The lack of recent comments on the old blogosphere makes me think I may have alienated my core audience. Either that or I've lost my edge, oh wait I never had an edge.
I read an article on Yahoo today about some schools gettin in trouble with various April Fools issues going overboard. One school in particular Nebraska's Gateway changed its name for the April 1 issue to Ghettoway and had some more urban humor and has been lambasted by the NAACP. The NAACP apparently find "the Ghettoway" name offensive... funny if the NAACP knew its history it would know that the Ghettos were originally in reference to the area's Jews were forced to live in during WW2. It just reminds me of the NAACP's complete lack of any sort of grasp on history. Example: Their desire that the word slave be dropped from computer lingo. This completely is ignorant of the fact that there were slaves prior to the enslavement of African Americans in early colonial American History. We don't see the Jews from Egypt raising any problems and they were enslaved for a long time and forced to build pyramids, thats hard work, i mean they're made of stone, and stone is heavy.
Well if I offended anyone let me know with this post or prior. I have a way of doing that without knowing it.
Speaking of that, Back in the day when mr. Root got fired from Covenant i wrote a piece about my false desire to burn down covenant. Apparently that worried people up there that I might actually have a desire to burn down my alma mater. I found this out from some second hands but found it funny that people would actually take me seriously, thats one thing I learned not to do long ago... take myself seriously.
Posted by holtonian at April 7, 2004 05:00 PM | TrackBackI found your comments about pork in your entry "Good News: Weekend fun BAD NEWS!!!! MY TV BROKE!!!" to be extremely offensive. You are a very bad person. Nah! Kidding, man. Actually, I've written some really potentially offensive stuff, but no one seems to understand what I'm blithering about. Sigh... I think if you were actually offending folks you might get more comments, right? Seems logical to me, but then again I'm a pretty illogical person.
Posted by: ron at April 7, 2004 05:30 PMYou probably alienated the Brightbill sisters...
Posted by: JosiahQ at April 7, 2004 05:49 PMI don't necessarily find your comments offensive and I must admit that I have problems with the NAACP as well, mostly the fact that they have become all-together too political. In becoming more political they have become less effective in achieving their stated goal of making way for the advancement of those that have been historically oppressed in this society.
That being said I think that it is also important to understand that history as a whole is, in many ways, less important than the history of an individual, at least in the eyes of that individual. By this I mean that the history of oppression of people of color in this country is more important to those of color than the oppression of Jews in Germany or the slavery of Jews in Ancient Egypt. Just because the Jews suffered these atrocities first doesn’t negate the context of the terms now.
At the same time history of these words has little to no bearing on the discussion at hand. The issue is not what the words originally referred to but rather what they now refer to. The fact that the term “ghetto” originated in WW2 has little to no bearing on the NAACP’s case about the offensiveness of the term now. The question is whether or not the term ghetto in the vernacular is used to describe the slums of the United States, which are predominately occupied by African-Americans. And I think that you would have to agree that the term is most commonly used in this way. And of course the term slave has an even more dubious history. Yes, the term predates the abomination of slavery that existed in this country; however the use of the term in the United States has a historical context that cannot be ignored.
My point of all this is not to say that the NAACP is correct in asserting that the use of these terms in any context is racist or even offensive. My point is to insure that you don’t lose sight of the fact that these terms do carry weight and do have meaning that must be viewed in context. Don’t simply dismiss the NAACP as ignorant of history when in fact they are very aware of a more personal, and perhaps, more important history.
First of all, kudos to you for speaking your mind. I totally agree.... personally, I think that just because slavery happened in this country doesn't make it any more hurtful than the slavery or genocide of Jews in another country, the oppression of the Irish in this country, the Native Americans being forced off their land, etc...you get my point. There are a lot of people who need to realize that EVERYONE has been oppressed in the United States, and in this world for that matter. And I'm personally not affected now by the fact that my ancestors had a potato famine many years ago, but I AM offended that someone would think that African American slavery in this country is MORE IMPORTANT history than the rest (bhuffine). Just a thought. And if it makes you feel any better... I tend to offend way more people that you would probably ever dream of offending ;)
Posted by: Michelle at April 8, 2004 04:02 AMCheck it out Chris, I'm posting on your blog. I just want to say something about offending people. Huff is right about individual history being more important to the individual and we really should strive not to offend people...with words, actions, whatever. (I once used the word "retard" and got yelled at by a friend with a retarded brother, so yeah I think personal history is important) And I must admit that my personal history is more important to me than other history, but I'm not going to jump on someone when they say or do something that they don't know would offend me. It seems to me that our society has become too "politically correct." (like the movie "PCU") People are afraid to say things because they don't even know what might offend someone. Anybody can be offended at most anything. While we should try not to offend others, it seems that people just want to be offended. Biblically it says somewhere not to offend your brothers, but we've made that near impossible in today's American society. I think that people should look past their individual history and see it as a whole. Besides, why was the NAACP in Nebraska? (Please don't take offense if you're from Nebraska or you work for the NAACP)
"Go to sleep, it's time to party!" - PCU
Posted by: Strow at April 8, 2004 09:33 AMThis reminded me of the intramural team composed of Native Americans at University of Northern Colorado that made a team called the Fightin' Whites because they were upset about team names like Redskins, Indian, Braves, etc. Anyway, I thought it was funny, but it offends my white self.
Check out this site: http://www.cafeshops.com/fightinwhite
Posted by: Strow at April 8, 2004 10:08 AMThanks for your comments Michelle, but I think you completely missed my point. I never said that slavery in this country is a more important history than any other history, I said that it is a more important history to those who have suffered the effects of it. I think it is also important that you realize that the history of slavery and its oppression didn’t end with the Emancipation Proclamation or the Civil war but that the history of slavery exists even today in a racism that we don’t often recognize. The oppression of those of color didn’t end when they were released as slaves. The hurt and pain of slavery is alive and very real today and we must be aware of the ways that we add to that pain. In this way the history of slavery in this country is much more real and important to African Americans today than the history of Irish oppression would be to an Irish person.
In the grand scheme of things the oppression of the Irish in this country or the forced displacement of Native Americans from their land may be more important than the slavery of blacks in this country. But whether that is true or not it has nothing to do with what I was saying. My point is that an individual’s history is more important to them than the history of the world is. It is not our place to tell someone to forget their history and get over it when we are using terms that are offensive to them. Sure some people are too sensitive and yes political correctness annoys me as much as the next person. My point though is that we not lose sight of things that are validly offensive and simply dismiss them because they don’t offend us. We must be careful with what we say.
The tragedy in all this is that the NAACP cares about the wrong issues. True there are words like slave, ghetto, or whatever that are offensive but I would rather live in a culture where people are free to use offensive words like Jesus, Bible, Repentance, and even words like slave and ghetto than to live in a culture where speech is regulated.
The NAACP is a group run mostly by pagans whose agenda is primarily anti-thetical to liberty and freedom.
Their are many people out in the world who are hypersensitive to many words and expect more from pagans than the Bible offers. Why would someone expect a country mostly of pagans not to use offensive words. Pagans use pagan speech.
The popularization of ghetto references and language gets spread primiarly through Rap and Hip-hop music of which over 67% is purchased by white kids. As such, for a pagan white kid to use a term like ghetto surprises me not in the least. The question is why does the NAACP not try to stop Rap and Hip-Hop artist disseminate such language.
Well, if black people use it the terms in music then it's "art" and "artistic expression" but when the white kid who actually purchases the CD uses such terms then, randomly, it's offensive.
Holtonian was incorrect to place the problem with the NAACP on their knowledge of history. Knowledge of the past does not always lead to reasoned application in the present. The real problem with the NAACP is that they have accepted the perpetual status of victim. They are driven by victimilogist agenda so they hunt for ways in which the "we are the victim" rally cry can be pronounced. Unfortunately thier narrow purpose has them focused on the wrong things.
Who actually believes that this country is ever going to be free of racism. It's a nation of pagans, remember. Paganism is as paganism does. The legacy of slavery argument is simply used often as a means of guilt manipulation and I would encourage all white people to not allow people to accuse you of being a racist when you are not.
The fact is that the word Slav is derived from the Slavic people of Eastern Europe who experienced the worst form of slavery in human history. The Dalamation region of eastern European Slavic people had an absolutely horrific form that pales in comparison to the US African context. Chinese immigrants came here and were enslaved and many were lynched, esp. on the west coast and mid-West.
Native Americans enslaved Africans and traded Africans in this country during American slavery. I don't get pissed when I hear words like "Braves" or "Indians." As a matter of fact Native Americans would actually hunt and capture runaway slaves and return then to plantations. Now, why is not the NAACP trying to get the Atlanta Braves to change their name?
The people who should really be offended by the words like "slave" are some of the 8,300 current slaves in Bihar, India? What's the NAACP saying about that? There's currently 27 million people enslaved in the world today (some of whom are little children trapped in the sex slavery) and the NAACP is concerned about words like "ghetto"?
There are some critical issues that often get confused. One is should free citizens have the right say whatever they want? Answer: Yes
Is all speech good? Answer: No
Should offensive speech be censored: Yes, for public institutions of the state that represent citizens. No, for private individuals and private institutions. If private institutions and individuals can't use offensive speech the Church is doomed. Bad speech then is something that we have to live with.
If my next door neighbor wants to call my a "nigger" let him. The word might offend not because of racism and slavery but because my identity is ground in being made in the Image of God. The NAACP does not care about the image of God. Offensive labels and names are offensive not because of an isolated historical period but because it is an offense against the image and likeness of God to dehumanize with bad words. As long as I can retort to my neighbor "child of Satan" he can call me whatever he wants to.
I also find it strange that black people are assumed to all think alike and be effected equally by the same things. The NAACP does not represent black America at all. Nor does it represent black thought. Black people are independent thinkers like everyone else.
If a black person ALLOWS pagan speech to offend with words like "slave" and "ghetto" is primarily because they are swimming in thier own victimology which is self-sabatoging and self-dehumanizing. There are many people who enjoy guilting people into pity.
Until the Gospel changes the toungue I have no expectation that pagans will use good speech. If someone is not a Christian I simply don't expect them to understand or care why some words would offend black people. But as a citizen I will do whatever I can to see that public institutions don't use offensive terms or symbols because I know the real reason why: it's not a true depiction of the image of God.
Posted by: Anthony at April 11, 2004 09:48 AMI wrote an article just over three years ago, that talsk of related matters that I'd like to add to the thread. If I didn't get bet up for what I wrote, you most certainly won't.
--------------------------------------------------
Jesse Jackson: Pimpin' His People
from the Chattanooga Outlook -- April 1, 2001
"I understand the attempt to reach out to these children, but this is an unacceptable surrender, borderlining on disgrace." Jesse Jackson, Mount Holyoke News, February 13, 1997, speaking on the subject of ebonics.
"Stay out the Bushes! Stay out the Bushes!" Jesse Jackson, 2000 Democratic National Convention, campaigning in ebonics for Albert Gore.
If I haven't learned anything else in my lifetime, I've at least learned that the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson is scum. I know that doesn't sound nice, especially coming from a white person, but not all truth is nice. It's simply truth, and truth doesn't keep score of people's feelings.
White people have traditionally been afraid to openly criticize black people. They're afraid that, in these tumultuous times, the slightest slight or negative word towards a black person will induce accusations of racism, incidents of violence, and (the highly-profitable) civil unrest.
Many black "leaders" will take any scrap of this white-introduced negativity and use it as a rallying cry and excuse to gain support so that, ultimately, they can collect a paycheck.
And speaking of "leaders"? Why are there black leaders, at all? If there were white leaders, all hell would break loose. The only ones I know of like to hang people and wear sheets to their meetings. But black leaders (many equally as horrible as their white counterparts) continue on unabated, and without anybody checking up on what they're actually saying and doing.
My favorite black leader and supposed "disciple of Dr. King" is Mr. Jackson. He is simply amazing. His ability to exploit "his people" is second-to-none, and the acceptance and praise he receives doing it is mindboggling.
Jesse Jackson is what the late, great Booker T. Washington would call a "problem profiteer." He must ensure that there is strife and division between the races, or he won't be able to make his mortgage payment, or open another business in the name of "freedom."
And Jackson sure loves freedom. He loves it so much that he will travel to any poor black neighborhood and "preach" to the people that they "are somebody," and that, one day, they will rise up out of the situation they're in and reach the "Promised Land."
I have a question, though. If the people he preaches to already possess the power to do all that, why do they have to bother coming up with the $25-$30,000 that Jesse charges to motivate them?
Jesse is also a proud member of the Democratic Party, and one if its biggest pawns. Despite his earlier comments denouncing the teaching of ebonics, Jackson was more than willing to "dumb it down" in a speech directed towards his target audience during last years Democratic Convention. Al Gore got the black vote. Jesse got the white money.
Jackson is also willing to travel to any volatile situation to strategically have his picture taken, and to be shown "bringing us all together" by building up enough hostility on both sides to push us even farther apart. He also likes to accuse business leaders of racist hiring practices in order to blackmail their companies into starting businesses in inner cities so that he can profit from them. During one of these "benefits," Jackson was able to "pimp" some corporate "ho's" out of $500,000 that went towards opening up a California office for his Rainbow/PUSH coalition. It seems that at the end of Jesse's Rainbow, there truly is a pot of gold; gold that will ensure that he, his wife, his children, his mistress, and her child will have enough money to "keep their on eyes on the prize" for years to come. What that prize is, though, I'm not sure even Jesse knows anymore.
If you would like to hire Jesse to speak at your event, you can book him by contacting the Santa Barbara Speakers Bureau at (805) 682-7474 or on the web at www.speakingpros.com. He can talk about social issues, civil rights, education, or democracy, and for the right money, might even make some balloon animals for your kids! And if he's busy, don't fret. The firm also handles Jeff Foxworthy and Joe Piscopo.
Posted by: bill colrus at April 13, 2004 10:10 PMIf I recall correctly, the reason that the NAACP got mad about the Nebraska spoof wasn't that they used the word "ghetto," per se, it was because "ghetto" was used as it is commonly used in American vernacular, and the content of the articles were such that even the Drone writers would probably have found them to be inappropriate.
Oh, and Josiah, huh? And, the Red Wings are going down man.
Posted by: kathryn at April 14, 2004 03:44 AMGo Dolphins!
Posted by: mesh at April 14, 2004 03:04 PMIn order for the NCAAP to function effectively, they cannot know, or effectively understand, history. Its that simple.
In order for the masses to accept what the NCAAP does, they too must not understand or know history. Thus, we see a problem!
Why just stop at the NCAAP? The only way that they could even exist is for there to be a horde of under-educated people to support their actions. The issue here isn't just the NCAAP, its the ignorant masses that we've created within the US.