Re: Ebonic Xmas

> From: hoensch@SOFTHOME.NET
> My supposition that a word written and pronounced the same way means the
> same is (whatever else it might be) very sane and logical.  And
> furthermore,
> as I stated, in a number of languages (including my mother tongue) the
> euivelant word means "black (people)".  It has no negative connotation
> whatsoever.  And if amongst blacks it is a word recalling a "shared
> experience" than can whites or asians use it to address their black
> classmates?  It is one word.  It is the same word.  If you do not like it,
> that is fine.  However linguistic principles rarely depend upon wishful
> thinking.  If it truly is offensive, stop using it.  Otherwise it is just
> a setup for blacks to be offended.
I find this analysis rather naive particularly on this list where one might
expect the nuances of usage to be better understood.  Does the word "dog"
mean the same in the following contexts despite being "written and
pronounced the same way"

        About a dog after he retrieves the paper : "What a dog!"
        About a particularly unattractive woman : "What a dog!'

Do you really believe that these two statements have identical connotations?
What linguistic principles lead you to that conclusion?  Would it be
"wishful thinking" for the aforementioned woman to take offense upon hearing
the second sentence?

A "shared experience" is an experience that has been shared.  Whites and
Asians have not shared the black experience with their classmates, so you
question seems to make no sense.

Although I don't use the word "nigger" in either context out of personal
preference, I take no offense when it used among fellow African-Americans
for the reasons that I have already explained and you have failed to
understand.

> The poem had no malevolence.  In fact I do not recall it expressing any
> desire (positive or negative) whatsoever.  It was a recollection of a
> fictional, and (thanks to numerous BLACK COMEDIANS) comically
> stereotypical
> bronx-style christmas.  And my comments about how it can be humourous:
To blame black comedians for the existence of racist stereotypes is to
ignore history.  If black comedians exploit these stereotypes it can only be
because they pre-existed in a not very comical context.

> As laughter is a reaction to a shift of paradigm, which makes a
> potentially
> serious event actually turn out trivial; the idea of a fictional account
> can only be humourous with the realization that it is UNTRUE.
>
> I think it would be slightly more malicious if the humor lied in the fact
> that things are really that way.  But, as they are not, and as the humor
> lies elsewhere; the poem (however narrowly) does fit into the concept of
> humor.
Nonsense!  There is no declaration anywhere in the poem as to its truth or
falsehood.  That assumption is left to the reader.  It merely expounds a
series of racial stereotypes that are pernicious in that they suggest
themselves to be true.  Had the poem been read by a Klansman he would have
accepted it to be both true and hysterically funny.  It is precisely the
falsehood of the stereotypes that make it unfunny.

> 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?
For one thing, blacks do not have a history of exploiting and oppressing
whites.  The two contexts are historically distinct and cannot be judged as
analogous.

> If your sensibilities are offended, I feel for you.  But the poem was
> not racist nor intrinsically wrong.  And do enlighten me about this issue
> of the double standard, and how it is NOT RACIST to judge a
> word's meanings
> BASED ON THE COLOR OF THE SPEAKER'S SKIN!
Racism is political, social and economic.  It is not racist merely to make
judgments based on race. If I say that black people as a rule have darker
skin than whites, I am making a judgment based on race, but am not making a
racist statement.  Words do not stand independent of the context in which
they are used.  THAT is a linguistic principle.

David