"I want my country back" = smokescreen for racism

[Tom Wetmore]

I think your use of it has a strongly ironic ring to it partly because you use it, but also ironically you use it in an "Elitist/Difference" way by using it to negatively characterize one subset of black people and use the politically correct "African American" term to positively affirm and distinguish another subset of black people. The irony is further accentuated because this is being used to a degree in a historical sense contrasting this deeply offensive word commonly used in that historic period with the current politically correct term that wasn't even used during that time.

[Woody]

If one is having a rational and dispasionate discussion of vocabulary used in a certain era, can one successfully avoid using the very words of which you speak?

Yes. It can be tastefully and tactfully done without the term being used.

[Tom Wetmore]

It's not OK, It's controversial. Black folks don't agree on whether it should be used. You can use it if you like. It depends on the context and the manner in which it is used.

I had a personal experience that was a stark example of this difference of opinion among black folk. It involved two separate but related conversations I had with two different African American friends. The first was a guy that came up to me with the greeting, "Hey Nigga, how ya doin'?" I responded, not unsurprisingly, "Now how am I supposed to respond to that, for crying out loud!" The second conversation was a candid conversation about race relations in which I related the previous incident. I used the "N" word, hesitantly and apologetically, in exactly quoting my previous friend, just as I have done here. I was genuinely wanting to understand how my second friend felt about the use of the "N" word among friends as a term of endearment. We had a good discussion on the point that black folk do indeed differ on its acceptability. But it wasn't until a few days later that she referred back to that conversation, and politely asked me to never use that word again in her presence. Since I am most uncomfortable with the word, that will not be a problem.

[Dr. Shane]

The only time I use that word is when I am talking about a country in Africa. Even then I pronounce it differently. I think all baptized Christians are children of God. Those that are not baptized are our mission field. That is how I treat everyone.

[Woody]

One can use it niggardly or not at all. I prefer the not at all

[abelisle]

Besides considering the syntactical uses and the diction aspects of this word, I think we must consider another concern and that is the spiritual one.

Does the use of any word, not just this one have the potential to impugn the spiritual integrity of one's character? Does the use of the word follow the Biblical admonition to "endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" Eph. 4:3 and " . . . let each esteem others better than themselves." Phil. 2:3?

Does the use of the word, especially on a public site as this, have the potential to be a stumbling block to the unbeliever or someone of another faith? Does the use of the word reflect the daily effort on our part to attain Christlike characters?

We are being watched daily - by our families, by our friends, by our work associates, by heavenly beings and by total strangers. At least we are not speaking these words, especially if they can be deemed offensive, orally since we are merely writing them but the way we utilize our rhetoric sends a message that is akin to observing our body language if someone was watching.

Words once spoken can never be taken back. It is just one test of our Christian character that needs to be perfected if we aspire to Heaven. God help us all. We need lots of work and I speak for myself in this regard. Speak the truth but in love and let's choose our words more carefully with Christ in mind.

Alex ( hoping to meet up with all of you in Heaven, if I get there?)

[John317]

Quote:

Woody:It should be among one of the many banned words on this forum. It should not be allowed.

The way Lazarus used it is OK on this forum. He's using it ironically and in order to make a point, not in order to denigrate anyone.

[phkrause]

Quote:

Woody:It should be among one of the many banned words on this forum. It should not be allowed.

The way Lazarus used it is OK on this forum. He's using it ironically and in order to make a point, not in order to denigrate anyone.

I agree John, I personally had no problem with the way the word was used. I didn't get the idea that he used it ironically, I thought that he used it in fustration and did use it to make a point.

pk

[lazarus]

The last time I used it on CA it was automatically changed to "n-word". I expected that to happen this time. I gues we just switched severs/hosting so it may be different now. I think it was a banned word on the forum. I could be mistaken.

That being said I think I must be understood some express their experience about racism in different ways.

I never use the word in a casual way i.e. "hey whats up ..." On the other side, if a white friend is reporting a conversation and uses the word I'm not going to get upset he is using it in a descriptive manner. Tom's friend may have had a particularly painful experience or may just want to deal with the issue in another way.

I taught my eldest not to say it in greeting, in insult (joking or otherwise) but like any other word there is a context when it can be used. He gets it.

If I'm talking to a group of black or white teens and I'm talking about the use of words, their meaning and power. I'm going to sometimes say that word.

Interestingly, the power of the word now lies with black people. Consider it verbal reparations!

[John317]

Quote:

doug yowell: I remember watching a televised round table discussion which featured almost every prominant civil rights leader. It's been a few years but I still remember many of the participants. Roy Wilkins (anybody remember him?) Stokley Carmichael, Malcolm Ten, and I think that MLK was there too. It was quite a lively exchange. The movement is known as being successful because of the leadership of those who refused violence not because it was not advocated or practiced.

I wish I could have seen that program. Were Huey P. Newton or Eldridge Cleaver there?

Yes, I do remember Roy Wilkins. He was leader of NAACP for a long time, until only a few years before his death.

During the early 70s, I took college classes which were basically devoted to listening to, and discussing, speeches by Malcolm X and Angela Davis,etc. I was in the Young Socialist Alliance, a communist organization, at the time and helping to organize anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC, LA and San Diego. The FBI came to my door and threatened me if I didn't drop out of the organization. They said the FBI could make it difficult for me to get good work if I continued what I was doing. Later we learned that the FBI did this because of Nixon's paranoia and fear of "enemies." It was actually illegal for them to do that because we weren't doing anything against the law but were merely exercising our rights to free speech under the US Constitution. The organization did advocate the violent overthrow of the government, but we didn't make public speeches about it. That would have been illegal.

Those were interesting times, to say the least.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

John317:

During the early 70s, I took college classes which were basically devoted to listening to, and discussing, speeches by Malcolm X and Angela Davis,etc. I was in the Young Socialist Alliance, a communist organization, at the time and organizing anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC, LA and San Diego. The FBI came to my door and threatened me if I didn't drop out of the organization. They said the FBI could make it difficult for me to get good work if I continued what I was doing.

Those were interesting times, to say the least.

You have repented, right???Or are you still unemployed?

[John317]

A few years later I started reading the NT and then went to some Quiet Hour evangelistic meetings held by L.E Tucker. I convinced a friend of mine, who was an atheist and Trotskyist, to go with me, but he sat there and made fun of the whole thing. My room-mate and I went on to be baptized and join the SDA church.

I dropped out of the organization because what they were doing and teaching was anti-Christian and certainly opposed to what I learned in the NT and in Ellen White's writings.

One of our major objectives as socialists was to agitate labor problems, distribute the Militant and other Marxist publications, and to try and strengthen the workers' unions.

[lazarus]

Christ did not give his life for use to humiliate our fellow brothers and sisters, whether they be believers or not. And this humiliation extends to name calling that deals with politics also. Jesus would never be guilty of this - at least the Jesus I know.

In the story of the Canaanite women Jesus spoke in the "voice" of the Jewish nation when he said '"Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs."

Jesus disrespected the woman by calling her a dog. Jesus used the same vernacular that the people of his day would use. He resolved it by giving heed to her request.

I was speaking in the "voice" of the white racists of the day. The context of the conservation clearly shows my respect for those who struggled for freedom.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frederick Douglass (he's the brother in the avitar)

[doug yowell]

A few years later I started reading the NT and then went to some Quiet Hour evangelistic meetings held by L.E Tucker. I convinced a friend of mine, who was an atheist and Trotskyist, to go with me, but he sat there and made fun of the whole thing. My room-mate and I went on to be baptized and join the SDA church.

I dropped out of the organization because what they were doing and teaching was anti-Christian and certainly opposed to what I learned in the NT and in Ellen White's writings.

One of our major objectives as socialists was to agitate labor problems, distribute the Militant and other Marxist publications, and to try and strengthen the workers' unions.

Praise God!!Sounds like the power of the Gospel is greater than the threats of the FBI.Maybe the power of the Gospel is the only sure way to cure the effects of racism?

[phkrause]

Were Huey P. Newton or Eldridge Cleaver there?

I have a book by Eldridge Cleaver "Soul On Ice". Very interesting book. Its actually one of the best books I've ever read. I would say many here need to read this book. Mentions quite a bit about the FBI and some of the reasons why the black panthers did alot of the things they did.

pk

[Woody]

Alex. Good thoughts. The words we write are open for all to see in the internet. And we don't want to cause someone to stumble.

What I've noticed on this forum is that each person is different in what they regard as 'racism'. Some people sensibilities are higher than others. Some have a highly active imagination. Others don't have enough imagination.

But as you have expressed Alex. We don't want to cause anyone to be hurt. And I don't see how the 'n-word' has any redeeming qualities.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I think for black people to use the "n-word" only brings themselves down to the place where they themselves are blaming white people for keeping them.

[Woody]

Good Point Rudywoofs. And why do they like to use the word so much then?

[there buster]

[olger]

Love it !

[olger]

Another white racist !

[phkrause]

I guess if you guys say so. Because you are always correct! Right? But isn't that what everyone said when Clinton was president? and than when Bush was in office? and now again, nothing new! At each change in the WH the other side will always be crying, "We want our country back" the other side never seems to learn.

[phkrause]

Quote:

"We want our country back"

It's code for ....wah-wah we lost!!!

Excellent point CoAspen.

pk

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

"We want our country back"

It's code for ....wah-wah we lost!!!

Excellent point CoAspen.

Historically inaccurate. This country was founded on a set of principles which the left ignores and attempts to subvert. Historically aware individuals want those original principles -- and the country they envisioned-- back.

The left just wants power.

[phkrause]

The left just wants power.

Oh and the right doesn't???? Who are we kidding. Just incredible!