"The words are so silly, so juvenile, so utterly pathetic..."
Tim Wise's article brings many valid points, especially when referring to slurs against white people in relation to the context of the quote above. And it's true; there is no way that word like "honky" and "cracker" possess the same degredation and power as the word "nigger". The word itself has a long history of oppression and bigotry that it will probably never be erased from memory (or American memory, at least). From my own perspective, if a black man were to come up to me and call me a "honky", I'd probably laugh and walk away. I'm not saying that these are not degrading terms to certain people, but they do suggest a certain amount of comedy. Honestly, who takes the word "honky" seriously?
I also agree with the idea that racial violence is not so much power as it is just and act to show how someone feels. Wise explains that "power is much more potent when it can be deployed without breaking the law to do it." White people hold such power in the forms of government, determining where people live, and choosing the mascots for certain sports teams, as is the case with labeling organizations such as the "Chicago Blackhawks." Though these might serve as endearing terms--warriors, braves--many people find these names as oppressive and racist. In a way they are, as Wise explains that whites have never viewed the Native American people as fully human. However, were Native Americans to label whites as something that might offend them, such as "whitey", the insult is not exactly reciprocated in terms of power. We look upon such "slurs" with disdain, proving that they don't hold the same sort of resonance that "nigger" does.
On the other hand, I don't believe I agree with the passage in the Newman book that explains that words such as "black" and "white" have racist connotations or are meant in their individual form to oppress one culture of people. His explanation is interesting but it does not imply that we call black people "black because they are "soiled and dirty" or "hostile" or "disgraceful". If that is how the people who published Webster's Dictionary view black people, then racial problems are likely to never disappate in this country. Reverse racism may be a myth, but to attribute one word that has all negative definitions to one varitey of human being is almost ludicrous.
In any case, it is also ludicrous for white people to be subjected to the same sort of verbal hostility that minorities face. We can never feel the torment that words like "nigger" and "chink" express to black people and Asians. Because, at the end of the day, white people know they are on the thrones of this nation. We are (and I say we because I am white) the kings of the castle and the division of power will not be equal for some time, if ever. Minorities may try to insult us with their versions of derogatory terms but they don't hold the same sway as the words we have invented to dehumanize those who are different than us. We can never truly know what it is to be racially discriminated against.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I also agree that white people can never truly know the discrimination that black people have felt for centuries. That isn't something that can be denied. I guess at this point I feel like people can talk about racism and their theories until there blue in the face and racism will still be a problem. What actions can we take against it? There must be something all of us can do in order to make this world a better place to live in for our future generations. Yes, there are times when we can clearly tell someone that what they are doing is hateful or racist, but apparently that isn't enough. There must be more we can do, but what?
From my own perspective, if a black man were to come up to me and call me a "honky", I'd probably laugh and walk away. I'm not saying that these are not degrading terms to certain people, but they do suggest a certain amount of comedy. Honestly, who takes the word "honky" seriously?
I also agree with the idea that racial violence is not so much power as it is just and act to show how someone feels.
The word "honky" might seem trivial to you, but for many racists who use it, it is nothing of the sort. Many white people have been harassed, threatened and even killed by men who used these slurs. In such instances, the anti-white racist cettainly did act to make their feeling known.
I also don't agree with your use of the expression "reverse racism", which you borrowed from Tim Wise. I think it's more appropriate to talk about "anti-white racism". the "reverse racism" expression actually promotes racist stereotypes against white people. Saying "reverse racism" implies there is a "norm" in racism (white people's racism toward other racial groups) and that racism is, somehow, a "white thing", which is wrong and prejudiced.
Please see my page : reverse racism Vs anti-white racism
Thinking that only White have the power to be racist, as Tim Wise suggest makes people more confortable because they don't really have to think about it : they have the magic formulae. "Whites are racists and can only be racist, Blacks are victims." Isn't that a bit simple.
Thinking that anyone, any racial group, can be racist makes thing more complicated for the do-gooders: one cannot rely on stereotypes and one has to judge a new each situation.
I think its also dangerous to think the Problems of black people can only be the results of discrimination by whites. This sounds like turning Whites into scapegoats.
Post a Comment