Racism Against Yourself

[AK]

Do you believe negative racial phrases such as "nigga" (note the spelling) is acceptable in society even when spoken by a black person? (Say, in a rap/hip-hop song.)

[9]

Do you believe negative racial phrases such as "nigga" (note the spelling) is acceptable in society even when spoken by a black person? (Say, in a rap/hip-hop song.)

I think you will probably want to clarify your question, as it is presently extremely unclear what you are asking. Presumably you are aware of the phenomenon of "reclaiming" racial slurs? Basically when victims of oppression "reclaim" one or more of the slurs traditionally used against them and assign some positive connotation to the word. However, I notice that you've said "negative racial phrases", so it is far from clear whether you are referring to victims of social oppression "reclaiming" slurs to use positively or not.
Regardless, the acceptability (or lack thereof) of any slur depends on who is using it. Though for the most part, it is entirely unacceptable unless the person using it is from the group traditionally victimized by it. I think that's generally a good rule of thumb to follow.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Yeah im with Apikoros, the beauty of language is its hybridity and flexibility. Reclaiming words is a great weapon. Sometimes however there is a a barrier in that if you're not part of an opporessed group, you may feel certain words cannot be in your vocabulary, but they exist in other peoples.

In which case touch luck. It's just good manners to not say certain words which can be constructed as offensive. If the oppressed group wishes to use that word however, I defer to that group to decide the acceptability of it's usage.

[F9]

I dont think i, as a middle class white teen(as all in the same "category"), are in place of telling to the oppressed groups, whats acceptable and whats not.

[Thirsty Crow]

..Reclaiming words is a great weapon...If the oppressed group wishes to use that word however, I defer to that group to decide the acceptability of it's usage.
That's it.
The phenomenon can be subsumed under the term "integration" or "co-optation". Linguistic, that is. It can function as a good tactical tool, erasing the extremely negative connotations and "filling" the word with a sense of collectivity and union against the oppressor.
However, that does not alter the history of the word itself, as is evident in Afro-American's anger at the usage of the word by a white person, for instance. The history (and potential future) IS there, it becomes evident and even more the attitude of the speaker becomes evident when using the word.
I can't see why we should not tolerate such a practice.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Do you believe negative racial phrases such as "nigga" (note the spelling) is acceptable in society even when spoken by a black person? (Say, in a rap/hip-hop song.)

Yes. Its about context someone could be using racial slurs while joking around with friends or they could be screaming them at people with the intention of intimidating them.

[FreeFocus]

It all depends on context. It's usually not appropriate for someone who is not a member of the given group to use the term, and it's often not really appropriate for those belonging to the group to use it.

[Dr Mindbender]

I dont think it should be used by anyone, because it helps institutionalise its legitimacy.

[xtremerebel]

Well, in my opinion they can call themselves whatever they want, but have to level the playing field. Nowadays, white people are the subject of racial attacks in movies and some tv shows. It's completely politically correct for a black guy to call a white guy a cracker, but the white guy can not call the black guy the "N" word back.

I'm Italian, and I don't go around calling myself a wop, because then other people would think it's ok, and me and other Italians would be called wops all the time, and then it becomes a joke and a derogatory term, just like the "N" word. People wouldn't know when it is ok and not ok to say it.

I also think these minorities should learn to accept the consequences of how they portray themselves in the media. People are impressionable, and if they see black guys (an example for all the minorities in this case) calling themselves the "N" word in rap videos, then they'll think it's OK to call a black guy that word when you get out of the car to confront him about bumping into you back at the lights.

As we all know, that can have serious repercussions. So yeah, racism against oneself is not always necessarily a good thing, because it can lead to confusion and an unleveled playing field within society.

[Mike Rotchtickles]

I just love the Boondocks episode that tackles this issue. As a black person living outside of america I tend to also use the word a lot as a result of influence from listening to hip hop and watching a lot of african american film. Should blacks stop using the term? I believe they should, this recliamation is BS coz it has done nothing good for black people in general. I think it is a very ignorant word which i am also trying to get out of my vocabulary. In my country its not that much of an issue because only a small minority of hip hop slang loving youths use and it does not that much of a historical context. Noone ever uses it as slur to dis someone or something, its just like calling someone a homie or pal.
still i think black people need to stop using it. let the word die

[Jimmie Higgins]

Reclaiming words is idealism to me. Words don't cause oppression, they are a reflection of it so as a strategy for combating oppression I think it's useless at best, a sign of pessimism or retreat on the part of oppressed groups at worst. It's almost like saying: well we can't defeat sexism or homophobia or racism, so let's try and soften the blow by "reclaiming" these terms.

I think if we look at liberation movements we see that in the 60s, the black power movement wanted to replace "negro" and "colored" and "nigger" with Black and in the 70s, the women's liberation movement demanded that women not be called "girl" or other terms that expressed inferiority.

In the 90s people wanted to "reclaim" words like "nigger" (as "nigga") and "*****". It's connected to the identity politics of the time and has done little to stop resurgent racism or sexism. It's true as others have said, language is fluid, but bigots currently still use "*****" "nigger" and "queer" as derogatory terms, so "reclaiming" them has done little to change their use.

While I do not find terms like "queer" "*****" or "nigga" to be empowering or really any blow to oppression, it's not really worth a fight (if used in this "reclaimed" way) and I think that we need to accept that "reclaimed" words are common among allies for the time being.

I think when we see a return to more militant struggles against oppression and more solidarity among workers of all kinds, then I think "reclaimed" words will fall out of fashion.

[GayEpilepticFightingRobot]

Words only hurt if you let them.

[Sasha]

while i understand peoples reservations about reclaiming the word nigger (it stills has an negative conotation also when an black person uses it) but there is no denying that for example the word queer has almost completly be reclaimed and now caries an mostly neutral to positive sound.

[9]

@Gravedigger: for what it's worth, I don't think anyone who reclaims a particular slur is under the illusion that it's going to end oppression. That would perhaps be well beyond 'idealist' and into the realm of delusional. The loftiest goal I've ever heard anyone profess is that, if used in whatever the 'reclaimed' context is with enough frequency (and sufficient popularity), it strips the slur (when used by a bigot as a slur) of its more intimately offensive nature. I don't really see what is idealist about this, it seems pretty logical to me. The meaning of slurs are largely (and often entirely) the result of the context in which they are used. The context is what gives them their meaning and it plays a considerable role in dictating their power to offend. I've every expectation that if someone were to take a handful of abusive men and tell them to start calling their wives "jubbeltutts" (a word I just made up) over the course of a year as they're administering abuse, that at the end of the year, their wives are going to be far more upset by a stranger calling them a "jubbeltutt" than they would be by most other insults.
I can see why members of oppressed groups would be compelled to want to neutralize the ability of a particularly powerful slur to offend.
But I don't think that seeing the potential value (limited as it is) in the idea of reclaiming words is the same as asserting it to be some sort of a crushing blow against oppression; it's obviously nothing of the sort.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

a black American using "nigga" in a rap and in other contexts isn't "racism against himself"

also, racism attacks "races", not only individuals
so "racism against yourself" is not acceptable, obviously

[manic expression]

Blacks choosing to use n*gger isn't racism. Anyway there are far more important things to worry about, like mixed kids who essentially despise or deny half their identity, or how some Latinos think lighter skin is automatically more beautiful than tanner skin. Those are real problems that need to be confronted, not the superficial stuff.

[Jimmie Higgins]

[QUOTE=Apikoros;1600075]@Gravedigger: for what it's worth, I don't think anyone who reclaims a particular slur is under the illusion that it's going to end oppression. That would perhaps be well beyond 'idealist' and into the realm of delusional. The loftiest goal I've ever heard anyone profess is that, if used in whatever the 'reclaimed' context is with enough frequency (and sufficient popularity), it strips the slur (when used by a bigot as a slur) of its more intimately offensive nature. I don't really see what is idealist about this, it seems pretty logical to me."
Good point regarding the goal of "reclaiming". But, still, I think the problem is that is doesn't strip the slur of its offensive nature. Things like "*****" magazine have done nothing to lessen the sexist use of the word "*****" and use of "nigga" has actually made many white people (mostly high school students) feel that it's an ok term to use.

It's a sign of pessimism among people and the weakness of the fight against racism and sexism right now. The logic is: well I'm going to be called ***** or queer anyway, so I might as well adapt it to my own use.

Again, I know this is an argument I am not going to win with allies - I just don't see "queer" or "*****" as empowering words; it's not worth breaking up a coalition over making some kind of line in the sand over.

[Pawn Power]

One can't be racist against oneself.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

one can't be racist against any one person
whether that person is him/herself or someone else
racism is an attack upon a "race", not just against an individual
"race", while loosely defined, always includes more than one person :lol:

a person can certainly be racist against his/her own "race"
happens all the time

[RHIZOMES]

http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/nigger.png

[RHIZOMES]

Well, in my opinion they can call themselves whatever they want, but have to level the playing field. Nowadays, white people are the subject of racial attacks in movies and some tv shows. It's completely politically correct for a black guy to call a white guy a cracker, but the white guy can not call the black guy the "N" word back.

Because the word "cracker" isn't a racist term against all whites, it's a term directed towards racist whites. Oh boo hoo how poor you white people have it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege). Reverse racism is one of the most fucking stupid concepts to have surfaced in the past 30 or so years.


I also think these minorities should learn to accept the consequences of how they portray themselves in the media. People are impressionable, and if they see black guys (an example for all the minorities in this case) calling themselves the "N" word in rap videos, then they'll think it's OK to call a black guy that word when you get out of the car to confront him about bumping into you back at the lights.

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1866048,00.html


Coincidentally, I was watching the concert movie Dave Chappelle's Block Party the other night, in which he puts on a bunch of these alternative hip-hop artists that you talk about in your book — Common, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Kanye West. Other than Kanye, why don't these artists sell as well as the Jay-Zs or the 50 Cents?
There's a long history of a particular pleasure in consuming the ideas of black-ghetto-excess dysfunction. It used to not be ghettoized in setting because black people weren't always urban people, but the same images can be found in American history for centuries. So this idea that a certain kind of sexual deviance or violent behavior defines black culture has had a huge market in commercial mainstream culture for at least 200 years. Also, sexist images, which hip-hop has a lot of, seem to do very well across the cultural spectrum. So sexuality and sexual domination sell. Racial stereotypes sell. The market is more consolidated, which makes it easier for those images to perpetuate themselves.


Read a fucking book for chrissakes, you latent racist fuck.

[GayEpilepticFightingRobot]

I'd think the same reason to use "Nigger" would be the same as 2 black folks calling each other "Niggers".


I assume they aren't being racist to eachother?

[9]

^Could you rephrase that maybe? I can't really figure out what you are suggesting.

[GayEpilepticFightingRobot]

^Could you rephrase that maybe? I can't really figure out what you are suggesting.

hah, sorry.


Black guy: "Yo, whats up my nigger?"



A non-Black guy could do the same thing without it being racist. (Referring to the picture)

[9]

hah, sorry.


Black guy: "Yo, whats up my nigger?"



A non-Black guy could do the same thing without it being racist. (Referring to the picture)

No, that's not exactly true. As far as I'm concerned, it is not acceptable for anyone to use racial epithets (or any form of discriminatory slur) unless they belong to the group targeted by the slur. In which case it's their business and 'non-members' of that 'demographic group' have no right to tell them whether or not it's 'acceptable' to use a slur which has traditionally been employed to disparage them.
As a female, I can say ***** all I want to my female friends (though I honestly have very little desire to do that), and men really have no business telling me whether it is or isn't acceptable to use in my personal life. But it is completely unacceptable for a man to approach me and call me a "*****". This rule can pretty much be applied across the board. It isn't that complicated.

[GayEpilepticFightingRobot]

Seems fair. If that's a rule that is eventually applied, it needs to truly be the same across the board. No blacks calling mestizos spics and what not etc.

[RedStarOverChina]

When Blacks call each other "niggas", it had no racist connotations. It is instead a slang that bound themselves together while distinguishing themselves from the rest of society.

Slangs have always been tools used by people to distinguish themselves from others---It's not a universal thing and cannot be.

It just doesnt sound right, like, if your parents start talking like, you know, teenage girls? Similarly, it doesn't sound right if white guys start addressing each other as "niggas".

So, the reason why whites shouldn't use this word isn't just because of the unpleasant history behind the usage of the word among whites. It's also about the context.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think the simple solution is that no-one uses the 'n' word.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It just doesnt sound right, like, if your parents start talking like, you know, teenage girls? Similarly, it doesn't sound right if white guys start addressing each other as "niggas".

So, the reason why whites shouldn't use this word isn't just because of the unpleasant history behind the usage of the word among whites. It's also about the context.

RIght, "niggas" wasn't even an all black slang - there's an age and class component to it. After the 70s and it was apparent that only a small layer of middle class blacks were actually still benifiting from civil rights gains, "acting poor" and using shocking language was used by some young black people against the hypocracy of older and middle class blacks.

Unfortunately white people do call eachother "niggas" all the time - at least in California. I throw-up a little inside my mouth whenever I overhear this.

Arizona Bay: 100 points for mentioning "reverse racism"; that concept is about as valid as sasquach or the concerns of the birther movement.

[manic expression]

Lots of Latinos use "nigger" all the time...for what it's worth.

[johhy one two]

Iam sorry but its totally unacceptable and confusing to kids in a global multicultural world.
You have white and black kids at the same school together listening and singing to the same rap tunes that have the N word in them. Tell me how that works than.:confused: The white kid has to go BLEEP when the word comes up but his black mate can keep singing to it.
Blacks calling themselves the N word are an embarrassment to themselves and their race.
And that goes for gays aswell who go about prancing around saying they are queer.
I have a real problem with that, they make us look stupid.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Blacks calling themselves the N word are an embarrassment to themselves and their race.

wtf?!

[Sentinel]

And that goes for gays aswell who go about prancing around saying they are queer.
I have a real problem with that, they make us look stupid.

'Queer' is a word that really divides us 'queers', and we have had lots of debate on it here. I don't like the word much either, quite the opposite, but the problem is that it seems to be the only all inclusive term for persons that do not fit in the heteronorm (Lesbian, Gay, Trans, etc).

Thusly I do use it out of practical reasons, while I at the same time hope that there would be another word without the negative implications of 'queer'. We should invent one..

[Irish commie]

Iam sorry but its totally unacceptable and confusing to kids in a global multicultural world.
You have white and black kids at the same school together listening and singing to the same rap tunes that have the N word in them. Tell me how that works than.:confused: The white kid has to go BLEEP when the word comes up but his black mate can keep singing to it.
Blacks calling themselves the N word are an embarrassment to themselves and their race.
And that goes for gays aswell who go about prancing around saying they are queer.
I have a real problem with that, they make us look stupid.

one simple solution i hav used when singing along to this type of music replace it with ninja works nicely.

[Mao Tse Tung]

Sanyika shakur turned his life around and stopped being the black stereotype the bourgesie want, and he says the use of the words nigga and ***** normalize the hate towards minorities

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Because the word "cracker" isn't a racist term against all whites, it's a term directed towards racist whites. Oh boo hoo how poor you white people have it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege). Reverse racism is one of the most fucking stupid concepts to have surfaced in the past 30 or so years. Correction: the idea that racial minorities can get away with blatant racism and that any white person who raises objections should be mocked is the "most fucking stupid concept" to have surfaced in the past few decades.

Don't pass off your ugly prejudice as truth.

"Directed towards racist whites" my ass. Yeah, just like the "n" word only refers to violent blacks.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7346/gsyazye.jpg

[Jimmie Higgins]

Correction: the idea that racial minorities can get away with blatant racism and that any white person who raises objections should be mocked is the "most fucking stupid concept" to have surfaced in the past few decades. Racial minorities anywhere in the world (except for Apartheid South Africa or Palestine/Israel if you combine the two) do not have the ability to be "Racist" against the dominant ethnic or racial group. Racism in the material sense is a systematic structure for denying rights to some part of the population.

A white person calling a black person "boy" would be the same as a black person calling a white people "honkies" if it were not for the existence of systematic racism. But since there are things like racial profiling and racist features built into the way policing is done and court cases decided, how funds are used for public education, and what kinds of home loans you can get... there is a big fucking difference.

Bigotry is calling someone a derisive name no mater what the social context - you can be bigoted against "goths" or "emo" if you wanted, but there are no unwritten laws about only renting emos property in certain parts of town and no Christians protesting to prevent "goths" from getting married to eachother.


Don't pass off your ugly prejudice as truth. Don't pass of your idealist relativism as truth.


"Directed towards racist whites" my ass. Yeah, just like the "n" word only refers to violent blacks. Oh you poor thing, so oppressed. it must be hard to walk into a store and have the security guards not follow you because they think you are going to properly pay for things and for cops to see you driving in white neighborhoods and assume you are up to good.

Ok I'm being an asshole about this but I want to drive-home the point that there is no social weight attached to slurs against whites. You have your rights more or less respected to the fullest that regular people can have their rights respected under capitalism. If we want working class people to win we need class solidarity and so that means white radicals need to prioritize defeating systemic racism so that racism against blacks isn't used to justify massive incarcerations (that effect all of us, even though blacks are specifically targeted) and that racism against Latinos isn't used to crack down on immigration and labor laws.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

very well put, sir

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Racism in the material sense is a systematic structure for denying rights to some part of the population.Racism is both that and the consequential prejudices which arise from ethnic isolation and ethnic conflicts over material resources.

When black rioters in LA attacked the white truck driver Reginald Denny and later admitted their actions had only to do with the color of his skin, it was an act of racism, full stop. Beating the shit out of someone to the point he will forever be designated a cripple is certainly an instance of depriving "rights."

If you can't concede incidents like this - which are not isolated incidents but fairly commonplace in urban areas when whites and blacks interact in predominantly black areas - are acts of racism, there's no point in even continuing this discussion. "Idealism" indeed.


Ok I'm being an assholeAnd not actually making a point worth debating...


. If we want working class people to win we need class solidarity and so that means white radicals need to prioritize defeating systemic racism so that racism against blacks isn't used to justify massive incarcerations (that effect all of us, even though blacks are specifically targeted) and that racism against Latinos isn't used to crack down on immigration and labor laws.Again there's this singular assumption that white radicals must only concentrate on the affairs of others because it's somehow impossible to approach their own affairs - a completely nonsensical position and one that will only drive a wedge between white workers and minorities. All hatred/bigotry/whatever else you want to call it to get around the term "racism" must be vocally opposed, yet when this topic is honestly brought to the attention of radicals it's dismissed offhandedly without real consideration.

I've attended rallies for securing undocumented immigrations legal protections and I saw more than a handful of white radicals in attendance; playing this off as if white socialists need to only acknowledge the plight of others is idealist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Racism is both that and the consequential prejudices which arise from ethnic isolation and ethnic conflicts over material resources.Yes, this is where the idealism comes in. I can think of no more ethnic isolation that the isolation of the old world and the new world and yet native people reacted to old world travelers (for the first time) in all sorts of different ways - often hospitality but sometimes hostility.

Europeans as induviduals also reacted in different ways, but as a whole they went from seeing natives as some kind of "noble savage" as many early accounts record, to being heathens worth killing. This had nothing to do with "ethnic isolation" or a "conflict over material resources" (natives were more than happy to share - to a fault) it had to do with the needs of the feudal ruling classes to grab land, grab labor to gain resources from the land, and try and use their new trade routes to expand their power.


When black rioters in LA attacked the white truck driver Reginald Denny and later admitted their actions had only to do with the color of his skin, it was an act of racism, full stop. Beating the shit out of someone to the point he will forever be designated a cripple is certainly an instance of depriving "rights." Yes that's terrible. Equally terrible is racial hostility between blacks and latinos in California prisons. But its not racism - it bigotry and the source is the ruling class that divides us in order to promote competition and deflect anger at inequality by making people fight over the crumbs.


If you can't concede incidents like this - which are not isolated incidents but fairly commonplace in urban areas when whites and blacks interact in predominantly black areas - are acts of racism, there's no point in even continuing this discussion. "Idealism" indeed. Concede that it's terrible - no problem. Concede that it's the same thing as racism as in "jim-crow" laws, "racial profiling" "redlining" and so on? You're joking!


Again there's this singular assumption that white radicals must only concentrate on the affairs of others because it's somehow impossible to approach their own affairsThis is a staw-man, I didn't argue this and I don't even know exactly what you are argueing here.


All hatred/bigotry/whatever else you want to call it to get around the term "racism" must be vocally opposed, yet when this topic is honestly brought to the attention of radicals it's dismissed offhandedly without real consideration.I do oppose racially divisive attitudes of all workers in order to build solidarity. But if you think that a random black person saying something racially divisive to a white person is the same as the systematic racism of the criminal justice system or housing or schools, then you as a white activist are never going to be taken seriously as someone who claims to understand the nature of racism in society and has some ideas about how to get rid of it.


I've attended rallies for securing undocumented immigrations legal protections and I saw more than a handful of white radicals in attendance; playing this off as if white socialists need to only acknowledge the plight of others is idealist. Another straw-man - I never argued this. White workers do have a "plight" and do suffer under capitalism - they just don't suffer racism!

The oppression of minority groups from racial minorities to sexual minorities is one of the primary ways the ruling class rules us all: divide and rule. If we want to put the class-war back on our terms and build our momentum, one of our primary actions must be building class-wide solidarity and this means getting rid of extra-oppression experienced by women or racial minorities. When we can do that, the working class is stronger and people have seen in action that workers of all races do have common interests and that the real enemy is not the person you are competing for a job or for tax funding for your schools over - the real enemy is the ruling class who is making you compete in the first place.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Not intending to cause any trouble here, but what exactly is the definition of racism. I'm white, and my mother once worked as a nurse on a Native Reserve. I went to camp there was was continuously singled out and bullied because of my race.

I'm fine if that isn't racism. I don't go around saying "hey, I faced racism." I just want to know why that would be "bullying" and not racism? What's the definition and how does it operate in a leftist context?

[Yazman]

I feel that there is too much baggage attached to some concepts and words for "reclaiming" them to really be useful, especially given the confusion it causes.


Not intending to cause any trouble here, but what exactly is the definition of racism. I'm white, and my mother once worked as a nurse on a Native Reserve. I went to camp there was was continuously singled out and bullied because of my race.

I'm fine if that isn't racism. I don't go around saying "hey, I faced racism." I just want to know why that would be "bullying" and not racism? What's the definition and how does it operate in a leftist context?

Well, in some fields there is still, in the discourse, some disagreement over whether racism means an entire system of oppression (i.e. systematic privileging of one group over another), or in more general terms discrimination. I think most revolutionary leftists accept the former, although again, throughout the sciences there is still much debate on this issue. This also becomes a bit more murky when you consider ethnic discrimination (which is considered by some to be the same as racism and two different things by others). Look into it a bit and make up your own mind though :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not intending to cause any trouble here, but what exactly is the definition of racism. I'm white, and my mother once worked as a nurse on a Native Reserve. I went to camp there was was continuously singled out and bullied because of my race.

I'm fine if that isn't racism. I don't go around saying "hey, I faced racism." I just want to know why that would be "bullying" and not racism? What's the definition and how does it operate in a leftist context?

I might call that bigotry.

The reason I want to stress the difference between systemic racism and what I woud call bigotry or divisive language is that the structural racism which is the main problem is often swept under the rug in mainstream discussions of racism (expect when things like Katrina happen). Post-modern identity politics people as well as the right wing talk about racism in terms of name-calling and hurt feelings. This has led us, in general, further away from understanding and being able to take on racism in the US; it has allowed the rediculous concept of reverse-discrimination to gain currency and legitamacy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The difference between institutional, "systemic" racism and other instances of racially-motivated prejudice is power. What truly concerns us is racism with power, since it involves the indiscriminate oppression of millions of people based purely on skin color.

The white American ruling class has taken away racial minorities' rights to even speak out against their condition of racial oppression.

well, we white people are victims of racism just like you