Re: Ebonic Xmas

John Cowan wrote:

> > And furthermore,
> > as I stated, in a number of languages (including my mother tongue) the
> > equivelant word means "black (people)".
>
> True in German, emphatically not true in English.  This can be established
> by looking at the compounds:  "nigger-work", for example, means work
> of the most menial and degrading kind.  (This term is as taboo as the
> original, BTW, but I am willing on *this* list, where civility is the
> norm, to *refer* to words that I wouldn't *use*.)
As will I:  in the neighborhood in which I grew up, a childish game called
"nigger-knocking" was played where someone runs up to a door, knocks
or rings the doorbell, and then runs away to hide to watch the person
come out.  The word encodes a basic presupposition about black people
as childish and incapable of behaving like "normal" people, all of which is
manifestly and fundamentally different from all of my experience with
African Americans.

To say that words can only have their etymological meaning is a horrific
skewering of reality.

> > If it truly is offensive, stop using it.  Otherwise it is just
> > a setup for blacks to be offended.
>
> I happen to agree with this, and so (speaking of black comedians)
> did Richard Pryor, who abandoned the word in his comedy after
> his trip to Africa.
As do I.  I think we all should.

> > The poem had no malevolence.
>
> It was indeed malevolent, insofar as one can judge intent from
> objective criteria, and knowing the cultural context well.
>
> > Pray tell, Gray Wizard; why is it racist for whites (or, as in your view;
> > blacks) to tell jokes about blacks, but it is not when blacks are telling
> > jokes about whites?
>
> Because "racism" is not synonymous with "discrimination" or "race hatred";
> it refers specifically to a pattern of *institutionalized* denigration
> and degredation of dark-skinned people.  (This point is not
> well understood or explained in general, and a non-native speaker
> can certainly be excused for not being aware of it.)
Eh... I would ammend that only to say that it is the institutionalized
denigration of other people on the basis of skin color.  There can
be black racists, too. (Given the history of African peoples, however,
my suspicion is that there are fewer of them.)

> > [I]t is NOT RACIST to judge a word's meanings
> > BASED ON THE COLOR OF THE SPEAKER'S SKIN!
>
> It is sensible, not silly or hate-ridden, to judge a word's meanings
> based on the speaker.
I think Roland is making a fundamental assumption about words:
that they have some sort of ontological self-existence apart from
the way people use them.  They don't.  If a person whose
behavior suggests he believes in racist ideologies or racist
assumptions of other people uses a word like "nigger", "gook", etc.,
then I think there's every reason to believe he is in fact acting out
on his racism.

===========================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
===========================================