[Ford Prefect]

ITT we have no idea how racism works.

As has already been pointed out (and predictably ignored), the power of what we call "hate speech" is its historical weight. It is not simply the act of expressing prejudice that gives these terms their power, it is their use as a tool of intimidation within the context of a society in which a given group of people has been systematically disenfranchised. No matter how angry an American might get at being called a Yank (that's absurd, by the way), there is no context in which Americans as a people have been subjugated. (This is an especially problematic example because there is no "American" ethnic group.) Even if the word is inflammatory, it does not carry implicitly the power relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed, nor does the word "redneck." Kara is absolutely right; it's a matter of context, and to decide that all terms of prejudice carry the same power is essentially to pretend that people and cultures interact in a vacuum, devoid of historical repercussions. There's a difference between an assumption based on a category-- which can between any two parties-- and a word intended to perpetuate an ugly history in the here and now. All of us experience the former, but the latter is not a universal.

In summation, I happen to suspect that any American who says they can't laugh off being called a Yank is so full of ****, I don't know how they swallow their food.

EDIT: Well, really in summation, not all prejudice has the historical force of hate speech.

[Hellstryker]

ITT we have no idea how racism works.

As has already been pointed out (and predictably ignored), the power of what we call "hate speech" is its historical weight. It is not simply the act of expressing prejudice that gives these terms their power, it is their use as a tool of intimidation within the context of a society in which a given group of people has been systematically disenfranchised. No matter how angry an American might get at being called a Yank (that's absurd, by the way), there is no context in which Americans as a people have been subjugated. (This is an especially problematic example because there is no "American" ethnic group.) Even if the word is inflammatory, it does not carry implicitly the power relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed, nor does the word "redneck." Kara is absolutely right; it's a matter of context, and to decide that all terms of prejudice carry the same power is essentially to pretend that people and cultures interact in a vacuum, devoid of historical repercussions. There's a difference between an assumption based on a category-- which can between any two parties-- and a word intended to perpetuate an ugly history in the here and now. All of us experience the former, but the latter is not a universal.

In summation, I happen to suspect that any American who says they can't laugh off being called a Yank is so full of ****, I don't how they swallow their food.

That is, unfortunately, America for you.

[chief1983]

Oppressor/oppressed racism is almost a self fulfilling prophecy these days.  Every time you play the race card, you give power to racism.  Why is it so taboo for someone to say 'nigger', unless they happen to be black?  It's practically making a mockery of the fact that it's so taboo for anyone else.  Why do employers now have to make exceptions for treatment of their employees based on their race, instead of treating everyone equal?  The more you try to protect a group from another, the more you enforce the belief that they need it because they're not equal and never will be.  I mean for frak's sake, we have a black president now, it's apparent that a minority can accomplish anything in this country, so can we _please_ get rid of all the bull**** aid programs for minorities?  That would sure help cut down the deficit.

And, it's inexcusable for someone from America to not be aware of the overtones that the word 'nigger' carried.  I would sooner expect someone from another country to be unaware of that, after all wasn't it coined through the slave trade with the Americas?

Btw, I'm taking back 'porch monkey'.

[General Battuta]

Implicit association tests provide strong evidence that there is still broad, pervasive prejudice against Blacks in American society.

Hiring-scenario tests also show that subconscious discrimination is alive and well even in the most well-educated Americans.

This seems to suggest that affirmative action programs are not completely unjustified. I'm not sure what I myself think of the matter.

[chief1983]

That doesn't mean anything.  You didn't specify well educated _white_ Americans, so I'm not sure whether you mean that everyone discriminates a little bit, or that it was only tested on whites.  I refuse to believe it's not equally prevalent in almost any race.  There's broad, pervasive prejudice for all sorts of races from all sorts of races.  You should hear some of the Mexicans I know go on and on sometimes.  It doesn't mean that affirmative action is justified, it means people prefer their own kind.  What a concept.  And why not?  Different races are different.  This kind of care bear policy is just like the crap that got us into this financial mess we're in now.  But you don't have some innate right to a job, or a house, or a PS3, or a big screen, or a shiny new car, or 10+ kids.

[General Battuta]

That doesn't mean anything.  You didn't specify well educated _white_ Americans, so I'm not sure whether you mean that everyone discriminates a little bit, or that it was only tested on whites.  I refuse to believe it's not equally prevalent in almost any race.  There's broad, pervasive prejudice for all sorts of races from all sorts of races.  You should hear some of the Mexicans I know go on and on sometimes.  It doesn't mean that affirmative action is justified, it means people prefer their own kind.  What a concept.  And why not?  Different races are different.  This kind of care bear policy is just like the crap that got us into this financial mess we're in now.  But you don't have some innate right to a job, or a house, or a PS3, or a big screen, or a shiny new car, or 10+ kids.

No, the IATs suggest broad prejudice against blacks even by blacks, and differentiated from that against Asians or Hispanics.

I can forward you the papers if you'd like to read them.

'Refusing to believe' without data is generally a bad policy -- it leads to confirmation bias -- but so it goes.

[chief1983]

No I was refusing to believe that because I've seen so much evidence to the contrary, not a lack of evidence.  And I could totally believe that there is black against black prejudice, probably because of the way so many of them seem intent on giving value to the stereotypes.  Or the other way around, the ones acting the stereotypes hate the others for not embracing it more and acting too much like the 'white oppressors'.  It _still_ isn't a good argument for affirmative action.

[Nuclear1]

That holds true for just about group though, not just blacks. If you're from the country and follow the CMT stereotype, then you're alienated in a sense. And regardless of whether you fit the stereotype or not, a fair amount people from the city will assume you're a redneck.

Or if yer not AMURIKIN!!! enough than yoo=kommie

[chief1983]

"Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."

[Hellstryker]

Shame on you Kara, you blew this whole thing out of proportion over this:
http://www.diaspora-game.com/team.html

Hassan "Karajorma" Kazmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Kazmi&go=Go

Now I think this thread should be locked.

[chief1983]

I don't think he blew anything out of proportion.  Any other admin would probably have done the same thing armed with the knowledge he had about the term.

[Hellstryker]

I don't think he blew anything out of proportion.  Any other admin would probably have done the same thing armed with the knowledge he had about the term.

I'm sorry but I just can't see goob threatening a perma ban over something like this.

[Dilmah G]

I don't think he blew anything out of proportion.  Any other admin would probably have done the same thing armed with the knowledge he had about the term.

I'm sorry but I just can't see goob threatening a perma ban over something like this.

Goober doesn't have Pakistani roots or whatever. I understand how it probably made a lot bigger deal to Kara, but a perma-ban down the line for repeated racism is acceptable I believe.

[karajorma]

Shame on you Kara, you blew this whole thing out of proportion over this:
http://www.diaspora-game.com/team.html

Hassan "Karajorma" Kazmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Kazmi&go=Go

Actually I think you should be banned for making the racist assumption that I did this cause of the colour of my skin.

Simple fact is that I would have done this were I white. I'd have treated the use of nigger in exactly the same fashion. The terms are offensively racist. They have no place on HLP and the party involved was warned not to use them again. 

Now I think this thread should be locked.

I find it hillarious that people are similtaniously claiming I'm heavy handed while failing to notice that I've refused to close a debate while it is ongoing.

Furthermore posting something as incendiary as that and then calling for the thread to be closed to prevent a response is a very cowardly move.

[Kosh]

No matter how angry an American might get at being called a Yank (that's absurd, by the way), there is no context in which Americans as a people have been subjugated. (This is an especially problematic example because there is no "American" ethnic group.) Even if the word is inflammatory, it does not carry implicitly the power relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed, nor does the word "redneck."

Actually you're flat wrong about that. There very much is an oppressive tone to them, given how the word Yank came about when we were ruled by the British, whom we later broke away from because of their increasingly oppressive policies/methods.
During the civil war southerners would use the word yank to desperingly refer to the northerners, whom they did view as oppressors. The north devastated large parts of the south towards the end of the war, and considering that many of those states still have confederate battle flags as part of their state flags that makes it very unlikely they have forgetten. There very much is a history of oppression that goes along with that word. Given your reasoning, Yank is offensive as well.

[karajorma]

As I put it before. How many complaints have you actually seen on here about the use of the word previous to this thread?

[NGTM-1R]

How you percieve the word is utterly meaningless in the context of discussion. Your perception of it is not at issue and therefore anything you have to say on the subject is totally invalid.

I lived a month in Vicksburg. "Yankee son of a *****" is an insult of grave, your-descendants-will-shun-mine proportions there, easy to start a fight with. An epithet need not carry such connotations as you desire to carry weight. "Kraut" or "Fritz" would considered bad form too, but we don't have many Germans to complain. Are they okay?

Or we could try visiting Mexico. "Yanqui" is not a term of endearment there.

[Nuclear1]

Well the word "Yankee" itself isn't racist, as the Anglo-Saxon British used it to refer to their own Anglo-Saxon colonists. It's just a case of ethnocentrism...British called American colonists Yanks just as much as Americans called Canadians Canucks and everyone calls the French frogs.

I personally don't like the whole argument both of you seem to be making, that a word is more offensive because it was used by conquerors. That is exactly what has led to the racial double standard--white people in the US can't call black people niggers, but black people are free to call white people crackers.

Racist terms--actually ethnocentric terms, to broaden it--are all negative, whether coming from the conquerors or the conquered.

[Hellstryker]

Actually I think you should be banned for making the racist assumption that I did this cause of the colour of my skin.

Oh please, you'd eagerly jump at any excuse to ban me. 

Simple fact is that I would have done this were I white. I'd have treated the use of nigger in exactly the same fashion. The terms are offensively racist. They have no place on HLP and the party involved was warned not to use them again. 

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. You might think racism is wrong. I think it's wrong. But I'm not sure you would feel so strongly about it as to threaten perma banning over it, because you've actually (probably) had to deal with it yourself, and as you've pointed out, that does occur less to white people, especially in Britain, I'd imagine (This is just an assumption as I've never actually been there myself, so excuse me if I'm wrong)

I find it hillarious that people are similtaniously claiming I'm heavy handed while failing to notice that I've refused to close a debate while it is ongoing.

Well, personally I think you just enjoy it, but then as battuta pointed out, I don't exactly have the most wholesome view of you.

Furthermore posting something as incendiary as that and then calling for the thread to be closed to prevent a response is a very cowardly move.

What more is there left to discuss? would you rather leave this open until it erupts in an all out flamewar? The only point of it (from my perspective) was for you to change your policies on the matter, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Ford Prefect]

Kosh: There is a qualitative difference between a conflict and a condition of apartheid, which parallels the difference I tried to make clear in my last post: that between simple hostility and racism. If you think the history of the relationships between the British and their colonists or the North and the South are even vaguely analogous to the history of pseudo-scientifically reinforced dehumanization that black Americans experienced, then I would say you ought to re-examine history. I never said a word like Yank couldn't be inflammatory-- any word can be inflammatory-- but when a white person calls a black person a nigger, they aren't just invoking some historical referent, they're reenacting a dialectic. That's why a racial slur is different from an insult. It's more than an insult; it's a way of normalizing through discourse the objectification of this person on the basis of something that they are utterly unable to renounce or conceal. A black man isn't called a nigger because of a set of cultural, geographic, or political conditions that gave rise to him as an individual; he's called a nigger because he's black. The word is meant to remind him that whatever he does, wherever he goes, and whatever company he keeps, there is nothing he can do to escape this quality that makes him less than a person. Such a word can't possibly carry the same power when used between people within the group to which it applies. That's really just simple logic. This doesn't mean there can't be a discussion about whether it's appropriate for anyone to use the word; it means that part of a racial epithet's power is necessarily based in who is using it.

And nuclear, that's also why racism isn't the same in every direction; you have to be in power before you can systematically rob a group of people of their sovereignty as human beings. What am I supposed to be reminded of when a black person calls me a cracker? The fact that I'm statistically 1/6 as likely to go to prison? That doesn't mean I appreciate being judged on the basis of my appearance-- it might even make me angry-- but there's a kind of social adversity, often very subtle, that I realize I'll never be able to understand.

As I've said in previous debates of this nature, it's not a blame game. Nobody's trying to send anyone on a guilt trip, but racism becomes more insidious when we try to pretend that it's all over.