I am reposting this witout the consent of the other party, therefore I have changed his name to protect his identity...
MikeK
Looking at rap music today, black people also keep the word alive. Whites are almost scared to say the word, and if a white says it all the drama and apoligizing starts up. But, on the contrary, when a black person says it he or she is praised by their community and no one really gives a flip. Go listen to a popular rap song today and listen how many times "N WORD" ( which i am tired of that term also) (just say the real word) (nigger) is said. It is used countless times. What ever happened to equaltiy? I say we either all say it and get over it, or we ALL dont say it. im tired of the segregation.
***
CountChockula
C'mon now MikeK, that's a specious argument and you know it. Case & point: Hugo Chavez calls Bush "the Devil" and says all manner of things about America and Americans. Yet he still has the audacity to expect that we would all continue to buy gas from Citgo. When you hear that, you likely feel the same sense of revulsion and disdain that many African Americans feel when we hear a Dog Chapman or Micheal Richards insulting Blacks by dropping the N-bomb. If Hugo Chavez defended his statemens by saying 'Jay Leno and Jon Stewart say mean things about Bush too'.. and then suggested that until all Americans stopped commenting negatively about Bush, we should all just 'shut-up and keep shopping' his argument wouldn't hold a lot of water... And neither does yours...
The fact is, there's a difference between Jon Stewart and Hugo Chavez commenting on America, and similarly, there's a difference between Dog Chapman and Chris Rock commenting on African Americans
***
MikeK
Actually, CountChockula, I believe the phrase you're searching for is "case IN point", not "case AND point." You're using a specific case to expound on a point you're aspiring to make. Thus, "case IN point" is the correct usage.
I would agree with the argument you're attempting except for the following two points:1) You're comparing Hugo Chavez, a neoliberal anti-imperialist, to Dog Chapman, Michael Richards, Jon Stewart and Jay Leno...American citizens who have the inherent right to say whatever they want about their leaders, government or, in this specific case, people of a different race. They may find themselves burning in effigy, but nonetheless, they have every right as Americans to state their opinion. They, unlike Chavez, are not on the political stage, nor are they requesting you to purchase gas from a certain vendor. They're exercising their First Amendment right to freely express their opinions through speech - a right that isn't extended to Chavez. (See also: citizenship).
Chapman and Chavez are absolutely nothing alike, have nothing in common, and wouldn't know each other if they met at a Citgo. 2) There absolutely is an obvious difference between Jon Stewart and Hugo Chavez commenting on America, as I've mentioned in the above paragraph. However, the differences are in no way comparable to the discrepancies between when Dog Chapman says "nigger" and when Chris Rock says it. My point earlier was that as Americans, regardless of race, the word should be used and reacted to uniformly. If Chris Rock can say "nigger" and have no one bat an eye, and if Jay-Z can use "nigger" as a lyric and have no one boycott his latest album, then Dog Chapman should also be able to exercise the same right and expect the same result. Samely, Nelly should be able to use the word "cracker" in a song just as Larry the Cable Guy would in a routine and have no fallout. And you know what? He can. And does.
So perhaps the fingers of disgust and blame should be pointed at black people using "nigger" in everyday conversation and in public forums, rather than at a white person using it in a private telephone call. Moreover, disgust should also stem from the fact that while so many black people vocally and demonstratively express their desire for equal rights, treatment and value, the white people they lobby to and protest against aren't "allowed" to use the same vocabulary. Just so I'm clear, who is it exactly that's prejudiced?
***
CountChockula
MikeK...(c'mon now) - Let's not play "Wheel of Semantics"I presented a case as a foundation from which a point was to be derived, 'not' the reverse. The 'point' is discerned by first examining the case. I was clear when I wrote it, but thank you anyway for your suggestion.
Now what is truly interesting to me is that your counter argument really illustrates my point. As an American, you draw a distinction between Americans who are critical of the Government and Foreigners. You even drew a further distinction based upon context (Political Stage vs Non-Political Stage).
[For the purposes of this discussion I'm dismissing your 'First Amendment' Argument. There is certainly a broader context of that discussion wherein we might consider if Freedom of Speech is a "right" granted us by law or a shared "principle" enshrined in law. From your comments I'd assume we'd have some room for debate, so let's save it for another day... (See also: Logic)]
We all have different tolerances for comments and actions undertaken by individuals within or without our social groups and associations. We make allowances for a Rush Limbaugh and a Jon Stewart because we are all Americans. Despite our disagreements and despite our criticisms, we have a shared history and a shared destiny. In times of trouble we have historically stood together as one people, and therefore all factions within our group have earned the pass we offer. We do NOT make those same allowances for persons from outside of our group. Beyond Hugo Chavez, when Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan or any foreign leader takes a public stage to offer criticisms of the US, we react to that negatively. And I think that is to be expected. Now consider that the Macrocosm...
If those aforementioned distinctions are applicable in the Macrocosm then examine for a moment their applicability in a microcosm. African Americans are a very distinct sub-group. We have a shared history that is not common to any other group in this Nation. In times of trouble we have historically stood together as one people. As a result of our collective experience, we've developed a unique perspective and have different tolerances for comments and actions undertaken by individuals within or without our social group.
When Whites and/or others make statements that are negative and disparaging of African Americans, we react differently than we would were these comments made by someone from withing the culture. And that is certainly not without precedent on the Macro or Micro scale. When Jesse Jackson made the comment about "Hymietown" the year was 1984, yet he is still imbrued by the statement. When Al Sharpton defended Tawana Brawley and made comments that were untoward about a group of White Police Officers the year was 1987 (20 years ago), but he is still marred by those statements. Whites reacted negatively to those comments from African Americans and the rifts have been slow to heal. It is therefore ironic to me that when Whites make racist comments about African Americans, we are expected to "move on" within 2 days of the incident.
One thing is abundantly clear, in our society people can say whatever they want. But that does not mean that they can do so without consequence. in the case of Dog Chapman, he was not selling gasoline, but he is marketing a product. He has a successful television show made profitable by it's advertising, which is made possible by his viewership. If Mr. Chapman wishes to refer to African Americans using the N-word, I can't stop him, but I won't support him. And if enough people who feel like me simply change the channel, then away go those advertising dollars. A&E acted to prevent that from happening by pulling the show, and that's alright with me...
When you suggest that its a travesty that his show was cancelled and criticize Black Rappers, that is analogous to the hypothetical argument I ascribed to H. Chavez about Jon Stewart; "If you guys can say it, then we should be able to also". And on the "Rapper" angle, you said:
"the fingers of disgust and blame should be pointed at black people using "nigger" in everyday conversation and in public forums, rather than at a white person using it in a private telephone call"
Now THAT was a brilliant piece of sophistry! I had to read that several times because I couldn't believe you concluded an otherwise well articulated argument with a silly postulate like that. Did you really mean to say the "Blame" should be pointed at Black People for Dog Chapman using the N-word? Was I asleep and dreaming in History class? Did Black rappers actually coin that term? Was there some period in American history when racism passed out of existence and was then revived by Jay-Z and Nelly?
But just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water, you "jumped the shark" again with this one:
"disgust should also stem from the fact that while so many black people vocally and demonstratively express their desire for equal rights, treatment and value, the white people they lobby to and protest against aren't "allowed" to use the same vocabulary. Just so I'm clear, who is it exactly that's prejudiced?"
WOW! That's beyond Sophistry, that's logical Jiu-Jitsu! Let me get this straight... Black People are racist because we won't let you call us 'Nigger'? And (as though that weren't special enough) that is so serious and grievous an issue that it should inspire fair minded people to feel "disgust"?
Suffice it to say that we'll just have to agree to disagree on THOSE points MikeK... :-)
A real tragedy of Race in America is the fact that it is such a polarizing subject that it causes us to reflexively retreat to our ideological battle positions and thereby prevents us from truly listening to each other and understanding each others concerns. We defend or attack with little regard for the material facts; any provocation at all is justification enough to resume our proxy war (OJ vs the Klan).
This not about whether Black people or White people are racist, it's not about Hugo and it's not about Jay-Z. This is about the fact the Dog Chapman said some horrible things and he s facing the consequences of having done so. He's in no danger, nobody is attacking him or his family, nobody has posted his home address on the Internet, there's no grand Black conspiracy to bring him down. It's really very simple, he offended a significant portion of his viewing demographic. The loss of that viewership translates into a loss of advertising dollars, and A&E acted to prevent that. That's not "PC gone wild", that's just basic economics...
***
Leave me a comment and let me know what you think...
No comments:
Post a Comment