Not A Post Racism Society: Boys and Apologies
Posted by
Kevin
Geoff Davis, Republican from Kentucky, callled Obama a boy:
“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”
Then, when the furor erupted, he “apologized”:
My poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity. I offer my sincere apology to you and ask for your forgiveness.
Though we may disagree on many issues, I know that we share the goal of a prosperous, secure future for our nation. My comment has detracted from the dialogue that we should all be having on legitimate policy differences and in no way reflects the personal and professional respect I have for you.
Notice what is missing? An apology for calling Obama “boy”. Boy, in that context, is a racist remark, period. Boy is what people in the South say when they want to say n*gger but don’t want to get called on it. It is as racist as it is possible to be, and yet Davis did not apologize for it. Lee Atwater would have been proud: not only did Davis blow the dog whistle but he then refused to mute it by apologizing for it.
This is going to be an ugly campaign. The GOP clearly intends to yell “n*gger, n*gger” or “b*tch, b*tch” for the entire campaign in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the complete mess they have made of the country. If they did not, McCain wouldn’t have chuckled when the a questioner called Clinton a b*tch. If they did not, McCain would have fired the staffer that spread the email rumors about Obama instead of just suspending him/her. If they did not, Davis would have actually apologized for his use of racist terminology. But none of that happened.
Expect it tog et worse, folks. This kind of base “us and them” destructiveness is all they have left and they obviously feel no shame in using it.
“Notice what is missing? An apology for calling Obama “boy”. Boy, in that context, is a racist remark, period.”
Grow up, boy. In no way did the context of his statement have any racial meaning. It was a statement about the immaturity and lack of experience of Obama. Get that stupid chip off your shoulder! It is people like you who keep racial strife stirred.
Comment 4/15/2008
I agree with Morris. And when I say Morris is an ignorant redneck asshole, I only mean to say he lacks maturity.
Comment 4/15/2008
Very mature, boy.
Comment 4/15/2008
See, this is a great example of the implicit association racial tendencies that I often speak of. Was Davis actually using “boy” as a codespeak substitution for “nigger?” Was this an issue of, states rights - wink, wink? Maybe, maybe not, I don’t know if I’m qualified to say.
But, even if it wasn’t, it was an example of that implicit, unintentional racism that has been ingrained in our thought and language usage patterns. These types of gaffes are reflective of the lingering histories of societies, even if they aren’t necessarily indicative of racist sensibilities by the speaker. So, in many respects, the “not a post racism society” point of the post still resonates even if you may not feel the statement proves Davis to be some sort of ardent racist.
Comment 4/15/2008
Oh, please. Are we really, I mean really, supposed to accept the preposterous, the absurd, the laughably ridiculous, claim that referring to Obama as “that boy” has no racial, no racist, implications?
Is was a “poor choice of words?” He, according to his press agent, “misspoke?” Precisely what words did he mean to use instead?
What, did he mean to say something like “I feel that this United States senator and colleague with who I share the goal of a prosperous, secure future for our nation, perhaps lacks sufficient experience to be Commander-in-Chief?” Exactly how do you “misspeak” “that boy” for that?
Is Davis a racist? I don’t know; I don’t know enough about him to have a full context. I do know he said a racist thing, that his so-called “apology” was a cheap evasion of the real import of his remark, and the attempts to defend him are so transparently asinine as to be an embarrassment to the concept of “defend.”
Comment 4/15/2008
Poor Obama. Can’t handle being called “boy.”
Let me tell you something in a lot of the South (like in Kentucky) “boy” is used to refer to blacks and Whites.
I don’t know if Geoff Davis intended it as a slur or as a racist remark. I hope so. We certainly have better names we can use for Obama - if he can take it without whining.
I got a little more news for you too. If racism does become a factor in this campaign it will be BECAUSE OF Obama. Not because Obama is black, but because Obama is a scammer that plays the race card.
Comment 4/15/2008
Wonderful logic, Lyn.
That’s like saying that because “fag” is also used as a general insult to describe a straight guy acting weak the term isn’t actually a slur against homosexuals.
Or, how about this one…
So, I roll up to 172 and Amsterdam to scoop some of that brown love (y’all know about the red building… or not), My man, the spot supervisor sends the runner up, who then comes back down and asks the spot supervisor who the package is for. The spot supervisor nods at me, and is like, “my nigga right there.”
Well, there you go, guy. I’m a white guy who was just referred to as “nigga.” So, you feel like arguing that that term has no racial implications?
I’m not sure what your the rest of your post means. If I’m reading it correctly, you hope Davis was trying to call Obama a nigger. You also think Obama complaining about it would be to act like a whiny bitch - but even if somebody called him a nigger, race would only be a factor if Obama brought it up, by “playing the race card.” If I read that correctly, that might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read - it would make Morris’s first post look Heraclitean by comparison!
Comment 4/15/2008
“it was an example of that implicit, unintentional racism that has been ingrained in our thought and language usage patterns.”
What a bunch of crybabies! The use of the word “boy” in the context it was used was not racial. If he had said, “Hey, boy. Why are you drinking at our water fountain?” or “Hey, boy, go to the back of the bus,” then you may have a point. You liberals are a bunch of strange people. Of course, it is in your political interest to try to twist everything into something racial. I doubt that you really believe Davis had racial intent.
Comment 4/15/2008
I’d need to hear how he speaks about other politicians he has challenged. Has he ever used the term “boy” for any white opponents? Or anyone else he has little respect for? If so, then it isn’t racist as much as some people hope it is.
Comment 4/15/2008
Big U, I think it would be more telling to know if Davis would use the word boy when referring to Obama while sitting at a bar in Barak’s old elitist neighborhood on the South side of Chicago.
Comment 4/16/2008
“Big U, I think it would be more telling to know if Davis would use the word boy when referring to Obama while sitting at a bar in Barak’s old elitist neighborhood on the South side of Chicago.”
There’s nothing like a liberal to promote the stereotype of blacks being a violent people. Be afraid of them. Be very afraid. Would Obama’s racist grandmother be afraid to go into his old neighborhood and call him boy?
Comment 4/16/2008
“Boy,” in the South is ostensibly a racial slur - even if it is directed at a white person. Even if you are using it to demean a white person, you are invoking the imagery and construct of master/slave relationships which were indeed racist. That’s the crux of my point, the word itself, when used to demean, has racial undertones regardless of the target.
Again, Morris, this is like me calling you a fag, and then saying my use of the word doesn’t reflect any sort of bigotry because you are presumably heterosexual.
I certainly think it’s possible that a person uses a racially charged remark without intent, without being racist individually, etc. And, that’s actually kinda my point. The legacies of racism remain in many subtle, implicit ways, even as we extol the virtues of the progress we’ve made in the bold, public, explicit senses.
Comment 4/16/2008
“you are presumably heterosexual.”
I’ll see what my life partner has to say about that.
Comment 4/16/2008
[…] And ZOMFG! someone called Barack Gwen Stefani Obama a boy! But, you say I call people boy sometimes and I don’t mean nothing racist by it. I looked at my wife last night and said ‘that boy ain’t right’ and he was a white dude trying to push a rope. Doesn’t matter because Boy, in that context, is a racist remark, period. We don’t have to give you a reason, it just is! Dammit. And this is great: The GOP clearly intends to yell n*gger, n*gger or b*tch, b*tch for the entire campaign in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the complete mess they have made of the country. […]
Pingback 4/17/2008
It’s like talking to a fucking wall!
“Boy” has racist undertones, at least in the South, is that really difficult to understand? The person who uses the term may or may not be racist him/herself, and using (or not using) the term in and of itself is not sufficient evidence for or against an accusation of racial prejudice. But, the word invokes racist imagery as it hearkens back to white master/black slave relationships.
It’s a poor choice of words, that’s all. It may be have been used an innocent colloquialism, that doesn’t mean the term itself doesn’t have racial undertones.
Sometimes, the word “rape” is used to refer to overcharging. “They’re trying to rape you for those beers at the ballpark…” I try not to use that term because I think it’s kinda fucked up even though in that sense it isn’t sexual. I’d rather not invoke such a disgusting image, and I’d rather not liken an expensive beer to forced sexual acts. I’m not saying anybody who uses the term is an asshole because of it, I’m just saying, I’d rather choose my words more carefully, with a greater consideration to the images those words conjure, and the idea of metalinguistics in mind - of course that’s only until I have my share of those overpriced beers, then all bets are off!
Comment 4/17/2008
“‘Boy’ has racist undertones, at least in the South, is that really difficult to understand?”
Yes, it is diffucult to understand why people try to pervert words into meaning something they don’t mean. It reminds me of teacher who was in trouble because he or she used the word “niggardly.” Even though it was used properly, some ignorant people got upset at the racial tone of the word. You people need to grow up and get the chip off your shoulders. Quit perverting the language for your narrow political purposes. Quit raping the language.
Comment 4/17/2008
When I watched Dukes of Hazzard, the theme song had the line “just the good old boys” in it and I never heard any comments from any activist groups about it being a racist slur of any kind but there were several compaints about the flag on the General Lee so the things people found offensive were definitely not ignored.
I’ve also heard comments about the “old boys network” and “good ole southern boys”. From what I’ve seen, the term has been used pretty generally. That’s why I said I would like to know what other context the guy has used the word in and who he has directed it to. Without true context, the accusation of racism comes across as a politically correct witch-hunt based on a desire to paint someone in a specific light.
If this is the only time he has used the term, then it is reasonable to say it is a racist slur. If, however, he has used it at other times and has been referring to non-black individuals, then the idea that it was a racial slur is specious at best and completely dishonest at worst.
Comment 4/17/2008
Everyone who thinks that a white person calling another white person ol’ boy or good ol boy is the same thing as a white man calling a black man “that boy” is either lying or completely unaware of the history of racism in this country and the way it currently manifest itself.
For some of our commentators, there is apparently no level to whihc they will not stoop to defend racists if they happen to be white and happen to be Republicans. Thank you, Morris, for proving once and for all just how disgusting you really are.
Comment 4/17/2008
“Without true context, the accusation of racism comes across as a politically correct witch-hunt based on a desire to paint someone in a specific light.”
True
“…then the idea that it was a racial slur is specious at best and completely dishonest at worst.”
I suspect the latter.
Comment 4/17/2008
“Thank you, Morris, for proving once and for all just how disgusting you really are.”
Thank you, Kevin, for proving once and for all just how ignorant and biased you really are. Why do you feel it profitable to constantly stir up racial strife?
Comment 4/17/2008
Morons. I’ve got morons on my team.
There is significant history of whites, especially southern whites, using the word “boy” in a derogatory manner when addressing black men. That is an indisputable fact. Not “good old boy”, not “old boys network”, not “my wife gave birth to our third boy last night”, but “boy”, when referring to a man.
Put another way, grown black men do not like to be referred to as “boy” by white people. Doubt it? Try it yourself and you will see.
If you disagree, please explain the apology.
Comment 4/17/2008
There is significant history of whites, especially southern whites, using the word “boy” in a derogatory manner when addressing black men. That is an indisputable fact. Not “good old boy”, not “old boys network”, not “my wife gave birth to our third boy last night”, but “boy”, when referring to a man.”
Who has denied that? Not I. However, it is not right to saddle every use of “That boy” with a racist meaning. That is dishonest. There is a significant history of black racial pimps, such as Jesse Jackson, trying to attach racial meaning to things that have nothing to do with race. Of course, it keeps people stirred up and the money coming in.
Comment 4/17/2008
So we agree that Davis used an expression in a context where there is significant, indisputable history of derogatory intent. Couple that with the fact that an apology was issued after he said it.
Now, let’s look at your first comment: “In no way did the context of his statement have any racial meaning.” Obviously a mangled sentence; I don’t thing you are really trying to ascribe meaning to context. But that aside, given the history of the term (which you have agreed exists) how can you categorically state there was no racial intent? At a minimum, it was a very poor choice of words. To me, it absolutely shows a lack of racial sensitivity. And there is some possibility that there was true racial intent. Very few people are in a position to determine that. You are not one of them.
Comment 4/17/2008
“Boy” can get used for a lot of reasons that would all fit the statement made by Davis, and only one is racist. Granted, the others are all still condescending to one degree or another. But they aren’t racist. Having also grown up in the south, I’ve seen people called “boy” because of age (under 18), relative age (i.e. young enough to be my son), or displaying the common sense of a child (i.e. that boy ain’t right).
Davis obviously doesn’t think much of Obama, something with which I agree. But to state that it’s unequivocally racist is a pretty bigoted statement itself.
Comment 4/17/2008
“So we agree that Davis used an expression in a context where there is significant, indisputable history of derogatory intent. Couple that with the fact that an apology was issued after he said it.”
No, that’s not what I said. Quit making up things. It was not racial in context. The reason he apologized is because he’s a typical politician who is scared of the so-called “civil rights” establishment. Truth has nothing to do with what someone says if the leftist loons want to pervert its meaning into something racial.
Comment 4/17/2008
Morris, by context, I mean a white southern man referring to a black man. That’s all.
You absolutely can not determine if there was racial intent behind the statement. You have agreed that, historically, there has been racial intent when a white man referred to a black man in that manner. That’s all we know for sure.
Well, that and the fact that in virtually every comment, you attack an individual by first reducing them to a member of a group and then maligning that group. That is classic bigoted behavior.
In this case it is more than comical, because in several other threads concerning potentially racial statements (which you have been involved in), I have taken the opposing view. But a bigot only sees what he wants to see.
Comment 4/17/2008
I can certainly understand the debate about whether the comment is evidence of Davis being racist. I can understand if those who don’t think it makes him racist think that those who feel it does are being overzealous in their accusations. What I don’t understand is denying that there are a couple of nuanced interpretations of the use of the word “boy” and that one of them certainly draws on some racist history.
Morris,
I thought the niggardly incident was in a company memo, not in a school. In either case - go fuck yourself - is that straightforward enough for you?
Big U,
C’mon, dude. “Good ole” is not some compound adjective modifying “boy.” “Good ole boy” is an established term of its own, separate from, “boy” as we are discussing it here. I agree with you about this not being particularly sound evidence of anything in and of itself, but to compare “boy” to “good ole boy,” you might as well be comparing “coon” to “coon skin cap.”
Are certain uses of the word boy racist? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Is this Davis fella racist? Inconclusive.
Comment 4/17/2008
After looking up more info on the net and finding out the senator is virtually the same age as Obama, I would agree that the use he made of it was racist. I wouldn’t agree that he is racist based on the one comment but the comment itself is definitely racist.
I guess I try to look at the individual rather than the group when assessing such things. Sometimes it is good to be on the outside looking in.
While this may be the wrong spot to ask this, when I went to the link referenced in the first post, I noticed a large number of comments referring to African Americans. Why is this term used so much rather than just Americans? Is it common in the US to attach ancestry (i.e. Irish American, Italian American, etc.) or is it just that African American has become the defacto politically correct term for black people in the states? Not trying to be ignorant or anything, just wondering.
Comment 4/17/2008
Big U:
It was, err, big of you to admit the misunderstanding. But WRT to the Dukes of Hazzard, aside from what Ted and digg already pointed out, the term “boy” would have been a pretty small fish in the grand DoH scheme of things, what with the giant Confederate flag on top of the “General Lee,” etc.
As to why the use of the term “African Americans,” it’s complicated. Thanks to our sordid racist history, pretty much every term we can use to say “black people” has been attached to deeply-ingrained racial prejudices, stereotypes, etc. Hence, while “negro” is technically correct, you sure as hell wouldn’t use the term in polite conversation any more — so many of these terms (even “black,” really) have been poisoned. So Af-Am is what’s left. Hardly anybody I know really likes the term — it’s unwieldy, and not even particularly descriptive — but it’s the one that we’ve got that doesn’t have all the racist baggage to go with it.
Comment 4/17/2008
And yes, it’s fairly common in the US to attach ancestry as you note; it comes from having a large (and fiercely proud) immigrant population. To this day, cities like Milwaukee and Chicago still have vibrant Polish, Italian, Greek, and German neighborhoods, for example. In Milwaukee, the entire summer calendar is filled with huge ethnic festivals. It’s why I think the “salad bowl” metaphor works a lot better than the old “melting pot” metaphor that we grew up with here in the States.
Comment 4/17/2008
Bigu
I think what makes him racist is the the apology. he doesn;t apoligze for using a racially loaded term, even though he was criticized in just those terms. He is delibertly playing dog whistle politics, and in my book that make shims racist.
And, yes, there is a tendency in this country to identify groups by their ancenstory. Unless that group is the WASP group. This country has a very long history of bigotry toward outside groups, and not just African Americans. The downside of being a country built on immigration is that the friction between new comers and established groups can and almost always does lead to considerable friction.
Comment 4/17/2008
Big U, you are from Canadia yes? (Sorry, it’s an office joke to use Canadia.) Then you are probably pretty familiar with the concept of French Canadians? Now imagine those people came from Africa and not France. Not all that complex really.
Comment 4/17/2008
Hmm. WASP. I’m thinking the AS defines their ancestry. Just sayin..
Comment 4/17/2008
Ted > Actually in Canada it is more of a reference to the initial language spoken. There is French Canadian and English Canadian when taken in that context.
As another note, when completing the census forms in Canada, it is illegal (with jail time) if a person just puts down Canadian as their ancestry. Doesn’t matter how long we’ve been here.
It seems to me that at some point, a person should just be a Canadian or an American. The use of the hyphens just increases intolerance and reaffirms old prejudices. I’m just kind of surprised that more African Americans aren’t just standing up and saying “I’m American”. I was born in America, my dad was born in America and my granddad was born in America. How freaking long does my family need to be in the country to be considered part of it? And yet I see a strong movement to reclaim African roots which to me would seem to just increase the divisiveness.
But, that is my perspective coming from someone who doesn’t pay attention to skin color. Too much of a waste of time. I will never understand the extreme racist attitudes that did/still do exist in some places.
I realize for a lot of you guys these are likely dumb questions, but coming from a background where race hasn’t mattered I am always amazed at both sides in the argument.
Comment 4/17/2008
As an aside, isn’t WASP a racial slur? It seems any time I have heard the phrase in the past several years it has been used as an insult.
Comment 4/17/2008
Kevin:
Shims are racist? How are we supposed to make sure things are level and plumb? I suppose level-ness and plumb-ness are just manifestations of the White Imperialistic pressure toward conformity…
Comment 4/17/2008
“You have agreed that, historically, there has been racial intent when a white man referred to a black man in that manner. That’s all we know for sure.
Well, that and the fact that in virtually every comment, “you attack an individual by first reducing them to a member of a group and then maligning that group. That is classic bigoted behavior.”
I agree it is bigoted behavior to attribute intent to someone because of his race. That is exactly what you have done in this case. According to your own standards, that shows that you are a bigot.
“But a bigot only sees what he wants to see.”
So you do see yourself as a bigot? Good for you. That’s the first step in recovery.
Comment 4/17/2008
“I thought the niggardly incident was in a company memo, not in a school.”
If you know how to google, look it up. It happened at a school in Wilmington.
Comment 4/17/2008
“the comment itself is definitely racist.”
Nonsense
Comment 4/17/2008
“Hmm. WASP. I’m thinking the AS defines their ancestry. Just sayin..”
Another example of your bigotry.
Comment 4/17/2008
Huh. And here I thought Obama was male… I guess he will make the history books by being both the first black President and the first female President. Impressive.
To coin a phrase, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”
Comment 4/17/2008
Morris, your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. WASP stands for White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Anglo-Saxon is ancestry. What the fuck is bigoted about pointing that out?
Big U, WASP is not a racial slur.
As for blacks being divisive by rediscovering their roots, that is total crap. Are Irish or Italians or Asians or Greeks or anyone else divisive because they celebrate their heritage? Interesting how, as someone who does not pay attention to skin color, you seem to have numerous opinions about people with dark skin.
As for French Canadians, to say it’s just about language is very naive.
Comment 4/17/2008
“WASP stands for White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Anglo-Saxon is ancestry. What the @#%& is bigoted about pointing that out?”
So now you agree that someone taking offense at a word or phrase is purely subjective. As Big U said, there are some people who are offended by being called WASP, especially in the bigoted way you used it. I’m not offended at the word since I am not a WASP. You seem to be very arbitrary and selective in your outrage.
BTW, I knew what WASP stood for before you were ever born. Quit sticking up that snooty bigoted elitist nose of yours, Boy.
Comment 4/17/2008
Morris, you can now pretend you understood, but it is obvious you did not. I pointed out that the “AS” part of WASP denoted acestry, and you said that was a bigoted statement. You are an idiot, and it is right there for everyone to see.
Also, the fact that some people are offended by being called WASP does not make it a racial slur. Some people are offended by being called asshole. Asshole is not a racial slur. See the difference? My statement on the subject was “WASP is not a racial slur.” Nothing more, nothing less. Again, right there for all to see.
Comment 4/17/2008
“My statement on the subject was “WASP is not a racial slur.””
That settles it. If you say it, that’s the end of the discussion. Move on.
Comment 4/17/2008
Well, it’s not a racial slur. Christ, it was coined by white people to describe other white people.
But the point of my last comment was to point out that when you said “So now you agree that someone taking offense at a word or phrase is purely subjective. As Big U said, there are some people who are offended by being called WASP, especially in the bigoted way you used it. I’m not offended at the word since I am not a WASP. You seem to be very arbitrary and selective in your outrage.” you were showing an amazing lack of reading comprehension because:
1) I said nothing about the offensiveness of the term, only that it is not a racial slur, and
2) I did not use the term in a bigoted way. I pointed out what AS represents, in direct response to Kevin’s comment that “there is a tendency in this country to identify groups by their ancenstory. Unless that group is the WASP group.” That being WASP does identify ancestry. And to you that represents bigotry. Which points out how stupid you can be.
Comment 4/17/2008
Ted
Do a quick search on the internet and you will find you are in the minority with your opinion regarding WASP.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DE143CF935A2575AC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=
And as far as French-Canadian goes, you are clueless and it surprises me that you would even argue with me about it.
Comment 4/17/2008
Let me clarify. I’ve lived my entire life dealing with the French-English debate in Canada and I think I have a bit more credibility than you do regarding what is meant by French-Canadian.
Comment 4/17/2008
Big U, after searching around, I’ll agree with you that WASP is considered by some to be a racial slur. I was not aware of that. It is a term I have heard for 50 years and have never heard used in that manner. (I’m 99.99% sure Kevin was not using it as a slur above.) Live and learn.
As for denying that there are a group of people in Canada who consider themselves French Canadian because of their French ancestry, well, I don’t know how to refute you. There are so many references to them on the web, I’ve known them all my life, my sister married one, I don’t know what else to say. Was New France a language school?
Comment 4/17/2008
Ted and Big U:
I think you’re talking past each other on the French Canadian thing. Of course it’s both an ancestry and a language. But I have to lean toward Big U’s side on this one, insofar as most of the dispute in Canada concerns the language disparity rather than the ancestry. The French speakers don’t care one bit about the ancestry of those speaking English, and vice versa. It’s all about the language, and in particular, that Bass Ackward language laws that exist in Canada because of it.
It’s interesting to me because I look at the dispute with much the same perspective that Big U has on our racial disputes in the states, i.e., what the hell is the big deal? From the outside looking in, it all looks pretty silly. (Of course, as Spanish becomes more and more common in the US, you have people advocating for the same kinds of goofball language laws that exist in Canada, so there you go…)
Comment 4/17/2008
“Let me clarify. I’ve lived my entire life dealing with the French-English debate in Canada and I think I have a bit more credibility than you do regarding what is meant by French-Canadian.”
Not so. No one knows more about everything than Ted does.
Comment 4/17/2008
Morris, I will only claim to know more about everything than you.
Comment 4/17/2008
“Morris, I will only claim to know more about everything than you.”
It’s no surprise that you are delusional.
Comment 4/17/2008
Ted and Big U
I have never hear WASP used as a racial slur before, but I will take your words for it. I apologize for using it, then, and wont in the future.
Comment 4/18/2008
“I have never hear WASP used as a racial slur before…”
Neither have I. However, since it is not a racial slur, I will use it in the future.
You libs have really screwed up the language with your politically correct nonsense.
Comment 4/18/2008
The niggardly thing happened multiple places, Morris.
It also happened in Washington, D.C. when an official to the Mayor of D.C. (don’t remember who specifically was Mayor at the time) resigned amid controversy ensuing from his use of the word “niggardly” in the office, I believe.
It’s in that book, “Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word” by Randall Kenneddy.
Comment 4/18/2008
WASP can be used in a derogatory sense. Shit, that’s how I use it… Well, not derogatory per se, but not to describe any old White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, but specifically to refer to a specific group of them. When I think WASP, I think of silver spoons, crony-ism, a spoiled cokehead teenagers who think they are above the law.
I think that term does have a negative connotation. I guess it’s not racist, per se, because the negative characteristics it invokes aren’t explicitly related to the race/religion of the term, but more toward elitists and social class. Either way, it’s not flattering - and I wouldn’t classify it was neutral either.
While an ardent racist could look at the most wealthy and successful black man out there and simply dismiss him as a nigger, nobody is going to look at some broke ass white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and mutter, “get a job, WASP.” So, it’s not really the racial component driving the meaning of the term, it’s a status thing.
Also, the fact that white people invented it to describe other white people wouldn’t preclude is from being racist, or prejudice in any other way either.
Comment 4/18/2008
Digglahhh > the fact it is only used on white people would tend to mean it has racist overtones, would it not? What do you think would happen if people referred to black individuals with the traits you listed as BAP’s (Black African Pentecostals)???
Comment 4/18/2008
“It also happened in Washington, D.C. when an official to the Mayor of D.C. (don’t remember who specifically was Mayor at the time) resigned amid controversy ensuing from his use of the word “niggardly” in the office, I believe.”
I think that’s the first occasion that I remembered, but I wasn’t sure about the specifics.
Comment 4/18/2008
“When I think WASP, I think of silver spoons, crony-ism, a spoiled cokehead teenagers who think they are above the law.”
That’s not what it means at all.
Comment 4/18/2008
It is extrodinary to me that the fact that a term is only applicable to one “race” would imply that it has racist overtones. That would mean that any term used to identify ethnicity has racist overtones.
Comment 4/18/2008
“It is extrodinary to me that the fact that a term is only applicable to one “race” would imply that it has racist overtones.”
So n*gg*r doesn’t have racial overtones since it applies to one race? LOL And you call me dumb. What a dope you are?
Comment 4/18/2008
Morris,
That’s how I interpret it. A buncha rich white men with the world handed to them on a platter who think their shit don’t stink. Those are WASPs. If you’re just a regular dude working a 9-5 scraping by, paying your bills, and sneaking booze into sporting events, then I wouldn’t call you a “WASP” - even if you may be white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. This is a discussion about the difference between definition and connotation.
What would happen if blacks starting coining, BAPs - I dunno, probably nothing. I think that acronym is taken though, by Balkan American Princess, you’ll have to check with the patent office.
My point is that it isn’t the “whiteness” singularly, and per se, that invokes the negative connotation when I hear “WASP.” It’s a sense of elitism, not all whites are WASPS - shit, not all White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are WASPs. Race is just (one) prerequisite for membership, but it is not qualification in and of itself. So, I don’t see it as a direct racial relationship. To a “WASP,” I think you gotta be white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (and rich, probably an asshole. and it also helps to be a man).
It’s an exercise in archetypes, not definitions - as is almost all discussions involving subtle racial implications and language. That’s why the right never gets it - to understand what we’re talking about, you had to take “ology” courses in college!
Comment 4/18/2008
^
Sorry, after the first ‘graph, I’m addressing Big U
Comment 4/18/2008
“That’s how I interpret it”
It’s not uncommon for liberals to make up their own definitions for words. At least you are honest in admitting it.
Comment 4/18/2008
Digg and Ted > Can a person be a WASP without being white? If not, then it is a race-based term. You could take someone who is not white and have them fulfil all the other parts of what you say it takes to be a WASP but you would never call them a WASP because they are not white. Thus, WASP has, at its core, a racist term.
Now, if the term WASP is used by a white person, then it would be no more racist than a black using the word nigger although it could still be a slur, especially if used in the way Digglahhh does. But both words still have race as a core part of their origin (although in my mind nigger is far far more ignorant and derogatory).
Comment 4/18/2008
Morris, your reading comprehension continues to foul you up. You should just give up.
Big U, the W in WASP stands for white. But, consider this. Can a person be “white” without being white? No. So, by your standard, the term “white” has racist overtones since it has “race as a core part of its origin”. That is my point. Your test for racism is too broad to be meaningful.
Comment 4/18/2008
“Morris, your reading comprehension continues to foul you up. You should just give up.”
It is fun to see your twisted mind come up with such twisted thoughts as “It is extrodinary to me that the fact that a term is only applicable to one “race” would imply that it has racist overtones.”
You’re the one who said such a nonsensical thing, not me. How can a racist term not apply to a race? You are one strange person.
Comment 4/18/2008
Why do you keep calling me a part groups with which I do not identify, and aligning me with causes I do not support?
I don’t consider myself a “liberal.”
I think the P.C. movement is complete garbage - though not for the reasons that you resent it.
I’ve never claimed to be immune to all forms of prejudice. (I think we all have a level of ingrained prejudice as a product of our socialization.)
Further, I don’t know what it does to absolve you of anything to simply throw counter-accusations.
Comment 4/18/2008
Morris, you really, really need to brush up on your logic. My point was in response to Big U, who stated that “the fact it is only used on white people would tend to mean it has racist overtones, would it not?”
My response, was “It is extrodinary to me that the fact that a term is only applicable to one “race” would imply that it has racist overtones. That would mean that any term used to identify ethnicity has racist overtones.”
Read that a couple of times and you might be able to grasp the concept. A term (such as “white”) being applicable to only one race does not imply that it has racist overtones. In other words, the criterion of being race-specific might be necessary (although that can be debated), but it is clearly insufficient, to prove racist intent.
Comment 4/18/2008
“Further, I don’t know what it does to absolve you of anything to simply throw counter-accusations.”
I don’t need absolution for anything I’ve said.
Comment 4/18/2008
I don’t need absolution for anything I’ve said.
Well, except maybe on Judgment Day, when you stand before the Lord and he tells you, “you know, when I said ‘Love thy neighbor,’ I meant that you should not go around acting like an arrogant, irritating prick to everyone…”
Comment 4/19/2008
Morris:
Digg isn’t a liberal. He’s an anarchist.
*ducks*
Comment 4/19/2008
“Well, except maybe on Judgment Day, when you stand before the Lord and he tells you, “you know, when I said ‘Love thy neighbor,’ I meant that you should not go around acting like an arrogant, irritating prick to everyone…”
You flatter me. Thanks for telling me that I irritate liberals. I do my best. I will take my judgment from God, not you. I feel comfortable in my record of loving my neighbor. You are the one who needs to worry.
Comment 4/19/2008
Actually Morris, if you actually believe the Bible as you say you do, then you are definitely highly hypocritical. I would put you on the same level as the Pharisees. I won’t judge because I have no interest in passing sentence but from what I have observed, a good chunk of your responses are incredibly rude and arrogant. There are better ways to get the same point across if you were actually interested in making a difference.
Comment 4/19/2008
“I won’t judge”
Too late.
Comment 4/19/2008
Nice try Morris. Judging is deciding innocence or guilt and making a decision on the penalty for the transgressions.
Stating what is taking place is simply that…stating what is taking place. I have no idea what the consequences for your actions will be and I am not in a position to pass judgement on why you do what you do. However, intelligence (which is something Christ had in abundance and more Christians should exercise) provides me with the ability to recognize actions and attitudes that are inappropriate. All I am doing is stating how things look and that is a far cry from judging you as a person.
Comment 4/19/2008
“However, intelligence (which is something Christ had in abundance and more Christians should exercise)”
Of course, you are not judging; you are just recognizing actions and attitudes. (;
Your posts (as are all of our posts) are full of judgments about the rightness or wrongness of the other posters. I recognize the actions and attitudes of liberals and find the both repulsive and amusing. Don’t give me this crap about you not being judgmental.
Comment 4/19/2008
Big U, you don’t get it. It’s not Morris, it’s literally everyone else.
Comment 4/19/2008
“Big U, you don’t get it. It’s not Morris, it’s literally everyone else.”
That’s one of the few true things you’ve said.
Comment 4/19/2008
Morris, your comments are inflammatory and stupid. You may be very intelligent so I will not judge you but I will deal with your comments. I would hope you would be intelligent enough to know the difference.
Comment 4/19/2008
TG,
I wouldn’t say I’m an anarchist. I think we spend too much time categorizing things anyway. If you were just joking, that’s cool. If you weren’t, and that’s really how you see me, that’s cool too. I just throw my thoughts out and hope you read them. Once you do, I don’t really care what you label the drawer you file them.
Also, I didn’t know there was a judgment day for spambots….
Comment 4/21/2008