Sorry I got here late — did I miss anything?
« previous post | next post »
File under "We are all post-racial now"; from a CNN report, "NAACP passes resolution blasting Tea Party 'racism'":
"Tea Party leaders reacted to the NAACP action with swift and angry derision.
"I am disinclined to take lectures on racial sensitivity from a group that insists on calling black people, 'Colored,' " Mark Williams, national spokesman of the Tea Party Express, told CNN. "The Tea Party [movement] is about the constitution of this country…[and] ensuring equality for each and every individual human being."
Mark P said,
July 14, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
I presume that since he thinks he can tell people how to refer to themselves when he is not a member of the group in question, he is OK with others who are not members of his group telling him how his group should refer to themselves. I'm sure someone can come up with something.
Kylopod said,
July 14, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
No, we shouldn't take lectures from a group that retains an old name with archaic language. Instead, we should listen to someone who referred to the first black president as an "Indonesian Muslim welfare thug."
Reinhold said,
July 14, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
Who said he's not a member of the group in question?
Faldone said,
July 14, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
FWIW, he's not.
Mark P said,
July 14, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Reihold, I hate to make broad generalizations, but based on news coverage of the TP gatherings, the makeup is generally pretty light in color. There are some self-identified black members, but it's fair, at least based on news coverage, to assume that the group formed by the intersection of TP and blacks is much smaller than that formed by NAACP and blacks. Mark Williams is not a member of either intersection.
Kris said,
July 14, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
I guess "black people" should stop seeking education funds from the UNCF? I love it when people speak before they think.
Bobbie said,
July 14, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
I am proud that one of my **white relatives was among the founders of the NAACP! (Over 100 years ago).
Nijma said,
July 14, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
I'm sure someone can come up with something.
I seem to remember their political enemies refering to them as "teabaggers". (NSFW)
John Lawler said,
July 14, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
If one asks the question
"What political group would white racists feel most comfortable in?",
the answer is fairly clear.
Geoff Nunberg said,
July 14, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
GN: I probably should have tipped my hand a bit more here. What struck me about Williams' remark — or anyway, what I was getting at in the header, and why I included the tag "linguistic change" — was the calculated historical obtuseness it required to read the final two letters of "NAACP" as a token of an unelightened "racial insensitivity" to which the speaker could confidently declare himself superior. But I guess I shouldn't prejudge things; maybe it wasn't calculated. Would that extenuate it, or make it worse?
rgove said,
July 14, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
I don't think there's any real linguistic or social point to discuss here. He's clearly just given the first retort that came into his head, without giving it even the moment's thought that would be required to discover that it makes no sense whatsoever.
GN: I think the linguistic question — really one for pragmatics — is whether Williams really thinks that the last two letters of the organization's name betray a contemporary racial cluelessness and assumes that his audience thinks that too (the obtuseness reading), or whether he knows perfectly well how this came about historically but figures he can slip this by his intended audience (the disingenousness reading), or whether he's making a joke, assuming that his intended audience will recognize that he knows perfectly well that "colored people" doesn't mean what it did when the organization was named and that he expects them to know it as well and so on all the way up the regressus (the wink reading). That's three potential interpretations, but I've probably missed some.
Well, maybe the second retort, after "Yeah, well, your mom is colored."
George said,
July 14, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
@GN
I think that is exactly the point. The organization is named for what African-Americans were called at a time in the past in which they were considered inferior. TP members are using the term currently and, in doing so, suggesting that the historical status is preferable. This is consistent with their worldview and frequently stated desire, "We want our country back." Yes, back to a time in which, among other things, African Americans were 'colored' and treated as inferiors.
George said,
July 14, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
This is not completely unlike a white person and an African-American using the N-word. I have heard racists suggest that since African-Americans use the word, it should be acceptable for them. However, one is intended derisively, the other a term of endearment and solidarity.
Kylopod said,
July 14, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
That's by far the most plausible explanation. Let's just say that a man who called Obama an "Indonesian Muslim welfare thug" is not very likely to have, shall we say, a nuanced perception of racial matters.
Kylopod said,
July 14, 2010 @ 9:50 pm
@George
Not really. "Colored" and "Negro" aren't slurs, they're simply outdated terms. They can be used in historical context, and that includes names of organizations that began when these terms were still in polite use.
Nijma said,
July 14, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
oops, …"referring"
but I've probably missed some
Yeah, as someone who has lived in a racially complex city for many years, I read this as a reference to certain types of white "peeving" that can take place only in all-white company about how "they" keep changing their minds about what is politically correct language. The implication is that "they" are inconsistent and don't really have a right to an opinion; the reference to the various changes in politically correct language that have taken place over time is meant as ridicule. Another old peeve (and "proof" of insincerity) is how "colored " is no longer PC but "of color" now is. The changes in language are viewed as inconsistency, disingenuousness about racism, and proof of mere political posturing (and of course there is always some of that going on too) and not an ongoing public soul-searching about the meaning and effects of words.
Nijma said,
July 14, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Let me just add that the NAACP is very, very highly respected among African-American professionals I have been associated with, in a way that the Black Panthers, formerly and currently active in this city, are not.
beandra said,
July 14, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
I agree with Nijma; it's extremely fashionable in White supremacist discourse to refer to "the Negroes, or whatever they insist on being called this week".
panoptical said,
July 15, 2010 @ 1:03 am
I heard they were considering changing it to the National Association for the Advancement of African Americans, but they said "NAAAA, forget that."
(Apparently puns are also the lowest form of linguistics)
Stephen Nicholson said,
July 15, 2010 @ 2:42 am
It seems odd to me that the spokesman for an organization that claims to value history would imply that a much old organization should change it's name to keep-up with the times.
Ned Danison said,
July 15, 2010 @ 7:25 am
Does anyone else see CNN's "swift and angry derision" as tendentious? The Tea Party rep's picking on the term "colored" may be interpreted as contemptuous or mocking (derisive), but where's the swift anger? I know where it is: lest anyone forget the group hasn't another single valid point to make, the words angry, racist, and Tea Party should appear together whenever possible.
Nick Lamb said,
July 15, 2010 @ 7:36 am
I'm intrigued as to what a “racially complex city” is in Nijma's comment
I mean, if I wanted to know if the city I live in, or the city where I am now are "racially complex" how would I determine that?
Is it variety? Is the city with small communities of Vietnamese, Pakistanis and Greeks living alongside the indigenous people "more complex" than one where the only "foreign" faces you'll see are from the Carribean ?
Is it about integration? Is a city "racially complex" if it has lots of integration? Or perhaps the contrary, if there is total lack of integration, even some kind of apartheid?
Is it sheer numbers? Just count everybody who doesn't tick (taking as an example) "White – British" on the census form and the higher the percentage the more "complex" ?
Or is this about politics? Is a city most "complex" if race is always a political issue, with citizens voting on race lines, or racial politics dominating considerations?
Mark P said,
July 15, 2010 @ 8:20 am
I think Williams' reference to the "CP" in the NAACP name is a combination of (willful or feigned?) historical ignorance and casual, unthinking racism expressed more as resentment than as hatred.
Nijma said,
July 15, 2010 @ 9:11 am
Nick Lamb,
The fact that you had to use five paragraphs to ask the question about what racial complexity means probably answers the question for itself, but I suppose I meant something along the lines that it's hard to have any public discourse about race that doesn't become divisive. BTW, the city is Chicago.
beandra: it's extremely fashionable in White supremacist discourse to refer to "the Negroes, or whatever they insist on being called this week"
Not just supremacists. Some people who years ago were willing to make an issue of anyone using the n-word in their presence now feel like they've been played. And of course the real supremacists know how to use that to their political advantage. I can't always keep up either. At one time "black" joined "colored" and "Negro" as not being politically correct, but I am told now that it is correct again. To add to my confusion, I sometimes pick up neighborhood newspapers that capitalize the word "black", but not "white". I notice in beandra's comment, "white" is capitalized. This probably has some meaning somewhere that has escaped me.
George said,
July 15, 2010 @ 9:21 am
@Kylopod
"Colored" and "Negro" aren't slurs, they're simply outdated terms."
I cannot imagine these being used in a contemporary context by a white American in which they are not slurs.
Kylopod said,
July 15, 2010 @ 9:50 am
@George
In contemporary contexts they are regarded as offensive, but that doesn't necessarily make them slurs. They are offensive specifically because they are associated with an earlier time in which most whites looked down upon blacks. But whites who use these terms today are usually doing it out of ignorance and habit, not malice.
Jerry Friedman said,
July 15, 2010 @ 11:03 am
I mostly agree with Nijma's interpretation of the remark. It's just hitting back in a way that will play well with some of the already converted. I can imagine a fraction of Tea Partiers saying, "At last, someone has the guts to take a shot at the sacred cow and mention the elephant in the room! And who said they can use words we can't use?" After I post this, I may look at a blog or two.
I also agree with Kylopod; I occasionally hear white and Hispanic Americans people say colored without meaning it as a slur. I don't think I've heard Negro in this way.
Jerry Friedman said,
July 15, 2010 @ 11:21 am
My experiment has failed. I found a number of comments supporting the Tea Partiers against the NAACP, but nothing about this particular remark.
Nick Lamb said,
July 15, 2010 @ 11:34 am
Nijma, thanks, that was helpful. Being concise is hard, sorry.
Ed said,
July 15, 2010 @ 11:42 am
George and Kylopod, I think there are context where "Negro" isn't a slur at all, for example when talking about African history and language groupings. And of course "Negro" simply means "Black" in Spanish and Portuguese. Though outside the United States, there is nothing wrong with using "Coloured" or its equivalents, though the term is used to described people of mixed racial descent, something with which we have little use for in the U.S. due to the legacy of the "one drop" rule.
To the extent these terms are offensive, it is in the context of the history of American racism. Terms used in the past to describe African-Americans, even if perfectly neutral and not a problem when used outside the U.S., can be problematic because they were used during times when ALL references to African-Americans were racist. Though "Black" is becoming outdated, it was in use during a less racist time and should remain O.K. But the other "N" word has always been a slur and always intended as such.
Kris said,
July 15, 2010 @ 11:44 am
@Geoff Nunberg:
Thinking about this again after your additional comments, I think it may well have been a joke, or some kind of real attempt to rebutt the NAACP comments. He very well may know how stupid his rebuttal sounded, but hoped his audience would find it witty.
I think I would have to hear his comment to pick up the tone of his voice, or see a clip so I could observe his facial expressions in order to fully decide that he may not just be really stupid.
Michael said,
July 15, 2010 @ 11:54 am
This is not completely unlike a white person and an African-American using the N-word. I have heard racists suggest that since African-Americans use the word, it should be acceptable for them. However, one is intended derisively, the other a term of endearment and solidarity.
And it's entirely disingenuous to say one person can use a word and another cannot. In the sense that George Carlin would have held, it doesn't matter who uses the word. It's jsut a word and it only offers harm if you allow it to. Sure, it may be intended as a slur in context, but can only be a slur if someone allows it to harm them. Unfortunately, most people are of too weak a stuff to blow past intentions and ignore them.
In the end, there will always be racism. Whites will hate blacks, blacks will hate whites, everyone will hate hispanics, hispanics will claim that they are natives, and the world will go on. Post-racialism shouldn't be about stamping out racism, but about defusing it by ignoring its context.
Greg said,
July 15, 2010 @ 11:55 am
Nijma: I also find your interpretation enlightening. When I first read the quote I laughed at loud, certain he was just clueless — I didn't think there was any other explanation. But yours seems much more likely.
Kylopod: Shame on you; don't engage him! Also, I have found myself using "colored" in certain contexts, and most definitely not as a slur.
Q. Pheevr said,
July 15, 2010 @ 11:56 am
Who, if anyone, would Williams be inclined to take lectures on racial sensitivity from?
Terry Collmann said,
July 15, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Michael: "In the end, there will always be racism."
That's about as stupid, I'm afraid, as saying: "In the end there will always be religious persecution: Protestants will hate Catholics, Catholics will hate Protestants …" Largely we've grown out of that, and the same will happen with race.
Bloix said,
July 15, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
"I seem to remember their political enemies refering to them as "teabaggers".
What you remember is that the teabaggers referred to themselves as teabaggers and then decided to take offense when their adversaries hooted at them for it. Their preferred mode of argumentation is to claim victimhood and for their privileged status – the war on Christmas, gay marriage (not secular divorce) as the great threat to the family, etc.
George said,
July 15, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
@Michael,
"In the sense that George Carlin would have held, it doesn't matter who uses the word. It's jsut a word and it only offers harm if you allow it to."
I am sorry, but I just don't agree. The words we choose are not neutral. They convey our attitudes and worldviews. When someone uses a racial slur, it expresses a negative point-of-view on very superficial grounds. Whether it harms the persons to whom it is directed is another question. But, I don't think it is completely benign.
Mark P said,
July 15, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
@ Michael:
Of course racial slurs are harmful.
They might or might not harm the person at whom they are directed, or the person who directs it at them, but it perpetuates an attitude that is harmful to individuals and society as a whole. Children tend to learn from their parents, and if their parents use racial slurs, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they might tend to share the attitude that leads to such slurs. While children can overcome that sort of thing, it sure makes it harder.
Jerry Friedman said,
July 15, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
@Nijma: I forgot to ask, is there any reason to think black has been politically incorrect at any time since the late 1960s? And Ed, is there any reason to think it's becoming outdated? I don't know of any.
(Black in the racial sense in American English, in case anyone's feeling pedantic.)
Stephen Jones said,
July 15, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
I wasn't aware the meaning had changed. Only the connotations that supposedly go with the use of the word.
Stephen Jones said,
July 15, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
There's a lovely story of somebody who had a Fijian wife. He went with her to the US, and lost her in a shopping mall. He went up to a mall security guard and tried to explain what she looked like. "She's, err, very black" he said. The guard looked at him with horror and then explained "In this country we don't say that; we say 'Afro-American".
Stephen Jones said,
July 15, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
Even by Mark Twain?
I think it might be safer to say, has always implied a hierarchal setup.
Stephen Jones said,
July 15, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
Tell that to the moderators of the Guardian website. Every time I make a posting with the word they delete it.
Bloix said,
July 15, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
Twain's use is clearly ironic – he intends for the reader to understand the offensive quality of the word even as the characters are unconscious of it. I don't believe that Twain ever uses it except in dialog, and Jim uses it about himself as freely as any other character. It's common in Twain for characters to be innocently ignorant of their offensive or hurtful conduct.
One usage which I found shocking when I first encountered it is in Rudyard Kipling's How the Leopard Got His Spots (from the Just So Stories, 1902), in which an Ethiopian and a Leopard decide to change their appearance so that they can hide in the forest. The Ethiopian covers himself with mud, and then uses his fingers to put a five-spotted pattern all over the Leopard. The Leopard suggests that the Ethiopian should be spotted too, and he replies, "Oh, plain black's best for a nigger." There's no hint that it's meant to be disparaging.
John Cowan said,
July 15, 2010 @ 9:29 pm
Bloix: In Huck's first-person narration the word occurs freely. But it's true that it doesn't occur outside dialogue in Tom Sawyer, which has an involved ("omniscient") narrator.
Stephen Jones said,
July 16, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
Oh, and just in case anybody still thinks Mark Williams is not a disgusting piece of racist shit, there's this "Letter to Abraham Lincoln".
http://www.marktalk.com/blog/?p=10387
GN: Wiliams has removed the letter, but the text can be found here.
ella said,
July 16, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
Especially clueless in light of the fact that "Person/People of Colo(u)r" (often shortened to POC) is the current 'politically correct' way to refer to 'non-White' people.
Rodger C said,
July 16, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
When I was a boy in a very white town in West Virginia in the Sixties, the polite term (as far as we were concerned) was "colored." To say "n****r" in public was like picking your teeth in public. If you said "Negro" you watched too much television, and if you said "Black" you were a Communist. All very neat. "African American" I don't think existed; "Afro-American" was known but not used by white folks. It'd be inteesting to hear on all this from H. L. Gates, who was growing up on the other side of WV at just the same time.
Bread & roses said,
July 17, 2010 @ 1:55 am
@ Michael: of course some people can use certain words and others can't without giving offense. It's about the relationship between the people using the words. My husband gets to call me a hot fox; my boss does not.
If you know your audience well enough to know how they'll react to being called a certain name (snookums, fatso, nigger, honeypie, tool, girlfriend…) you can proceed without fear of offense. If you don't know how they feel about being called that- good luck.
Kylopod said,
July 17, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
@Rodger C
While "African American" had no currency in the 1960s, you can find the term as early as the 19th century (you can see some of these references using Google News). It was never that common, though, until at least the 1970s.
Nijma said,
July 18, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
My comment does not seem to be appearing.