A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jazzcyclist wrote:I didn't realize until 16 years ago, while on a trip to Europe, that the term "n****r" isn't universally a slur.
I don't know what part of europe you were in !!
Probably Harlem
Vault-emort wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt that the nation's oldest and most prestigious civil right organization would have incorporated this word into its name if was considered a slur
So let me get this right. This respected peak organisation - http://www.naacp.org/ - still includes the description 'colored' but the consensus here is that it's an offensive word?
I don't think there is much of a consensus on this topic, which is not at all surprising given the topic we are discussing.
However,I think what has been good is that the discussion has been pretty much on topic without the extreme name calling that has surfaced at times in other threads.
It will be interesting to see what comments Anthony Treacher has to say when he rejoins the debate.
Marlow wrote:[Wiki explains it succinctly: "others in the scientific community suggest .....race has no taxonomic significance[/u]: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. I'm pretty sure all our ancestors are from East Africa,.
That may be true. All humans can interbreed but evolution over two million years, migration to diverse environments and selective breeding has resulted, although the classification is fuzzy, in five(?) recognizable, more or less consistently physically distinct groups of people which we have been conditioned to refer to as "races"
There are practical reasons for this. How else to narrow down the description of the perpetrator of a crime ? Or redress a greviance against a "race" or racial sterotyping? And, in some wars, makes it easier to identify the enemy on sight.
Also, in recent years some "scientists" have come to believe that humanoid remains in South Africa pre-date those in East Africa.. Of course, that could also mean we have not yet discovered the oldest remains in East Africa.
The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
Daisy wrote:The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
So we are dealing in semantics here? There are five/six subgroups which serve as convenient visual/physical identifying characteristics instead of five/six races? Seems to me a distinction without a difference.
Daisy wrote:The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
So we are dealing in semantics here? There are five/six subgroups which serve as convenient visual/physical identifying characteristics instead of five/six races? Seems to me a distinction without a difference.
So is American Indian a 'race'? If it is, I fail the "physical identifying characteristics" test, because when I met you, I never would have know you were any 'different' from just looking at you!
Now . . . as soon as you post, yeah, there's the difference!
Daisy wrote:The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
So we are dealing in semantics here? There are five/six subgroups which serve as convenient visual/physical identifying characteristics instead of five/six races? Seems to me a distinction without a difference.
Yes, this is semantic in some ways. For the examples in biology where 'race' is used, the genetic differences are far greater than those seen within the human populations. Part of the reason for that is that humans migrate so readily, therefore, the gene pool has never stopped mixing. Consequently, the biological term 'race' is meaningless with respect to Homo sapians.
As to the differences in the geographical subgroups, there are some unique genetic differences. Mostly, though, we are observing differences in the frequencies of certain traits. For example, lactose intolerance is 5% in europeans but 95% in asians.
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt that the nation's oldest and most prestigious civil right organization would have incorporated this word into its name if was considered a slur
So let me get this right. This respected peak organisation - http://www.naacp.org/ - still includes the description 'colored' but the consensus here is that it's an offensive word?
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt that the nation's oldest and most prestigious civil right organization would have incorporated this word into its name if was considered a slur
So let me get this right. This respected peak organisation - http://www.naacp.org/ - still includes the description 'colored' but the consensus here is that it's an offensive word?
What should we make of another venerable organization that includes the "N" word in its name?
The NAACP was founded in 1909. UNCF in 1944. When those organizations were founded, the terms in question were common, and thus became part of the titles of those organizations. Both organizations have retained those terms in their titles probably because of longstanding familiarity with the organizations under those traditional names.
Where I live now, in 2012, both of the terms in question would be considered offensive. My colleagues and students who consider themselves to be part of these ethnic groups refer to themselves and each other as "African-American" or "black." Thus, I use those terms. I have not heard one of my colleagues or students -- ever, in the past 30 years -- refer to herself or himself as "negro" or "colored." I am reasonably confident that they would find these terms strange at best, but more likely would find them offensive.
Here's another example: American Indian Movement (AIM). In my contact with people who self-identify with this ethic designation, they either use a specific tribal name or they use "Native American." However, the formerly common terms, "Indian" or "American Indian," are still in the organization's title.
It seems that the best guidance for respectful usage is to try to follow what members of the group(s) in question use of and for themselves in common, public discourse, and to try to be cognizant of changes in usage.
I don't see anything contradictory or strange in this -- it seems to be the way language works.
jazzcyclist wrote:I didn't realize until 16 years ago, while on a trip to Europe, that the term "n****r" isn't universally a slur. On the hand, most Black Americans wouldn't even realize that they had been insulted if some called them a "kaffir".
Well...most Americans would not realize that term was a slur unless they were familiar with terminology used by South Africans. I read Mathabane's "Kaffir Boy" 25 years ago...excellent book.
jazzcyclist wrote:A few years ago, I thought it was downright silly when some folks were up in arms after Harry Reid used the word "Negro" when discussing Obama's candicacy for President when it was clear that he wasn't trying to disparage anyone and everybody understood the point he was trying to make.
I think it's fair for "white folk" to be offended if any politician assumes that a qualified black candidate can only earn their vote if he doesn't don't sound "black." That's pretty much what he said in a nutshell, right?
"Sen. Harry Reid said America would vote for Barack Obama because he was a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Daisy wrote:The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
So we are dealing in semantics here? There are five/six subgroups which serve as convenient visual/physical identifying characteristics instead of five/six races? Seems to me a distinction without a difference.
So is American Indian a 'race'? If it is, I fail the "physical identifying characteristics" test, because when I met you, I never would have know you were any 'different' from just looking at you!
Now . . . as soon as you post, yeah, there's the difference!
Until Daisy educated me, I did not know the scientific distinction between "race" and "subgroup" and am not competent to debate/discuss the point. As to physical characteristics, several generations of "racial" mixing has blurred the phisiography of individuals within families. My maternal Choctaw/Creek grandfather could have been the model for the Buffalo nickel. My maternal great-grandfather, a Confederate veteran of undetermined heritage from Mississippi, came to Texas after the Civil War and married (we presume) a Comanche woman right off the plains. (Someone in the family has her wedding picture, standing in front of her fathers teepee in a white buckskin dress) My maternal grandmother had Caucasian features, as did my mother, but four of my mother's five brothers and one of her seven sisters looked Indian.
The ancestry on my paternal side is less well known. My paternal great-grandfather emigrated from England circa 1840. As he migrated westward, he married a widow of unknown ancestry in Paducah, Ky. They had a lot of kids. The few extant group family pictures from the 1880s are not much help; mustachioed men and bonneted women in their Sunday finery.
I inherited the mostly Caucasian features of my paternal side, although I do bronze up nicely in the sun. I had the requisite neck-reining paint pony and assimulated seamlessly with the "Indian" looking kids at the Red River swimming holes.
My late wife's father emigrated from Germany circa 1880. Her mother, who appeared Caucasian, was from the Caddo reservation is southern Oklahoma. Seven of their eight children appeared Caucasian. My eldest daughter looks Caucasian. My son is a tall, Teutonic dirty blonde. My younger daughter could be Miss Indian America. so go figger.
OKC annually hosts the Red Earth Festival, a week long convention of dozens of tribes from all over the country for dancing, art displays, etc...The Indian Princess sometimes is a blue-eyed, redhead or blonde...with tribal credentials.
jazzcyclist wrote:A few years ago, I thought it was downright silly when some folks were up in arms after Harry Reid used the word "Negro" when discussing Obama's candicacy for President when it was clear that he wasn't trying to disparage anyone and everybody understood the point he was trying to make.
I think it's fair for "white folk" to be offended if any politician assumes that a qualified black candidate can only earn their vote if he doesn't don't sound "black." That's pretty much what he said in a nutshell, right?
"Sen. Harry Reid said America would vote for Barack Obama because he was a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
I think it is a fact that in order for Obama to get elected, he couldn't seem too Black for White folks, who made up 74% of the electorate in 2008, and the same holds for other minorities (eg, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, Asains, etc). Minority candidates always have the burden of broadening their appeal when running for office. It's why Mitt Romney avoided talking about his religious faith during his campaign. And it's why Louisiana's governor is considered a viable Presidential candidate as Christian Bobby Jindal but wouldn't have been as Hindu Piyush Jindal.
lonewolf wrote:My maternal Choctaw/Creek grandfather could have been the model for the Buffalo nickel. My maternal grandmother had Caucasian features, as did my mother, but four of my mother's five brothers and one of her seven sisters looked Indian. I inherited the mostly Caucasian features of my paternal side, although I do bronze up nicely in the sun. My late wife's father emigrated from Germany circa 1880. Her mother appeared Caucasian, Seven of their eight children appeared Caucasian. My eldest daughter looks Caucasian. My son is a tall, Teutonic dirty blonde. My younger daughter could be Miss Indian America. so go figger. The Indian Princess sometimes is a blue-eyed, redhead or blonde...with tribal credentials.
So you'd agree that trying to distinguish people along 'race' lines is getting sillier and sillier, huh!
IMO the discussion on this thread has developed into what has generally been a pretty robust and thoughtful debate on what can be a pretty emotive topic with a wide range of diverse opinions across countries as well as racial and nationalistic groupings.
gh wrote:
Pego wrote:I am beginning to understand why you have been banned from all those places.
and this place.
As Anthony Treacher has been conspicuously absent from this thread since he opened it am I correct in presuming he has been banned?
If so I think it is an overly harsh response to the questions he posed in opening this thread. In saying that I am not in any way trying to defend him for whatever comments he has made in other threads where he has obviously rubbed a number of people up the wrong way.
When one reads the comments of jazzcyclist a few postings ago he noted that if a person in his/her 80s used the term "coloured" he would not be bothered given the generational era of that person. However, a white guy in his 20s using the term the jazz cyclist would consider that person was being deliberately provocative.
I am a baby boomer in my 60s who spent nearly all of the 70s in the USA. i do not use the terms "coloured", "Negro" or "African American". I use the term "Black" because as so eloquently stated by jazz cyclist that was the term used in the 1970s.
As I understand that Anthony Treacher is much closer to the 80s generation I think it would be appropriate and in the Xmas spirit to cut him some slack and let him back on the Board.
And he didn't begin it to start a 'robust and thoughtful' debate. He did it just to be the cantankerous old git that he's always been.
This will, of course, just give him more evidence that the whole of officialdom is out to get him and that all his woes are the fault of others, rather than his own disagreeable nature.
Flumpy wrote:And he didn't begin it to start a 'robust and thoughtful' debate. He did it just to be the cantankerous old git that he's always been.
This will, of course, just give him more evidence that the whole of officialdom is out to get him and that all his woes are the fault of others, rather than his own disagreeable nature.
A colleague once told me.
"My psychiatrist says I am not paranoid. It's true everybody hates me."
jazzcyclist wrote:I didn't realize until 16 years ago, while on a trip to Europe, that the term "n****r" isn't universally a slur.
I don't know what part of europe you were in !!
Place: Munich Time: 1996 during Oktoberfest People: A Dutchman, a couple of Germans, a couple of Italians, a few Australians, three South Africans (two Black, one White)
Everyone was shocked when I said that word was very offensive in the U.S. and could easily cause a violent reaction if used in the wrong setting. I remember the White South African saying that he could call the two Black South Africans n****r all day with no problems, but if he called them kaffir once they'd kill him, and the Black South Africans nodded their heads in approval of what he said.
Flumpy wrote:And he didn't begin it to start a 'robust and thoughtful' debate. He did it just to be the cantankerous old git that he's always been.
This will, of course, just give him more evidence that the whole of officialdom is out to get him and that all his woes are the fault of others, rather than his own disagreeable nature.
Merry Xmas Flumpy. While you may well be right, I would suggest that AT is far from being the only cantankerous old git that inhabits this message board.
The point I am making, and a point which is well exemplified by jazz cyclist, is that the various descriptors we use to describe various types of people may be acceptable in one part of the world but offensive in other parts of the world. In this particular instance I just happen to think it is an over reaction to ban a person for asking questions about the term "coloured". And for people to equate such questioning as being indicative of him racist is certainly wrong and over-the-top.
I certainly do not find such questions to be offensive. What I find offensive is the over-the-top support of many on this message board for the right to carry and use AK47s and other automatic assault weapons. Since Sandy Hook there have literally been dozens of further instances in the USA of people being murdered with guns.
Tuariki wrote:Merry Xmas Flumpy. While you may well be right, I would suggest that AT is far from being the only cantankerous old git that inhabits this message board.
Obviously not but he is the only one whose sole purpose is to be one.
Tuariki"The point I am making, and a point which is well exemplified by jazz cyclist, is that the various descriptors we use to describe various types of people may be acceptable in one part of the world but offensive in other parts of the world. In this particular instance I just happen to think it is an over reaction to ban a person for asking questions about the term "coloured".[/quote]
But he wasn't asking a genuine question. He was being purposefully provocative. He has no interest in getting a proper answer on the subject he just wanted to be controversial. From another poster I have no doubt it would have raised any objection but from him his intention is clear. I guarantee it would have lead to a lengthy rant about political correctness and how injust the officials in UK Masters athletics are. It happens every time.
[quote="Tuariki wrote:And for people to equate such questioning as being indicative of him racist is certainly wrong and over-the-top.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Tuariki wrote:I certainly do not find such questions to be offensive. What I find offensive is the over-the-top support of many on this message board for the right to carry and use AK47s and other automatic assault weapons. Since Sandy Hook there have literally been dozens of further instances in the USA of people being murdered with guns.
Agree 100%
Tuariki wrote:Give me a debate with cantankerous AT any day.
Trust me it may seem like fun at first, but after a decade it becomes exhausting.
Merry Christmas to you too Tuariki
Last edited by Flumpy on Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
jazzcyclist wrote:I didn't realize until 16 years ago, while on a trip to Europe, that the term "n****r" isn't universally a slur.
I don't know what part of europe you were in !!
Place: Munich Time: 1996 during Oktoberfest People: A Dutchman, a couple of Germans, a couple of Italians, a few Australians, three South Africans (two Black, one White)
Everyone was shocked when I said that word was very offensive in the U.S. and could easily cause a violent reaction if used in the wrong setting. I remember the White South African saying that he could call the two Black South Africans n****r all day with no problems, but if he called them kaffir once they'd kill him, and the Black South Africans nodded their heads in approval of what he said.
I'd definitely take white south africans as arbiters of what language is to be considered racist !!
mump boy wrote:I read it but it doesn't mean that europeans think nigger is an appropriate word to use,
I didn't make any broad statements about Europeans, I only stated that the word n****r isn't the universal slur that you seem think it is, and that I was incredulous until two Black South Africans weighed in. I also mentioned that many if not most Americans wouldn't know that word kaffir was a slur, including most Black Americans.
mump boy wrote: it just means there are wilfully dumb people everywhere !!
Calling people willfully dumb just because they aren't familiar with all the world's slangs, slurs and local customs is very narrow minded and hypocritical of you, since everyone of us, including you, could potentially make fools out of ourselves if we were put in an unfamiliar environment.
"All right. We'll give some land to the niggers and the chinks, but we don't want the Irish." Olson Johnson – Blazing Saddles
Wow! My faith in this site as great crowd-sourcing venue took a terrible hit in this thread. And, the most disappointing "responses" (very loosely defined) come from posters who I thought should know better (but they are ALWAYS very adept at injecting their politics in most of their posts. Lonewolf, jazzcyclist, take a bow). Oh, well…race is political. Always has been.
A mini primer: Slavery; reconstruction; Jim Crow; Civil rights movement. That should catch many of you up to a level of ignorance just above what's being consistently displayed in this thread by some posters.
The simple version is colored is unacceptable, and so is Negro (both anachronisms, and not NEARLY as offensive as nigger, but it tells the insulted [sometimes overly sensitive insulted, imo] that you don't want to/can't move on – or you're just forgetful as hell – so they won't move on ... and call you on it for not getting the memo. Circular!). Don't fucking question it! Who gives a shit what you learned in the 50's, 60's or earlier when "Blacks" called themselves what "white" people TOLD THEM TO call themselves – or that you’re even from another country/culture (Mr. Treacher?). If someone says it's unacceptable, it's unacceptable! Everything isn't up for debate; it is what it is – and why persist if you've already been told to stop? Others citing that NAACP and UNCF use those now forbidden words is just being silly in search of an unnecessary fight; or a very old ["black?"] person "stuck in their ways" (which might make you a racist despite the standard definitions of the words based upon power, or the lacktherof). The world has moved on; and it's substituting other words, rightly I would say, for those previously wrong-headed incarnations: woman for girl; homosexual/gay/lesbian for faggot/dike; Asian for chink, chinaman, and gook; and yes, "BLACK" or African American for colored/negro/nigger. When I read someone's name and I don't know how to pronounce it, I do my DAMNEDEST to learn how to say it the way they do – even if I can’t speak the language! That's not PC (for people silly enough to put stock in that made up term), that's respect. If a group wants a different recognition than the one born out of racism or that was used to justify slavery/imperialism/colonialism etc – than respect that. Why is that so hard? …Unless you see yourself as superior.
Last edited by preston on Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Blacks" didn't want to be part of Africa (though with time it has modified) and "Blacks" was also more all-encompassing in a political sense – it grabbed more common people, of disparate backgrounds, to serve in a single constituency – so its acceptance became stronger. "People of Color" is an attempt to co-opt even more people into a super minority/majority (or is that vice-versa) and including all "minorities" that aren't "white"; it includes Asians of all stripes, Caribbean/African/European "minorities" as a way around geographically challenged terms like "African-American". But, politics also had a downside to people who thought they could just co-opt the largest numbers…it forgot about the people who wanted to opt out. So in the last decade or so you’ve seen the bi-racial, multi-racial and others…because as Malcolm Gladwell so eloquently stated in his New Yorker piece Black Like Themhttp://www.gladwell.com/1996/1996_04_29_a_black.htm , "nobody wants to be the nigger". Bi-racial and multi-racial, (half-caste? Really? Wow!) … many believe, don’t want to be "black" not because multiracial and some of the other terms are more accurate – they are – but because of the stigma attached to being of/from Black, Africa, African-American and all points in between that they are desperate to shake. So now we have the different names and designations (which were always a debate among "academicians") … it's the f***ing Sneeches, Dr. Seuss!
Last edited by preston on Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
THAT is the reason why some felt that there HAD to be a connection to Africa, hence the mangled and contrived, but completely acceptable to many … African-American. However, many American and Caribbean "Blacks" had no connection to Africa and felt that it was a stretch – in addition to the fact that American and Caribbean blacks looked down upon Africans and Africa in many respects; "blacks" saw it as they learned it from their white overlords: as primitive and uncivilized – The Dark Continent.
Last edited by preston on Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the beginning of the movie Deep Cover, Jeff Goldblum’s character (David Jason) asks Laurence Fishburne’s character (Russell Stevens, Jr) the following question: "What's the difference between a black man and a nigger?" Fishburne answers, "the nigger's the one who would even answer that question."
jazzcyclist wrote:To be honest, I'm tired of Black folks changing what we call ourselves. When I was growing up, my grandmother used the word Colored, and I doubt that the nation's oldest and most prestigious civil right organization would have incorporated this word into its name if was considered a slur at the time. Then we became Negroes, then Black and today African-Americans. Personally, I'm the most comfortable with the word Black, probably because that was the term of choice that was in fashion when I was a kid growing up - "Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm proud". However, I don't get offended when I hear the other terms being used. Even the term Colored doesn't bother me, especially if used by someone over the age of 80; however, if I hear some 20-year-old White guy using this term, I would suspect the he was being intentionally provocative. Some folks seem to be constantly looking for new reasons to be offended.
Please tell me you’re kidding? Speaking of "Black people" as monolithic and iconoclastic is just arrogant. "Black's" aren't going around changing the name(s) to piss off people in Louisiana (who've been known to have their own issues with race…sambo, mulatto, quadroon, etc). There was never a vote taken and it was never up for the consultation of most "blacks". "Black" changed due to "black" academics (and politicians) feeling a need to answer the question "what do we call ourselves" BECAUSE everything else is what "blacks" HAD BEEN called (this had some validity) - and most time not out of love. This is how self-determination happens. You try to define a way forward. The initial recoil to "black", like "colored" was that it was the same thing: a color…and treated as a "taint" and "white" was treated as "pure" (if you were 1/16th "black", you were "black" – even if you were obviously 15/16th "white"!). Plus, "black" had no origin; and it was believed – and still is – that a people without a place of origin could never know who they were (Most "Black" Americans [or "blacks of the Americas"…Brazil, South America, Caribbean] have no clue where in Africa they are from or which tribe/peoples (yet many Europeans can point out the origin of their forebears going back to the 16th century - if not further). But, I guess all is forgiven now that there are DNA tests that can be done with a swab to the mouth ).
Last edited by preston on Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Shvartses!: No, no, zayt nisht meshuge! Loz im geyn! Cop a walk, it's alright. Abi gezint! Take off! Hosti gezen in dayne lebn? They darker than us! Woof!" -Indian Chief, Blazing Saddles
And, what does all this Indian stuff have to do with a thread on "black"? Are you trying to trivialize and marginalize people trying to find who they are without input from the Vice-Chancellory (The Man!)? Are you not a Star Trek fan? Don’t like the prime directive? Why are you so hung up on rolling your eyes and calling things politically correct? You do it a LOT! Newsflash, it's about respect, not the vomit inducing, made-up term, politically correct. You also point out that you've never experienced discrimination when it appears, according to Marlow, that the likelihood of you "passing" (a term used by “blacks” for very light skinned "blacks" [or "skind-did" in the south sometimes], usually women, attempting to conceal that they were "black" by Western standards to fit into the larger "white" world) was very high. Not trying to minimize YOUR experience, but your ability to blend in could be a reason why you never met some of the challenges you seem to be dismissing. I'm just guessing…and I concede ahead of time that I could have completely misrepresented what you were trying to say. If I have, it's not my intention; I'm just letting you know how it reads – to me.
lonewolf wrote:There are many regular posters on this forum who have identified themselves as of Negro ancestry. I am not aware there is any discrimination against them or that they have ever been disrespected here because of their race.
Please show where a "black person" on this forum has identified themselves as "of Negro ancestry". Show the use of those exact words. I don't think you can. And, your "aware" test is fraught with danger, because if someone says, "yeah, I love to be called N-word" then everything is alright? That would be "horseshit" - which would NOT be a play on an Indian name by the way. (that would also be a joke. Or is that too insensitive?)
lonewolf wrote:It would be informative to the forum if we could hear from them if their objection is to the word Negro or to the admittedly derogatory "n-word". Do they really favor the ambiguous term African-American?
N-word is always wrong; you don't need confirmation information to decipher that. Yup, even when "black" people use it (and disgustingly try to defend it); and what’s more…"black" people know it’s wrong.
Last edited by preston on Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
But, that hasn't stopped the word from being used and "exported" to the Caribbean, Africa and elsewhere in modern pop culture when only 15- 20 years ago "black”" Caribbeans would kill someone who associated them with "American Blacks" much less the universally* derogatory term of n-word. I personally don't know why preference matters to you; some like "black", some like African-American others even like Afro-American (remember that one?). I don't see it any different than Holland or Netherlands (which are distinct…I've been following gh's trivia thread) or people who live in Texas who identify themselves as Texans BEFORE saying they are American. Even if it made a difference, who made you or others who are contorted by their usage the judge?
Last edited by preston on Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Over 20 years ago I had a Jewish friend tell me a story about buying Chinese food. It was in response to a joke which will follow. He said that while at college in his first year that he wanted to eat Chinese food. He had no idea which restaurant had the best Chinese food so he looked in the phone book and found the most Jewish surname he could and dialed. He told the Jewish surnamed people from the phonebook he was new in town and that he wanted to eat great Chinese food and they gave him the name to best place for Chinese food in the city. He said that Jews love Chinese food and they would know. I said, "everybody likes Chinese food". He argued, "not like Jews". I told him that made no sense and he got some of our other Jewish friends to "confirm" that he was right. He said, "it's a Jewish thing…you wouldn't understand" and laughed and I was comfortable with that. Sometimes we have to acknowledge that we’re just different. I didn't get whatever they shared and I was comfortable with that. Jokes, cultural anecdotes, what we call ourselves/each other … they all mean something to one group and nothing to the other (or are dangerous for another group [N-word, holocaust…]; not too different than removing a molecule from an atom and changing salt to poison) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, in my opinion, our differences make ALL of us more interesting.
Chinese comedian in NYC: Do you know how old the Jewish Calendar is? NYC audience: 2000 years old! Chinese comedian in NYC: Correct, you knew that one. Do you know who the oldest calendar in the world belongs to? NYC audience: The Chinese! Chinese comedian: Good, you know that, too! But there's always something that has always bothered me: how did Jews last 2000 years without Chinese food! NYC audience: erupts in hysterical laughter
My friend was rolling on the floor laughing and I was looking like Rainman trying to figure out Who's on First?. He explained it…or tried to, but aside from the timing and the punchline, I didn't get it.
One last thing: from where I sit, Mr. Treacher deserved to be banned even though Tuariki doesn't find "AT" offensive. On the other hand Tuariki does find talk about the right to carry assault rifles offensive and he's down right righteous about it. About as righteous as he is about prostitution...GOD bless him!
Thank you, preston, for the most eloquent expression of "please stop me before I post again" imaginable. And in your first effort back from a vacation. Fortunately, we have heard your pleas, and granted them. You shan't be posting again.
