (generally people of Sub-Saharan African descent), and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur. The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black".

And its not used in that context now.

Frazzled wrote:And its not used in that context now.

Didn't ask for a modern use

I'll restate
Its never been used in a proper context by anyone I'd not rather see dead. How's that?

Frazzled wrote:I'll restate
Its never been used in a proper context by anyone I'd not rather see dead. How's that?

Not sure i understand you, all I was pointing out, was that it didn't begin as a derogatory term. I hate the word it's self and it should be banished from everyone's vocabulary.

Again I disagree strongly depedning on what N word you're actually referring to. Negro means a whole lot of things in different languages. The other N variant of that though was ALWAYS a derogatory term, starting in the time of US slavery.

"The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black"."

Maybe i am ignorant, but the 'original' meaning was just to classify a group of people ala I am a lesbian... there are spinoffs that some find derogatory (like lezbo, and alot of slang terms I don't like). I understand the N word is a horrible word and it has for a very long time been a derogatory word, but it's original intent was just a classification.

You know what? I'm just going to take the easy route on this one and blame Frazz.


Goddamn it Frazzled! Its all your fault....

Melanieshaman wrote:"The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black"."

Maybe i am ignorant, but the 'original' meaning was just to classify a group of people ala I am a lesbian... there are spinoffs that some find derogatory (like lezbo, and alot of slang terms I don't like). I understand the N word is a horrible word and it has for a very long time been a derogatory word, but it's original intent was just a classification.

Not in the US it didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Odessey wrote:You know what? I'm just going to take the easy route on this one and blame Frazz.


Goddamn it Frazzled! Its all your fault....

Thats ok. I'll takes yas all on Optimus Prime style!

Frazzled wrote:

Melanieshaman wrote:"The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black"."

Maybe i am ignorant, but the 'original' meaning was just to classify a group of people ala I am a lesbian... there are spinoffs that some find derogatory (like lezbo, and alot of slang terms I don't like). I understand the N word is a horrible word and it has for a very long time been a derogatory word, but it's original intent was just a classification.

Not in the US it didn't.

The article I read sounds like it started here... but I digress, i don't want to argue about it anymore, I have other things to do.

just know that we agree on the usage now.

Frazzled wrote:I'll restate
Its never been used in a proper context by anyone I'd not rather see dead. How's that?

You'd rather see...

Wanda Sykes

Chris Rock

Dave Chappelle

Snoop Dogg

and the Creator of the Boondocks...

dead?

Man, that's kinda racist if you ask me...

Kidding aside, words only have the power we give them. As an Irishman with the work "Mick" in his last name twice... (McCormick) and a first name sounding like "Mick" I can tell you this, the word will only continue to hold the power of hate as long as we allow it to fill us with such (both in fear and hatred).

@Melanie, the original definition of the word as a racial slur (with two gs) is in reference to a "Lazy Good-For-Nothing". It is one of several slurs towards black folks back in the mid 1800s, each had their own definition. However, as far as racial slurs go... while they may have the most in quanitity, I think the other minorities got off MUCH worse if you look at the definitions of some of their racial slurs... (Look up the most common ones for Asians and Latinos if you really wanna feel disgusted...)

Frazzled wrote:Because gay has multiple meanings and isn't an insult. please fine me a meaning where N isn't?

when you are speaking latin and talking about the colour black.

mattyrm wrote:What about Asian racism? I've been out with like.. 5 Asian birds an nearly all of them told me that older Asians are super racist.. it seems a bit harsh to blame it all on johnny white man.

It depends on what you mean by Asian racism. Many Asians who move to America adopt American racial attitudes, i.e. looking down on blacks and latinos. That's the exact same racism as practiced by the Klu Klux Klan.

If you mean long-standing prejudices like the Japanese attitude towards Koreans (Japanese people apparently think Koreans are like dogs), then that's not racism, that's ethnocentrism. When someone calls that racism its because they are uneducated and thus have a limited vocabulary. It should be fairly obvious that is not racism, because obviously the Japanese and Koreans are not different races according to the theories of race that comprise the foundation of racism, they're both Asians.

No, it isn't. Unless you speak spanish, in which case, I'm sure you'll find the word "negro" comes up very often.

As for the american use of that word, never okay. ever.