Shocker: 82 year old white man uses N-word, hates Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/19/police-commissioner-in-n-h-town-...

Here's the funny part. Odds are Fox Noise will identify this turd as a Democrat - based on the fact that he was a registered Democrat in 1956.

At least this turd has more integrity than most republicans. He didn't apologize. He doubled down on the N-word. I.e., when he calls someone the N-word they stay called the N-word. No take backs just to please a lot of "N-word lovers". Apparently.

The funny part here is that you imagine that Fox news will do something, and then you get angry about them doing it. You're playing tennis against your garage door wall and imagining yourself at Wimbledon.

The fact is that basically the whole town condemned this guy—Democrats and Republicans. See the video—starting around 20 minute mark—if you have any doubt ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKi7o2Y_MM#t=1449 ).

Does anyone else think that it's a good thing that now when old white guys start spouting racist nonsense, they get called on it?

Believe it or not, this story makes me think of my grandmother--a socially liberal woman who fought against her family's wishes to be able to go to college, earned her own money for tuition (which just didn't happen at the time in the small Mennonite community she lived in), and went on to study botany, become a crusading conservationist, and travel all over the world with my grandfather taking pictures of plants and flowers. (They went to Switzerland once and came back with two carousels of slides, all of flowers and ferns and trees, and not a single mountain landscape in the whole shebang. I don't even know how that was possible)

All of which is to say that she was emphatically, passionately egalitarian and progressive her entire adult life. But at the end of her life, when she was slipping into dementia, she also slipped back to another era, and called all the black nurses and caregivers "the colored girls" completely unselfconsciously.

#4

In that era, calling black people 'colored' was the polite term.

I'm not inclined to criticize any old person, especially one in dementia, for slipping back to the terms of a bygone era. "Colored," "negro" and "black" had or have in their day no pejorative connotation. An alien from Mars would be stumped as to why two of them are now extremely offensive. Obviously we have to follow the development of the language, but old people can be excused if they can't do it as well. My grandmother used "negro" to the end of her days. But besides being in dementia, her English wasn't perfect, and I think had just internalized nègre=negro and wasn't to be shaken.

>6 timspalding:

It's not about the development of language, but the development of society. Language changes because the circumstances which occasioned it change. Terms that have been used in the period when "coloreds" and "negroes" were legally oppressed (to say nothing of the slave-era "nigger") have a huge racist charge. That's precisely why these terms periodically change--every period brings a new consciousness of the problem, and a new search for neutrality, politeness and respect, dismissing the terms with the baggage of the previous era.

Some old people have dementia and get a pass. Other old people are bastards who never outgrew the racism in which they were brought up and enjoy letting others know it.

>7 LolaWalser: Some old people have dementia and get a pass. Other old people are bastards who never outgrew the racism in which they were brought up and enjoy letting others know it.

Given the guy's age in the article, it makes me wonder, though. He presumably made it this far well-liked enough to become police commissioner, which suggests he kept his racist views to himself. So why now? Is it simply arrogance and complacency, or is he losing his sense of context?

The mere existence of Obama draws out the inner racist.

This reminds me why I prefer Vermont to NH.

The mere existence of Obama draws out the inner racist.

Truth.

Lots of people are "not-racist" as long as PoC are out of sight, out of power. I couldn't believe some of the comments from people I thought I knew when the Williams sisters started sweeping through tennis.

I always tell myself after reading any online article that discusses potentially controversial issues, "don't read the comments, don't read the comments." Sometimes I manage to obey myself. Mostly I emerge wan and lacking faith in humanity.

>7 LolaWalser:

I'm not sure that "development of language" and "development of society" can really be opposed here, as it were "about" one but not "about" the other. Obviously the language changed in a relationship with a societal change. Nobody is disputing that. But the language did change. As for old people, language change is always uneven across various axes. We all know old people who unselfconsciously use expressions nobody under 60 would dream of and nobody under 30 even understands. In the case of offensive terms, some surely don't "get" it—SBL's grandmother surely goes into this category. The ones who persist despite understanding the shift are, in a sense, not maintaining a traditional use at all. They're embracing the new, explicitly pejorative usage of the term.

Given the guy's age in the article, it makes me wonder, though.

"Nigger" was never an unmarked term for a black person. It was insulting when he was 8. It's clear from the video and elsewhere that he's perfectly on the ball. And his justification--that Obama fits the description of a nigger—shows he gets what he's doing.

>12 timspalding:

I wasn't "opposing" language and society, I was pointing out that the language changed because the society had changed. It's not some linguistic quirk out of thin air, no more substantial than a passing fashion.

>12 timspalding: This seems apropos -- two dust-ups in Britain over offensive language, with two seemingly different outcomes: http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2014/05/19/the-politics-of-taboo-words/

The term black people or colored people is very disturbing to me and rasist

>14 nathanielcampbell:

I'd question this:

in Britain in the 1930s, the word, rather like the synonymous darkie, was inoffensive and socially acceptable. Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians had a different title when first published in Britain in 1939, and its use of the N-word, echoing a 19th-century song, was not thought shocking.

Inoffensive to whites, socially acceptable to whites, not thought shocking by whites--and not in ignorance of how it might affect a black person, as the existence and use of "Negro" at the same time shows. There is plenty of evidence that it was always a term of extreme disparagement, understood and used as such.

Why? We're all 'coloured', when you get down to it; we just have different colours.

And what is 'acceptable', as opposed to offensive, terms has changed a lot over the years (although the N-word has remained an epithet for most of that time). Particularly dependent on who is saying those words.

Generally, though, you can tell whether the speaker is merely out of current fashion, being patronizing (often unthinkingly) or actively racist by the tone of the accompanying remarks.

Sophisticated racists use code words, such as 'urban'.

>16 LolaWalser: I quite agree -- good catch. (But I think your criticism, as valid as it is, misses the larger point of the article -- the mismatch in reaction to a D.J.'s mistake vs. a CEO's ingrained sexism.)

Why? We're all 'coloured', when you get down to it; we just have different colours.

And yet, this is precisely the opposite of how the term is used. Similar to the change of terminology for the old "flesh" coloured crayon.

>18 nathanielcampbell:

I understand your point, but I don't quite see whose reaction is being discussed. For my part, I'm plenty outraged by the second example. (Have I mentioned recently that business types are arseholes? I can never say it enough. :))

The problem rather seems to be the disparity in the positions of the DJ and the CEO.

Although, now I wonder--is it also that racism is more "universally" condemned than sexism, especially when one is boiled down to a single word?

> 2 "The funny part here is that you imagine that Fox news will do something, and then you get angry about them doing it. You're playing tennis against your garage door wall and imagining yourself at Wimbledon...."

(Apologies to all for being off topic but I always feel a need to strongly respond to tm's amazing non sequitur attacks on me because, well, he seems to enjoy it himself in a 50 shades of grey sort of way.)

I was making a joke of Fox Noise's tendency to 'accidently' identify a republican as a democrat when having to report on some eff-up by some republican, whether race is involved or not. Included in this is when some one is obviously a racist or other type of douchebag, is making republican douchebag arguments, but is not technically a republican, perhaps is technically an independent, and may have voted democrat decades ago. IOW my point was Fox Noise is just a bunch of filthy liars, in general, which should be apparent to all but apparently isn't.

"....The fact is that basically the whole town condemned this guy—Democrats and Republicans. See the video—starting around 20 minute mark—if you have any doubt...https://www.youtube.etc...."

I saw the video on MSNBC. I never said the popular condemnation of this turd was partisan, in N.H. or anywhere else. I in no way implied such. Obviously.

(Personal note to ts - you are getting as bad as Nathan the Campbell at reading into my posts opinions that are not there and generally distorting and misrepresenting my actual opinions. If you keep this up people are going to start suspecting you work undercover for Fox Noise. lol.)

>21 JGL53: You didn't contradict anything that Tim said. You imagined that Fox News will do something,

I was making a joke of Fox Noise's tendency to 'accidently' identify a republican as a democrat when having to report on some eff-up by some republican, whether race is involved or not.

and then you got angry at them for doing it,

IOW my point was Fox Noise is just a bunch of filthy liars, in general, which should be apparent to all but apparently isn't.

What's the point of talking about what you think Fox News will do? Did they actually do it?

> 22

Purple invisible thoughts attack hamsters on the moon?

Is THAT what you are saying?

Well, I have no comeback for that. I guess you win.

What's the point of talking about what you think Fox News will do? Did they actually do it?

This is immaterial. They did it in his mind. So it's okay to be angry about it.

I wasn't "opposing" language and society, I was pointing out that the language changed because the society had changed. It's not some linguistic quirk out of thin air, no more substantial than a passing fashion.

Nor did I say it was.

> 24: Those thoughts should come with an imaginary trigger warning.

Christ on a Mother-fucking Crutch -

We have ONE sentence in the OP - which was a throwaway joke, not some serious allegation: "Here's the funny part. Odds are Fox Noise will identify this turd as a Democrat - based on the fact that he was a registered Democrat in 1956." -

From the above ts - post #2 - psychically gleans that I am - sadly - not only living in an imaginary world but am radically unhealthily partisan also.

Then jjwilson61 - post #22 - divines that I have anger issues and furthermore confirms from the Tarot cards ts's conviction that I am living in an imaginary world of my own weird and warped creation.

Then ts - post #24 - reads the tea leaves and consults the Ouija board board and duplicates the discernment of jjwilson61 reading of the goat entrails that I am indeed suffering from anger issues.

You two guys may dislike me and tag team ad hominem the fuck out me - but at least you two will always have each other to love. Please use a condom. You know - diseases?

If I ever give a party and desire to contract a conjurer who can reach up a rabbit's ass and pull out a hat I will surely be in contact. Do you guys have business cards?

But if I ever feel the need of a competent psychologist to consult for my hallucinations and anger issues - well, just don't sit by the phone. It won't ring. Because:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz4BZJvWkmM

>6 timspalding: "Colored," "negro" and "black" had or have in their day no pejorative connotation. An alien from Mars would be stumped as to why two of them are now extremely offensive.

Only to the extent that we would be stumped as to why calling a Martian "Northern" is extremely offensive, which is to say that it would take some willful cluelessness to be so stumped.

Sorry; I'm still checking out the shocked at the beginning of the post. After all, has anyone but me noticed all of the racists who've really come out of the woodwork after Obama was elected in '08?

I hate to say it but there really seems to be something that turns people off about this particular president - especially to those on Fox News. And I just love their incredulity whenever they think someone's "trying to play the race card", such as when Eric Holder brought up how this is a nation of cowards when it comes to racism. In fact, it would be comical if it wasn't so irritating.

I find much to complain about President Obama's administration; the lack of transparency, the continuation of reprehensible Bush-era polices, the pursuit of 'whistle-blowers' while ignoring what's been reported, the handling of the financial crisis by creating a 'too-big-to-jail' class of criminals.

Unfortunately, a great many of Obama's critics are focused on the one aspect of his life that's not under his control, and is irrelevant to what he does.

I once heard an aunt of mine, a very gentle person, casually use the word "nigger" in conversation in the 1980s. I knew she didn't mean it "meanly" and wouldn't have used it if a black person had been present but it was just a word she grew up with (born on a farm in southeastern Minnesota in 1911 -- no "niggers" around then). I of course said nothing but my mother, her sister, once remarked that she, my aunt, wasn't really very "worldly."

I recall the rhyme "Eeny-meeny-miney-moe" etc., and I could recite it without my parents objecting but I could NOT use the "n" word otherwise. I was to say "Negro"; I think I must have heard the term "colored" and I knew it wasn't "bad" per se at the time but I can't remember ever using it myself.

I started saying "black" in the late sixties and have used that term ever since as "African American" often sounds somewhat "stilted" to me. But maybe it was "black" as in "Black Panther" that stuck huh...

If the correct term is 'African-American', do I get to be a 'Euro-American'?

One of the more serious complaints against President Obama...

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/endless-war-top-obama-lawyers-tell-congr...

You get to be a "Euro-American" if you REALLY want to be...

>31 BruceCoulson: One of the Jesuits I knew as an undergraduate had an interesting experience in regards to the term, "African American." He was a native of Nigeria but was in the process of becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen (as a result of being appointed to a faculty post at Boston College); but he was told by the students in the college's "minority" student group (it used the unique acronym AHANA, for "African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American") that he could not call himself an "African American", because he was not descended from slaves.

>34 nathanielcampbell:

Similarly, some asserted Colin Powell wasn't African American because his parents were Jamaican immigrants--which, I suppose, meant they were slaves elsewhere. It's stupid but there is a real thing underneath that I can understand. There's no good term.

How about, 'American'? Or is that just too radical?

Everyone living in the New World's ancestors ultimately came from somewhere else (although in the case of the residing natives, that was so long ago we can safely deem them the only non-immigrants).

The vast majority of Americans are mutts; a blend of different cultures, faiths, and colours.

>36 BruceCoulson: I go with "American" for myself -- but then, the latest of my ancestors to arrive on this continent were Scots-Irish in the Carolinas in the 1750's (the earliest, on the other side of the family, stretch back to Rhode Island and Connecticut in the 1630's).

#29--this is where I am--I'd also add that the Afghan/Iraq but particularly the Afghan adventure started by the previous regime continues to go on and on and on and on and it's mainly because of energy concerns and the kind of people benefiting the most from all that are about as dead set against Obama as anyone in America and yet their ability to enrich themselves at the expense of American military blood seems to be an infallible right that the Obama administration has not ever really challenged.

I did not vote for Obama the second time around as I had the first. Saying that--he's definitely better than the Bush/Cheney regime but he became too much of a disappointment for me....and by the second time around anyway he'd turned from a mostly left populist dreamer into a centrist status quo leader. Too much for me. Generally I look at the two major parties this way--one of them is conservative and the other is super conservative. I'm not either.

You'll find today more Republicans who think "nigger" than Democrats. Granted, that isn't how it used to be but that's how it is now.

The police chief from "Wolfville" or whatever did NOT vote Democratic in the last two elections you can bet...

I voted for Obama both times because the alternatives both times disgusted me - in different ways of course.

In state races sometimes all choices are utterly unacceptable to me. This is why I am in favor of a "none of the above" alternative being on the ballot.

You won't get "None" -- you will get the actual one with the highest vote. If you really "don't care" which one that is sure "None" will suit you fine...

> 42

There is always the chance that "None" would get the most votes. If the law stated that a new election must be held if that happened, and that all of the previous candidates could not run again, then "None" would win.

It's just a dream of mine. I know it doesn't seem likely to ever happen.

I was just thinking back to an election a few years back when Haley Barbour was running for reelection as guv against a democrat that was completely crazy. That was when a "none" choice would have allowed me to vote my conscience. As it was it did not.

You'll find today more Republicans who think "nigger" than Democrats. Granted, that isn't how it used to be but that's how it is now.

Maybe nationwide. But, I don't know about New England. I'd doubt that's the case in Massachusetts. Someone I know—not me—has a mess of Massachusetts relatives who talk this way, and they're Democrats for generations back.

I voted for Obama both times because the alternatives both times disgusted me - in different ways of course.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I was under the impression there were two decent options. When Obama won, I thought that, even if he was farther to the left than I'd like, at least he'd be good for certain things. With pervasive government snooping massively expanded and explicitly justified by a president and party that should be its enemy, I'm not feeling that way anymore. At least, if the Republicans had done it, they would have met with Democratic opposition.

>36 BruceCoulson: I always remember that Woodrow Wilson complained that "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready" and heavily segregated the government.

>45 prosfilaes: The problem with labels is that someone always wants to pick a fight over who gets to carry them. They're really only useful when self-applied.

Ha. That's a great quote. Someone get that grumpy man some coffee.

>46 southernbooklady:

I respectfully disagree; I think that deciding what to call a person of a particular race is a good indication of your "racial disposition". For example, I would prefer it if >30 Michael_Welch:'s aunt referred to me in the way she would refer to me in private with her family (whether that's with N-word or not). At least it lets me know what perspective you're coming from and I can handle you appropriately. Contrarily, I find people who have the audacity to think of me as the N-word yet not the guts to say it to my face (or in my presence) to be totally underhanded, closet bigots. They are the worst kinds of racists.

>48 WHAuden120:

Yes.

I wanted to say something along those lines but I fear it's hopeless in here.

In short: if you wouldn't call someone X to their face, then you know something is wrong with X. So don't bloody call them that in private either--or own up to your bloody X-ism.

"Intention" is nothing, the act is what matters.

#45

Yes, well, Wilson was pretty racist. I object to the term because it's clumsy and awkward, not because I think those who use it (or even insist on it) are armed with daggers and ready to use them, metaphorically or not.

I also feel that it's divisive, which is why I take it to the absurd of 'Euro-American' which is correct but says nothing.

>49 LolaWalser: "Intention" is nothing, the act is what matters."

Do you find black use of the N-word equally is offensive? Or does the skin color of the user of the word change its meaning / impact?

ETA: I know that this post could come off as smug (especially given my previous comments on this particular issue), but I don't want it to. I want it to be read as a set of honest questions to explore the boundaries of acceptable vs. unacceptable usage of a racial epithet.

Sad situation all the way through. That being said, in response you your question: when some people age, they begin to care less and less what others think of them. Just look at that photograph of him; defiant expression on his face, arms belligerently crossed. I'm not so sure he's kept his racism to himself alone, I'm sure he has accomplices in ignorance, quite possibly he is the only one of his group that though it was a good idea to spout publicly. As I said, sad all the way through.

>52 laughingsky: " I'm not so sure he's kept his racism to himself alone, I'm sure he has accomplices in ignorance..."

I think he didn't (and doesn't) consider his view (or speech act) to be racist; it's just the way things are (from the perspective of this gentleman and his circle of associates, friends and family). I don't attribute his statement to ignorance, he knows exactly what he's saying about the POTUS and is comfortable with it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't give him a pass by labeling him "ignoranct". I agree with you that he probably thinks he is perfectly just in his position...in this day and age of information and communication, he has to be aware of all the arguments against his point of view and has chosen to remain racist...even worse than ignorance.

>51 nathanielcampbell:

Here's a little something you could think about:
Fact: Black people did not create the N-word, which was frequently used by whites as a slur and an insult to demean people of African roots.
Thus, some black people have chosen to take what was originally a slur and turn into their own way of addressing not only one another, yet other races as well. Now some people whine about this (especially white people who feel that if they can't say it and it's so offensive coming from them, then no one else should be allowed to say it either), because black use of the N-word indicates that they can no longer control what it means. Why? Because now that black people use it in this way, it no longer has such a potent effect on those black people and this is angering, or at the very least, perplexing to some people who want to abolish the word completely. Fortunately, that's not my problem.

And you can't deny that the same word can have different meanings when said by different people.

Plus, you never addressed the fact that — either way — if someone is going to use the N-word, they should at least use it in the presence of the people they are addressing. After all, if they fear the consequences from those who may be offended, perhaps it's time for them to make a different language (and more importantly, perception) choice. Besides, wouldn't it be wrong of me to call you dense behind your back, yet not to your face? ;)

In addition, the N-word is not the only word which has been "converted" to have an alternative meaning (depending on the user). For example, the Slutwalk Movement proudly embraces the word "slut" to take away the word's hurting power.

>51 nathanielcampbell:

Yes, the race of the speaker changes the context. How is this even something one has to point out? Anyway, I have no business explaining this, but I'm sure you can find relevant sources to do so.

>57 LolaWalser: The ETA to 51 was intended to defuse the questions, though apparently it was unsuccessful. I was simply trying to understand your perspective on the use of the N-word -- the questions were for discovery, not argumentation. I'm sorry that you still felt the need to be haughty about it.

>50 BruceCoulson: When you say it's divisive, you're objecting to how Wilson phrased it, not what he meant. And #45 is all about how calling it divisive can be a cover to attack those who go by such names, not to actually promote equality.

And there are several examples of groups subject to put-downs making use themselves of put-down names others use on them. The word "queer" comes to mind. I think some colleges even have "queer studies" now. And, of course, there was the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" show.

Also, it's my understanding that "Oklahoma" is an American Indian name meaning "Red Man". I don't know how A.I. react to that - I do know they don't like the term "Redskin" at all. (BTW, the identifier "Indian" is stupid, as Indians live in India, but the only sensible alternative would be "Aborigines" and that would be problematic also. I guess we should stick with American Indians or Amerindians.)

Context is everything. Even when white teens trying to be hip use the N-word with their black buddies it usually is not appreciated. Blacks just do not like to hear the word coming out of white mouths at all. I can understand that.

The only white people I know who can use the N-word apparently free from impunity are the comedians Louis C.K., Sarah Silverstein, and Larry David. It's easy to find examples of them doing so on youtube. (The guy who played "Kramer" on Seinfeld - he is NOT allowed to use it. I think he understands that NOW.)

To sum up - I am sorry but a person must be a fucking fool and highly socially retarded who equates, e.g., Richard Pryor using the N-word to some white racist referencing Black people with the N-word in public. These are NOT equivalent in any important way.

No, I'm objecting to what Wilson meant AND how he phrased it. I can do both.

Yes, and 'urban' used to be a perfectly acceptable word describing people who lived in cities, and not a code word for 'those people'. Just because calling a phrase 'divisive' CAN be a cover for an attack, doesn't mean that it's always the case.

'Euro-American' is a joke; people identified (note the past tense) as German-Americans, Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans. However, 'British-Americans' never caught on, somehow. Although there are still cultural heritage days in many places, where people will identify themselves as such, it's more an excuse to relax and party (not that there's anything wrong with that...). It's not in common usage.

So, could a descendant of white South Africans identify themselves as 'African-American'? And if not, why not?

We're all (mostly) mutts; we're all Americans. Be proud of your heritage if it makes you feel better (or gives you an excuse to drink). But it doesn't make you more equal or less so.

It was Nigger Heaven by Carl Van Vechten, that made the Harlem Renaissance famous outside of Harlem.

Van Vechten, a music Critic for the Times, had photographed many of the most important people in Harlem. In 1913,He,had befriended the poet Gertrude Stein, and Alice B. Toklas, the cook book author at the infamous Paris premiere of Rite of Spring.

"Intention" is nothing, the act is what matters.

I like it when people express the deep principles that drive their views. This is a good one for us to disagree on from the start.

I think it puts things in a very bleak place—a world of "sides," with no dialogue, mercy, mitigation or extenuation. But whether or not it's good or bad, I think we can see it driving a whole world view and approach to conflict at the political and cultural extremes, right and left. When you think like this, you don't need to understand others, or figure out why they do what they do. The act is before you, the act is obvious, and the act is all that matters. Everything you object to is an act against you, and every wrong opinion is spit in your eye. The person is but the doer of acts, and what's going on in their heads or hearts is immaterial.

>63 timspalding:

yes, great, let's disagree, we both know we wouldn't WANT to agree on anything!--but first HEEEEEEEEELP PLEEEASE:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/174635

Sure thing.

thankyouthankyouthankyou!

Can we stop singing Kumbaya and get back to arguing?

>67 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

On it!

(I'm writing a response to >63 timspalding:...)

(On second thought, maybe reserve it for AFTER HE SAVES MY PRECIOUSSSSS)

:)

Snort. It's all separate for me—helping a member and arguing with someone. Also, the intention and the act are separate ;)

>63 timspalding:

On topic, I'm not sure where you get from my post that there's "no dialogue, mercy, mitigation or extenuation." But first, it's probable we don't agree on what constitutes racism and the extension and damage casual or hidden or "passive" racism does (it's probably never correct to call it "passive", but I can't think of a better term at the moment)--you know, everything that ISN'T outright bombing, cross-burning and public invective. Until you agree that "well-meaning" people do racist stuff, the discussion's a non-starter. It's easy to point and gasp at drastic extremes like the KKK. Most of the oppression and racism happening today isn't caused by the KKK, most whites who can't stand Obama because of his skin colour aren't the KKK.

As to dialogue and mercy, maybe I'm taking this literally and you mean it somehow "in abstract"--I can't enter into a dialogue with all the unknown grandpas and aunties and others who would consciously abstain from saying "nigger" or "kike" or "wog" to the face of a black, Jewish or Italian person, but do so behind these people's backs--and I can't begin to imagine what these strangers would do with my "mercy" or indeed how I'm supposed to show them mercy (if I could ever even believe that I'm in position to dispense it). Maybe the word means something different to you. Perhaps "understanding" or "compassion" is closer to what I can get.

If so, to be sure, I can understand and commiserate with them, and of course I'm prepared to discuss this with any such person I'm actually faced with... assuming they too want to discuss it. Yes, I think people who grew up thinking (and of course it's not just "thinking", such environments presuppose a whole lot of things) about different people as niggers kikes etc. have also suffered something--a warping of minds and morality, a stunting of growth, a loss of humanity that is hard to pin down, and whatever damage segregation, ignorance, fear and hatred do to one.

That's sad--but it is nowhere as sad or painful as what those they were taught to discriminate against, to hold in contempt, to ostracise and persecute have suffered and continue to suffer as direct consequence of the past.

But I want to repeat something I've said before, because I'm uncomfortable with appearing to pontificate--I didn't pick this up from books and liberal propaganda, I learned it on my own example, I KNOW what it means to be unconscious of one's "privilege" and behave in ways that oppress others while having the best "intentions" in the world. The point, therefore, isn't that people like me are somehow better--rather the opposite, it is that very few people are worse.

It took me years and various incidents and lots of thinking and a lot of pain (vanity and self-regard aren't something to weep over, but blows to them hurt the same) before I realised just where I was wrong--I mean specific instances. And it was a shocking realisation--that *I*, so wonderfully open-minded and so gloriously well-intentioned, so perfectly multi-culti-egalitarian-everything, could nevertheless infringe on people--like that lady in Jesse's link about privilege said, be oppressive--oppressive just like any old "intentional" racist, in pretty much the same way. That my behaviour, whatever I was thinking, WAS, in effect, racist.

I could describe the specific watershed incident, one I spent mulling over for several years, but I can't do it justice without going at great length.

The summary will have to do and it is this: for years I refused to give up my perspective--the perspective of the well-meaning, open-minded, perfectly just, perfectly egalitarian (white) person. I had already had several important insights about racism, I had already learned a lot, I had already practised placing myself into the position of various black people and because I did all that and had insights and learned things I didn't know when I first arrived in the US, I thought I understood everything.

Whereas I was my own blind spot and last and worst obstacle to really understanding the problem. The problem was precisely that as long as I stared at my beautiful intentions I was failing to notice my faults. How could I do something wrong when what I wanted was to do good?

If my example is somehow suspect or unsatisfactory, I invite to ponder the one in the other thread, that intelligent, educated, liberal, well-meaning, American white intellectual recognising her own racism--how she happened to be racist at all. It wasn't her intention. It was the last thing she could have imagined, and the complete opposite to what she KNEW she was and wanted to be.

It's easy to decide that what she did doesn't compare to beating someone up or voting for discriminatory policies or developing racist theories etc. because, obviously no, it's not all the same. But all of that is part of the same situation and all these various degrees and ways of oppression contribute to it--all the worse the more covert, subtle, "unintentional" they are.

Until you agree that "well-meaning" people do racist stuff, the discussion's a non-starter

Of course I agree.

It's easy to point and gasp at drastic extremes like the KKK. Most of the oppression and racism happening today isn't caused by the KKK, most whites who can't stand Obama because of his skin colour aren't the KKK.

I would go futher than you said here, perhaps. Relatively few people can't stand Obama because of his skin color--in a fully conscious way. While they certainly exist--and number in the millions--intentional, knowing racism is increasingly rare in the US, and mostly confined to our social margins. If one used the word "nigger" at your suburban kids Soccer Practice, you'd mark yourself out not only as a racist but also as a degenerate. If you used it at Whole Foods, people would be concerned you had schitzophrenia. Racism exists, of course, and has enormous effects, but it's principally about that--still less is it the KKK. Both the left and the right benefit by talking about the extremes--the former because a clear enemy is a sweet thing, the latter because, well, they're definitely not the KKK. Racism is less about that than about the absolutely dismal economic position of blacks in this country--which, of course, is ultimately about racism.

It took me years and various incidents and lots of thinking and a lot of pain (vanity and self-regard aren't something to weep over, but blows to them hurt the same) before I realised just where I was wrong--I mean specific instances. And it was a shocking realisation--that *I*, so wonderfully open-minded and so gloriously well-intentioned, so perfectly multi-culti-egalitarian-everything, could nevertheless infringe on people--like that lady in Jesse's link about privilege said, be oppressive--oppressive just like any old "intentional" racist, in pretty much the same way. That my behaviour, whatever I was thinking, WAS, in effect, racist.

I hear--and appreciate--the experience and the sentiment. I humbly accept that your story is as you describe it, and that you both erred and self-corrected as you said.

I think I can bring another perspective on the thing, having grown up and spent so long at the very center of political correctness--namely, privileged Cambridge, MA. And that is my feeling that whatever good may be gained from examining ones racial conscience, there is also something poisonous about it, at least as sometimes practiced.

If you care about getting rid of something enough, one also becomes--in a way--dependent on it, and warped by its suppositions. The angry atheist is determined to live a live free from God--and spends his every waking hour typing on internet chatrooms about God. The determined and well-intentioned anti-racist activist spends his life saying and thinking progressive things that actually recapitulate rigid and reductive racial categories.

I am also concerned about a focus on self. I don't mean to pick on you here--I have no criticism of what you said about yourself. But it seems almost axiomatic now that our moral duty in this area is to purge ourselves of racism and other wrong ideas. We must examine our privilege. We must discover we are really all racists. We must have the right political and social views, even if nothing comes of it.

I don't disagree with any of these goals, of course. But I disagree with the focus. Our moral duty is (in my opinion) to love--to actively love--others. That duty is first and foremost to those who need it the most--the poor, the disadvantaged, the addicted, the homeless, the asylee, the grieving, etc. Our duty is not to have the right opinions about them but to do what we can to HELP THEM. As we do so, we'll strip back layers of unconscious prejudice--it's surely the best way. But that's not the point of the thing. In that way, perhaps, I favor action, not intention.

Anyway, at my point of life I'm done with my liberal upper-middle-class set, who preen over their rightness of mind and worry some residue of racism is lurking therein--but often who won't step up and do anything for those in need. I'm tired of their private schools that loudly advertise themselves as "safe spaces" for every conceivable minority, yet operate oblivious to a large war-refugee community a few block away, many of whose members live in truly abject poverty. I see a rising obsession with personal purity that's lost touch with human decency. In that sense, perhaps, I agree that intention isn't the point--action is.

Anyway that's my take. YYMV. Consider it as more commentary, not as disagreement with yours.

A lot of older white Americans don't like Obama--not so much because he's black--though there is that too for a lot of them--but they see his presidency as an attack upon the values they grew up with. They get this from their churches--they get this from their radios, newspapers--being plugged into Fox News. They remember better times when hot dogs cost a nickel and when you could fill up your gas tank for a buck and a half. Drive-in movies--trips to the ice cream parlor, picnics and vacations spent almost entirely in their hotel rooms with the occasional foray to play putt putt. I listen to this abortion crap all the time--murderer this, murderer that. They blame him for all the jobs that have left the country. They don't understand rap music--they don't understand newer trends in fashion--they think the world has become disrespectful and they believe not enough people believe--in Jesus Christ or in the case of Jews just the God of the old testament. Kids don't want to work--even if there aren't any jobs that can pay them a living wage. Then there's welfare and where is all the tax money is being spent. What the hell is global warming? Everything is going to hell in a hand basket and guess who is in the White House--running around all over the world hobnobbing with this clown or that and making $400 K a year? This is pretty much my 91 year old mom but she gets a lot of support for her views--absurd as they are--a lot of people around her age and even a bit younger--sometimes quite a bit younger. I don't think these views are unique at all--in her case just mostly naive with a touch of malice--she feeds all the squirrels and the birds in the neighborhood by the way--and it's very hard arguing with a person with a major hearing problem.

As far as historical tendencies of racial discrimination or any other discrimination for that matter--historically we've had an hierarchical society. Groups of people lumped in as more or less superior--by race, by gender, by tongue--mainly it's all about wealth and political pull. The experience of Africans in this country is the most egregious--goes back to people denied any rights at all--countless waves of immigrants haven't been treated very kindly either and Native Americans pushed all over the place--more or less when they couldn't be exploited they were taking up space to no good end. It's always been about wealth and political power and it was much easier to assimilate white people--particularly males towards the top of the economic food chain if only because those at the top of the food chain were white and male themselves. Kind of like a club. All of this gets solved when the problem of economic equality gets solved. How that is going to happen I don't know.

>71 timspalding: "If you care about getting rid of something enough, one also becomes--in a way--dependent on it, and warped by its suppositions. "

I've noticed this about myself, as well, and I haven't yet figured out what to make of it. As I have become more and more conscious of the sub rosa, structural racism that Lola was talking about, and spent more and more time trying honestly to think through the challenging shift in perspectives that comes with the charge to "check my privilege" (and though it may not seem like it to many here, I do take that introspection seriously), I also find myself increasingly conscious of the skin color of people around me.

Five or ten years ago, I simply would not have consciously registered often the skin color of the people around me in the store or at church or at school -- it just wasn't a feature of the visible landscape that I would note or be aware of. But now, I frequently do consciously note who has what skin color. On the one hand, that heightened consciousness can be useful -- I can note how few black faces I see at church, and thus devote time to thinking about why that might be. But I worry that it also has a downside, in that I am now more likely to think first about a person's skin color than about other, more consequential features.

I feel this tug-of-war within me between what seem like two competing principles: striving for a society in which skin color is of no import vs. needing to recognize how skin color does, in fact, still correlate to structural inequalities. The latter principle requires greater awareness of the skin color of the people around you; the former principle seeks to eclipse skin color with more substantive values ("content of character", as MLK put it) -- because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether my neighbor is black or white -- what matters is that they are my neighbor, whom I should love and help because of what we have in common (humanity), not because of what divides us (race or wealth or class or intellect or religion or gender).

>70 LolaWalser: Whereas I was my own blind spot and last and worst obstacle to really understanding the problem. The problem was precisely that as long as I stared at my beautiful intentions I was failing to notice my faults. How could I do something wrong when what I wanted was to do good?

A cautionary tale that all too often applies to me.

I would go futher than you said here, perhaps. Relatively few people can't stand Obama because of his skin color--in a fully conscious way. While they certainly exist--and number in the millions--intentional, knowing racism is increasingly rare in the US, and mostly confined to our social margins. If one used the word "nigger" at your suburban kids Soccer Practice, you'd mark yourself out not only as a racist but also as a degenerate

You should get out of Portland more often.

Relatively few people can't stand Obama because of his skin color--in a fully conscious way.

I think I'd go further than that... Most of the people that can't stand blacks would tell you that they don't have a problem with blacks, per se. It's just the specific ones they have a problem with. And then they'd go on to tell you that these are the very ones that are destroying the country, etc. and give the rest of their "race" a bad name.

>71 timspalding:

I'm afraid you have largely misunderstood me--and I get the sense that this is happening because you persist in applying your "how to decode a liberal" lens on me. Could be my fault for not providing more detail.

The first thing to keep in mind is that I'm not American--I had a very different personal history to any of you born and raised in the States--and I don't fit the mould of an American liberal although I understand why some of my opinions and traits would get me categorised with that group.

I emphasise this because it changes my story entirely to think I was thinking and behaving like Americans do. Americans are, in fact, still frequently as incomprehensible to me as I seem to be to them. In short, Americans do not know "where I'm coming from" (on my part, I have gained at least some knowledge about where Americans are coming from).

For instance, speaking of "racial conscience", before I arrived in the US, New Orleans of all places, I had no clue about, no sense of race at all, I didn't know I was white. I'm not sure I can adequately represent to you and convince you of this ignorance (partly innocence and naïveté) because it is so unthinkable for an American. This is absolutely not possible for ANY American, and it has nothing to do with where you live, who your friends are etc. You all know about race; you all exist in a context where this knowledge is taken for granted. But, where Americans had knowledge and I didn't, they also had a bias, and I didn't... have THAT bias.

But I disagree with the focus....Our duty is not to have the right opinions about them but to do what we can to HELP THEM.

This would be the second thing: I don't know where you get the idea that this was about IDEAS and that I'm talking about nothing but opinions. Somehow I still must have failed at conveying the most important thing--that it was never about opinions at all, it was about behaviour, how I had to live and act.

You also seem to think I'm talking about opinions about black people, which is utterly wrong. I didn't harbour any negative or racist thoughts that needed changing, if that's what you got from it. Perhaps this is also difficult to understand for an American. I grew up in countries where diversity of every kind existed--except racial one. I was brought up by people consciously promoting liberté-égalité-fraternité, I had a scientific education that gave evidence of the unity of the H. sapiens--all this was my core belief, the air I breathed. Theoretically I was perfectly just and egalitarian--and so was my world.

But then I changed worlds. And faced with a situation in which races not only existed, but--CONTRARY to what I expected (ask me sometime about the ideas I had about the US before September 1992)--where racism was jolly well alive and ubiquitous!--I struggled mightily to maintain myself as this perfectly just egalitarian person, in fact and thought.

Third, the "focus on self". Not sure I understand the remark, that's just the side-effect of talking about the only personal experience I know intimately inside out, and the reason I talked about it was similar to the reason {Peggy McIntosh} mentioned hers. To illustrate what we were talking about, which is, broadly, the insidiousness of biases of the "well-meaning" people. Which--perhaps a tad optimistically--I believe to be the BULK of all people.

And, finally, the reason talking about these "well-intentioned" delusions and recognising the biases is so important precisely because of action!

People are asked to "check their privilege" not so that they could become more pure and contemplate their own goodness, but so that life could improve for the less privileged (and ultimately for everyone).

Before I understood where I was wrong in a certain situation, I wasn't helping the person I wanted to help, I was obstructing her. Once I understood, I was able to give REAL help.

Yes, action is everything. Goodness, I think I said something to that effect in the beginning! :)

You should get out of Portland more often.

Meh. In fifty years the percentage of Americans who say they approve of interracial marriage has gone from 4% to 87%. Perhaps some of this is the Bradley effect, but that's part of the point.

When you break things down by status markers, the reality is even more clear. The strongest indicator of progressive racial attitudes, besides race itself, is education. The zip codes with the highest education levels, have the lowest racism. (Income too, but when you control for education, education is more significant than education. In other words the rare rich non-college-graduate isn't necessarily progressive.) In other words, I may need to get out more, but if I stay in the zip codes of the educated white middle- and upper-class, I'm not going to encounter a lot of people who use the word "nigger" socially. Sure, such people exist, but focusing on them misses the real picture of race today.

I think I'd go further than that... Most of the people that can't stand blacks would tell you that they don't have a problem with blacks, per se. It's just the specific ones they have a problem with. And then they'd go on to tell you that these are the very ones that are destroying the country, etc. and give the rest of their "race" a bad name

Yeah, there's a good deal to what you say. But I also think it's telling how even racism today wants to portray itself as non-racist. In truth, racial attitudes have undergone a statistical sea-change in the last 50 years. Conscious, public racism has gone from the norm to the aberration, especially among the people who hold social and economic power. The numbers are like night and day.

Meanwhile, the economic and social position of underprivileged minorities has seen no similarly dramatic change.

---

1. See http://www.princeton.edu/~talim/EnvironmentalDeterminantsOfRacialAttitudes.pdf "Once again, the largest contextual effects arise from the zip code’s level of education, even when taking individual education and income into account. The model predicts that residents of zip codes with fewer than 5 percent college-educated residents score 27 percentage points higher on the symbolic racism scale, twenty-five percentage points higher on the authoritarianism scale, 11 percentage points higher on the anti-Semitism, and 9 percentage points higher on the negative stereotype scales than residents of the most educated zip codes (i.e., zip codes with more than 70 percent of residents with a college degree). These differences are much larger than those across any of the racial context measures."

First, I think you're taking much of what I said to be about you. I was riffing on social attitudes generally more than I was commenting on you and yours, as I myself said a number of times. Obviously I can understand how it doesn't feel that way. After all, I was replying to something you said.

In short, Americans do not know "where I'm coming from

No, fair enough.

You all know about race; you all exist in a context where this knowledge is taken for granted. But, where Americans had knowledge and I didn't, they also had a bias, and I didn't... have THAT bias.

Im sure that's true. But I also think foreigners--and some Americans--underestimate region and social differences. America is one country, but it's not really one unitary society. I find New Orleans a very foreign place, and the suburban and rural south even more so.

Times have changed, of course, and the US has seen much in the way of "nation"-ization, but a foreigner also needs to remember that, well, my ancestors invaded and occupied New Orleans, and over the racial question. That isn't dead. To bring it forward, in my social set it would be unforgivable offense if I were to disparage someone as typical black person. I would be shunned, and indeed I would shun someone who said that in my house too. But nobody would bat an eye if I disparaged someone as a typical white southerner.

Anyway, I'm riffing again… :)

You also seem to think I'm talking about opinions about black people, which is utterly wrong.

Yes. In fairness, you ARE being a little obscure!

People are asked to "check their privilege" not so that they could become more pure and contemplate their own goodness, but so that life could improve for the less privileged (and ultimately for everyone).

We agree.

As I said, however, I don't think this is how it works out for many people. I do not in any way assert those people are you.

I think it may be something like this: IF a particular black person talks, acts, and dresses "white" - AND advocates the same "values" as a racist conservative-teabagger-republican white person, THEN that black person is viewed as an honorary white person - basically as a white person who merely happens to have black skin and secondary racial characteristics. (Though on a personal level - like marrying their daughter - they might still retain prejudice.)

Thus they would vote for such an exception if he were the republican nominee for POTUS against a white liberal/moderate democrat. If he were elected they would sing "See, we are NOT racists - we happily voted for a black person for POTUS." J.C. Watts comes to mind. Or, say, Herman Cain (if he were something more than a total freak).

Of course, the overwhelming per cent of blacks in America do not fit these criteria. All these black people are viewed as N-words by conservative-teabagger-republican white people. Some of these racists are stupid enough to admit this in public. The overwhelming per cent are at least savvy enough to NOT make racist slurs in public - at least not whenever it is thought some black person may overhear or walk into the room or if there may be hidden cameras, etc.

So to make sure Nathanial the Campbell, timspalding, and their ilk don't absolutize what I just said and then blame me for being an illogical absolutist, I am NOT talking about ALL white people in America. I am talking about that per cent of American white people who are racist.

We can always have a debate about what that per cent actually is, where they are concentrated, what political power they weld at this juncture in time, and so forth.

>78 timspalding:

I've now spent more than half my life with or next to Americans and the US still seems to me the most homogeneous country of any I've known. I can't very well explain what this sameness consists of, but it's there beyond race, status, geography.

No reflection on you, but I think we are still talking past each other on race. You seem to cast what I'm saying in some "propagandistic", journalistic light, as if I came to the US on a mission to report back to Moscow what an awful place it is.

I couldn't have cared less about that sort of thing, the politics, the social context. I came to continue my life and study and hoped to have a good time too. The US never interested me, I knew next to nothing about it, I believed (without knowing that I believed this until I was faced with American reality) that blacks and whites were now "equal" as a matter of course. Racism was something dealt with and buried in the nineteenth century, a couple books, a couple scenes on TV--say the word and my first association would have been Uncle Tom's Cabin and Haley's Roots.

Segregation, Jim Crow, the sixties, MLK, you say? If I ever knew anything about them, they too were ancient history.

You could say that THEN I too thought racism was a matter of opinion, whereas living in the US (New Orleans was my first port and while it's special, it's not unique in any way regarding racism), it slowly dawned on me--in starts and spurts actually--that racism is not (just or only or necessarily) an opinion in someone's head or on someone's lips, it's a SITUATION.

It is a net of things, of obstacles, prejudice, set conditions, IT IS A CASE. You can walk inside racism like inside a house. You can have no racist prejudice in you head, like me, and yet circumstances will force you to behave like a racist, you will be TAUGHT racism.

Some of it is blatant: my uncle's friends who kindly gathered me at the airport and took to the campus the next day, delivering the very first advice I received in the US (pointing to a couple black street musicians): AVOID THEM. I must have looked stupid (avoid buskers?), so they elaborated. It was all done with the best of intentions.

But most of it isn't blatant. It's what is already there, the framework: how things are, who's on top and who's on bottom, "what everyone knows", the mire of poverty and crime suffocating those who never had a chance, and who, because they never had a chance, will never get one.

It's invisible lines and subtle attitudes. I learned mostly by stepping all over them. But there was a limit to how "different" I could be, simply because to the naked eye, to the context, I was just another white person, co-opted into that place's shame, assigned privilege and free passes.

What I had in my head didn't matter a whit. What mattered was: do I cross to the other side if I see a black person walking towards me? Do I venture here or there by this or that route? Do I ask this or that person for time, directions, help? Did I get so used to seeing black cleaners, servers, menials--and never professors, rarely students--that I'll be surprised and show it when a black person turns out to be the engineer I'm looking for? (The first American and first black person I ever spoke with, on the flight from Cincinnati to New Orleans, turned out to be a professor at one of my uni's colleges. Only in retrospect, much, much later, did this become something notable.) Once I realised I was basically always the only white person on the buses, would I stop taking them?

If I had stopped taking the buses, what would it have mattered that I didn't think "niggers" in my head?

Anyway... I always end up regretting talking about this (not that I try often--once or twice in the past), as getting it right is so important, but the "fact shrubbery" is so dense, and combined with the foreigness of my perspective and trying to anticipate and correct for that etc. etc.

I had a Ghanaian colleague who's been talking for years and years about writing a book about his experiences as an African in New Orleans, but he hasn't figured out how to negotiate these "perspective" jams either. And there's a smashing story to tell...

>80 LolaWalser:

i wonder if this kind of misunderstanding is the crux of why it can be hard (or sometimes was, for me) to teach about oppression in high school - to really get at how it's not an idea or a thought or something in someone's head (or not in someone's head) but an action, a doing, a cause and effect that happens in the tangible real world.

(not that i can even say for certain that i am not misunderstanding you.)

that racism is not (just or only or necessarily) an opinion in someone's head or on someone's lips, it's a SITUATION.

No question. I completely agree with you.

It is a net of things, of obstacles, prejudice, set conditions, IT IS A CASE. You can walk inside racism like inside a house. You can have no racist prejudice in you head, like me, and yet circumstances will force you to behave like a racist, you will be TAUGHT racism.

I think there's a lot of truth to what you say. It is a net of things.

But most of it isn't blatant. It's what is already there, the framework: how things are, who's on top and who's on bottom, "what everyone knows", the mire of poverty and crime suffocating those who never had a chance, and who, because they never had a chance, will never get one.

Here we completely agree. But I would go farther than you, I think. While racial prejudice exists and continues to have a meaningful effect, the largest and most damaging aspect to racism is the situation created by past racism--even "racism" is too weak a word, really. That is that it created a massive gap between the economic status of whites and blacks. This is why I'm suspicious of white people who focus the problem on white people and their opinions. If every single white American were to become perfectly color-blind, or every black person were to suddenly acquire white skin and cultural markers, it wouldn't make that much of a difference--black America would still be living in what amounts to a different country than white America. That is, the most important obstacle an average black American faces today is not in the mind of his white neighbors, but in his dramatically different economic and social situation. Such a situation is less common for white people, but even for them it's not easy to escape. The desperate parts of Maine are not going away, and indeed are in some ways getting worse, despite the lack of color discrimination against their inhabitants.

What I had in my head didn't matter a whit. What mattered was: do I cross to the other side if I see a black person walking towards me? Do I venture here or there by this or that route? Do I ask this or that person for time, directions, help? Did I get so used to seeing black cleaners, servers, menials--and never professors, rarely students--that I'll be surprised and show it when a black person turns out to be the engineer I'm looking for? (The first American and first black person I ever spoke with, on the flight from Cincinnati to New Orleans, turned out to be a professor at one of my uni's colleges. Only in retrospect, much, much later, did this become something notable.) Once I realised I was basically always the only white person on the buses, would I stop taking them?

I appreciate where you're coming from here. For what it's worth, however, I had the same feeling when I moved from New England to D.C. In some parts of the country--DC and New Orleans being prime examples--the gap is particularly stark and noticeable. While statistics always leave room for exceptions, there are places in the US where skin color alone is a high-confidence predictor for wealth or poverty, and there are places where the correlation is weaker.

Racial discrimination and prejudice exist everywhere and any where in this world.

www.listcrux.com/top-10-most-racist-countries-in-the-world/

(10) India ( 9) Pakistan (8) Russia (7) Israel (6) Germany (5) Japan (4) Rwanda

(3) Australia (2) United Kingdom

United States of America topped the list, Number 1.

>80 LolaWalser: I want to pipe up with a word of thanks for this eloquent and thoughtful post. It is thoroughly thought-provoking in the best possible way(s).

>83 razzamajazz:

What grounds are there for considering this ranking to be accurate?

>85 cpg:

i have to say, anyone who thinks the US is the most racist country in the world simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

> 86

Well, we could discuss instead which of the U.S. is the most racist state.

I nominate Mississippi.

Any other nominations?

> cpg - Message 85

The latest survey shows a different result.(see below)

Report dated 22 May 2014.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/map-shows-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html

Note: Message 83's link was unfounded and not accurate by the writer.The writer do not researched accurately well for his article.

Attitudes changed overtime,people will become more tolerant toward each other of different ethnic or racial groups.

As people are more educated and literate, the outlook of world's affairs will be better understood than in the past. The human race needs to work together for the betterment of world's understanding and tolerance toward one and another.

I would reiterate that "the times and context" matter.

The Chicago writer Nelson Algren wrote gritty novels from the "lumpen proletariat" angle of "mean streets" but the writer Simone de Beauvoir noted in her memoir of her affair with Algren that he repeatedly used the "n" word. Was Algren a racist? Well sort of I suppose yet I think he would have supported efforts to free the Scottsboro boys and was against lynching etc.; he was however a "product" of white lower class "ethnicia," no matter how "radical," and he spoke as per my aunt in that language, perhaps in his case a bit "defiantly"?

And yeah Woodrow Wilson was certainly a southern racist BUT he was also an important progressive as odd as that assertion may be and inadvertently in his case he brought the nation closer to the liberalism that would eventually undermine and attempt to destroy Wilson's nostalgia for southern white society and indeed the society itself.

His "successor" as the most successful "progressive" or "liberal" in American history, Franklin Roosevelt, did almost nothing for the DIRECT benefit of black folks but his New Deal also implied and led to the rights of black citizens as well.

Harry Truman's diary has him repeating that "n" word a number of times -- Truman's Missouri family was pro confederate and his grandmother asserted always that she was "unreconstructed." Still Truman's order to integrate the armed forces was a powerful step in the fight for desegregation, even preceding Brown vs Board eh.

"Time and place" -- it's as per folks today objecting to their kids reading "Huckleberry Finn" because it contains "the word" when Twain's purpose was to EXPOSE the futility of a racist ideology in the name of PERSONAL relations between human beings.

If Twain had NOT used the "n" word his book would have been an invalid depiction of the times and place he was writing about...

The "N" word should be refrained from using in our conversations,speeches and writings.

The word will only create " tension" and "unhappiness" to the Blacks.

>90 razzamajazz: Go ahead and remove the quotation marks. They imply that African-Americans have no good reason to dislike that term.

Are there no repercussions of using that "racial slur" remark ? Try to slur to the Blacks in their dominated neighbourhoods.

Nigger is one of the most notorious word in American culture. To call them "African-American" or "Afro-American" is more pleasant and acceptable.

www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/nigger-word-brief-history.

Any racial slurring against any race is bad.

A dear Christian lady I once knew had a word that I think well describes those coloured folks who think they can pepper their in-group conversations with N-word this and N-word that, yet would demand the head of any melanin deficient person if they ever slipped and did so in public. The word was “reggin”.

I find that most people (ebony or ivory) who casually use the N-word are bothered when I respond that “Jesus Christ is my NGR.”

> 93

Well, misunderstandings DO happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fFwnqBU_-U

The word was “reggin”.

Oddly enough, I knew people growing up that would used that word as a substitute for the other. In much the same way that people call them Canadians.

These "Whites" superiority's or supremacy's complex or mentality to give a parallel of slavery in USA and Canada. Slavery was widespread and present in the colonies owned by the former British Commonwealth and in certain states and colonies of America prior to the abolition of slavery.

Sweat shops are one form of modern "slavery" when workers are earning low wages or even unpaid wages, long working hours and bad working condition.

Child labour are the exploitation for cheap labour in certain countries.

Many countries have "close one eye" to these problems.

What really can be done to eradicate these human exploitations for cheap labour ?

Read on:

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Niggers_of_America

This kind of euphemism is bad.

Canadian is just another derivative of the euphemism.

I would say that it is wrong to say "nigger" except when quoting or making an historical reference. It is not "polite conversation" and it deeply offends. But the word needn't be excised to the point that it MUST ALWAYS be referred to elliptically as "the n word"; that often seems forced and silly...

Any kind of racial connotations/slurring remarks/labelling or the disparaging remarks/slurs within the same race group or ethnicity will likely to create tension and sometimes violence.

In other words "When you say that -- SMILE"...

LOL.