Is it acceptable for stores catering to Hispanics to use racial epithets when referring to Caucasian residents of the United States? Apparently so. According to the Washington Times online edition, a furniture store located in Alexandria, Va., has posted a sign calling Americans 'gringos'. The Times reports that,
A sign outside the store at the intersection of North Beauregard and King streets reads, “Credito sin papeles de gringo.” In English, that could be translated to say “Credit without gringo papers.” Blanca Granados, the store's assistant manager, translated the message to mean “just 'without white papers,' like Social Security or like that.”
'White papers'? Really? Ms. Granados is either completely ignorant or engaging in deliberate falsehoods. The word 'Gringo' as defined by Webster Online Dictionary,
grin·go [gring-goh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -gos. Usually Disparaging. (in Latin America or Spain) a foreigner, esp. one of U.S. or British descent. [Origin: 1840–50, Americanism; < Sp: foreign language, foreigner, esp. English-speaking (pejorative); prob. alter. of griego Greek. The belief that word is from the song “Green Grow the Lilacs,” popular during U.S.-Mexican War, is without substance]
The Times story also picks up on the offensive history of the word. The story goes on to say,
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word gringo as “a disparaging term for a foreigner in Latin America, especially an American or English person.” But the word “gringo” in the store's sign is not intended to offend anyone, Miss Granados said.
The term 'gringo' has long been a term used disparagingly towards Americans or Europeans in Latin America- something that Ms. Granados cannot possibly be ignorant of, especially if, as it seems, she is from a Latin American heritage. Therefore, for Ms. Granados to claim that the word is not intended to be offensive is roughly analogous to a white person claiming that the word 'greaser' is not intended to be offensive towards Hispanics. However, other than the Washington Times, I have not seen this story picked up by any other media outlets. When will the media begin holding minorities to the same standards they hold whites? Based on past experience, I'm not holding my breath. Cross-posted on StoneHeads.
Comments Policy
Don't you know? You can
November 16, 2007 - 13:31 ET by dvdaughtryDon't you know? You can only be racist/prejudice if you are white.
The term I get a kick out of is "reverse racism".
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
Of course that's true...
November 16, 2007 - 16:42 ET by motherbeltOf course that's true... I've said before that blacks and Hispanics are allowed to change their preferred term at will...Black, Afro-American, African-American...Chicano, Latino, Hispanic.....
I never heard of white people getting together and deciding that we want to be called "Gringos" or "Anglos"..... that's what we get termed, and we can like it or lump it.
(Yawn)
November 16, 2007 - 13:50 ET by KillgraveOn a DC radio show this morning, some callers (sounded liberal) were spitting nonsense that this is some sort of "hate crime". Apparently they found an opportunity to slap it on a non-white-male, so this makes them look "open-minded".
"Hate Crime". "Reverse Discrimination". Whatever.
You're not going to see me walk into a two-bit furniture store (I know exactly what it looks like because I see it every morning) called "Casa", mexican flags aplenty and no hablamos ingles, especially if they're going to mock my pale maleness and my immigration laws. They're not going to get my pesos. Good luck.
Discrimination is the same,
November 16, 2007 - 16:45 ET by motherbeltDiscrimination is the same, against any person; racism is the same against any race.
So "reverse discrimination/racism" would actually be favoring someone because of their race or other attributes.
"Credito sin papeles de
November 16, 2007 - 14:03 ET by ConservativeRex"Credito sin papeles de marron" would be more fitting, albeit kind of gross.
What's The Difference?
November 16, 2007 - 14:25 ET by NoMoreClintonsThe word "gringo" is the exact equivalent of calling one of them a "spick". What would be the reaction of their racist group La Raza if one of them were called this? The liberal media would fly to their defense. The invasion is underway, folks. Choose your side.
Don't play their game
November 16, 2007 - 14:36 ET by SilentCalI'd say the same thing here as I would whenever a leftist gets offended by some business's practices: if you don't like it, don't shop there. I don't like it when they tell us how to run our businesses, and I won't do the same to them.
If this idiot wants to pursue a business strategy of offending white people and extending credit to illegal immigrants, he will surely reap his own reward soon enough.
As a white male, I am
November 16, 2007 - 14:54 ET by JasonCAs a white male, I am unoffended.
Frankly, I think racial epithets become much more degrading and problematic when they are being used by one group that (presently or not) has at some point subjugated and oppressed the group to whom the epithet applies. Hence, "Nigger" is far more offensive and insidious than "cracker".
This may sound like white-guilt Marxism, but I think the racialized historical etymology of words certainly plays into. For another example, a German in 1941 calling a Jew "Heeb" would be far worse than that Jew calling his interlocutor "Kraut" (not to his face, probably).
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Way to keep racism alive
November 16, 2007 - 14:57 ET by MightyMouthWay to keep racism alive jason! You do realize this is the 21st century? If anything, the pendulum has knocked your white ass on the ground swinging the other way.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I don't understant one word
November 16, 2007 - 15:02 ET by JasonCI don't understant one word of what you're trying to communicate to me, MM. Is it that I used the actual words rather than censor them? That's called having the guts to confront them honestly, as if writing n----r actually takes the sting out of the word.
Or is it that I don't feel offended by being called gringo because the word isn't rooted in the subjugation of my own race?
Yes, racism and racial epithets are bad. Sorry to offend by thinking a little more deeply about it.
Really MM, articulate what I just did to keep racism alive.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I am taking issue with this statement:
November 16, 2007 - 15:22 ET by MightyMouth"Frankly, I think racial epithets become much more degrading and
problematic when they are being used by one group that (presently or
not) has at some point subjugated and oppressed the group to whom the
epithet applies"
I maintain that racism as defined by your statement of subjugation and oppression is not valid today. No groups are being subjugated or repressed in the United States(regardless what Jesse or Sharpton say).
That being said, you keep racism alive by constantly bringing up the "sins of the fathers" to bestow victimhood on the races today. Racism will not totally go away until minority generations are taught they are not victims but rather equals with the majority. Liberals don't understand this, they just keep putting out more victims with their policies.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Thank you for clarifying.
November 16, 2007 - 15:28 ET by JasonCThank you for clarifying. I'm not trying to make victims of anyone; I'm pointing to the etymology of the words and their historical associations which, I think, make them worse.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Oh...Ok..nevermind :-)
November 16, 2007 - 15:32 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well this has been a
November 16, 2007 - 15:38 ET by JasonCWell this has been a pleasant, civil conversation!
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Yeah
November 16, 2007 - 15:54 ET by MightyMouth...you seem to be a fairly civil and pleasant Cracker... when you want to :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
HUH?
November 16, 2007 - 15:02 ET by NoMoreClintonsThey sneak into our country to freeload and demean our culture and then insult us on top of it. And you're not offended? Tell me, what would it take? Their presence alone is deeply offensive to many of us.
Their presence alone is
November 16, 2007 - 15:03 ET by JasonCTheir presence alone is offensive??!! And Mighty accuses me of racism?!
Unreal.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
It Means Exactly That
November 16, 2007 - 15:05 ET by NoMoreClintonsWhat part of "illegal" and "freeload" don't you seem to understand?
Either you're claiming that
November 16, 2007 - 15:13 ET by JasonCEither you're claiming that the Mexicans in this story, in Virginia, are freeloading aliens (as opposed to law-abiding business owners) or your just hijacking the thread to make a trollish leap to complain about illegals simply because the topic of Mexican people came up.
Classy either way.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Who's The Troll?
November 16, 2007 - 15:26 ET by NoMoreClintons"hijacking the thread to make a trollish leap"
Excuse me, but who is the troll here? Why don't you go back to Daily Kos where you belong and stop trolling our board. Feel free to have the last word because I don't waste my time debating logic-challenged liberals.
"who is the troll
November 16, 2007 - 15:37 ET by JasonC"who is the troll here?"
You. Having a certain ideology does not make a troll. I'm uninterested in Kos, thanks just the same.
Let's look at the relatively short history of this discussion. I added a new comment to explain why I don't find "gringo" as offensive as many other racial epithets. MM called my reasoning racist, which stung, but was worth responding to. You, on the other hand, jump in to claim "They sneak into our country to freeload and demean our culture", essentially blanketing all Mexicans with your wide-swath generalizations, despite the fact that the Hispanic people being discussed (they're not even specified as Mexican I realize now) are clearly legitimate citizens and business owners.
Your remarks were off-topic bomb-throwing, trying to make the discussion about something it's not. And now, apparently, you're leaving. Textbook definition of trolling.
By the way, your screenname will look awfully silly come Fall 2008, don't ya think?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
trolls
November 16, 2007 - 16:00 ET by mvfreemanThere is no shortage of mouth breathers here that throw out the word "troll" and "liberal" in reflexive knee-jerk fashion.
Too many idiots on both sides feel like there has to be the same kind of group think that we are always accusing the other side of. What gets me is they are too blind to see it.
I have to say I'm yawning about this too. Are we really gonna be this thin skinned? How many times have we heard the word "gringo" in movies, books and other media? Living here in Texas there is no shortage of hispanics and the term "gringo" isn't really a slur it's slang for someone who is white. It is not neccesarily derogatory. My wife is hispanic and I hear quite a bit of spanish when we get together with her rather large family. Since they all speak english too they don't really say gringo. It's mostly non-english speakers who use the term.
Great post MV. I am a
November 16, 2007 - 16:17 ET by JasonCGreat post MV. I am a little embarassed to have used the T-word today, as it has been thrown around so much on this site that its semantic value is almost nil. But NMC's intrusion struck me as so rude and off-base, I succumbed to temptation. Thanks again for the refreshing post.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
What's a "mouth breather"?
November 16, 2007 - 16:34 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I explained it in my post.
November 16, 2007 - 16:49 ET by mvfreemanI explained it in my post. But generally anyone who uses the word "liberal" or "con" as an epithet. That is neither witty nor a substantive argument.
So calling others "mouth
November 16, 2007 - 16:51 ET by MightyMouthSo calling others "mouth breathers" is not an epithet? Right... okey dokey.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
LOL I never claimed it wasn't.
November 16, 2007 - 17:03 ET by mvfreeman;)
Just sounds a little
November 16, 2007 - 17:14 ET by MightyMouthJust sounds a little hypocritical to me. :-(
Like saying there's too much G**D*** swearing around here! Will you M*****F****** stop your G**D*** swearing!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
My point is that
November 16, 2007 - 17:28 ET by mvfreemanMy point is that mouth-breather is an epithet, liberal or neocon isn't and is only used that way by people who have no argument other than "your opinion is different than mine so you must be ( )." It's the easiest way to get out of actually having a point as the above person clearly demonstrates.
There's the ever-mighty
November 16, 2007 - 17:32 ET by JasonCThere's the ever-mighty 'libtard' too, of course. I have yet to see anyone try to deploy something along the lines of 'contard' or 'rightoid.' Neither of those has the same whipcrack humor I guess.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Hey Jason I'm not the one
November 16, 2007 - 17:36 ET by MightyMouthHey Jason I'm not the one trying to be holier than thou here. I'm just calling out the hypocrisy. Nice try though moonbat. :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Just filling in MV's
November 16, 2007 - 17:39 ET by JasonCJust filling in MV's parentheses. Come on now, you know I'm no moonbat.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Let me try this one more
November 16, 2007 - 18:10 ET by mvfreemanLet me try this one more time...I didn't say mouth breather because I disagreed with the person but because that person could not make a point or have an argument based on anything other than applying a label. I OTOH have supplied both written and anectdotal evidence to back up my argument that gringo is not automatically a derogatory slur. So I reserve my name calling for someone who earns it by spouting inanities and not people with whom I respectfully disagree. That is not hypocrisy.
Thanks for the clarification...
November 16, 2007 - 18:26 ET by MightyMouthShould the mouth breathers consider that a typical liberal apology?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
No.
November 16, 2007 - 18:34 ET by mvfreemanI'm not liberal and you are ignoring my point.
Time to slam a few brewskis with my buds. It is the weekend after all.
Cheers!!
My point is: you say you're
November 16, 2007 - 18:36 ET by MightyMouthMy point is: you say you're not being hypocritical and I say you are. You led this travisty by using an epithet for people who use epithets. It's that simple. I know you disagree, but we will just have to call it quits because the frigin right margin is getting in the way. See ya!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
LOL
November 16, 2007 - 18:51 ET by mvfreemanI'm sorry but you misunderstood me. I was using an epithet for people who use epithets instead of an argument.SEE!!! But as you said we will have to disagree even though I am telling you what my intentions were. And I have yet to resort to name calling with you although "obstinate" comes to mind. ;P.
I believe your last word on this will take up any remaining room. Heh!
MM... That would be
November 16, 2007 - 18:16 ET by Clear thinkerMM...
That would be "gringo moonbat"!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
So why is it used in such
November 16, 2007 - 17:01 ET by Airforce_5_OSo why is it used in such an insulting way?
The N-word is a slang word among blacks doesn’t make it right to say it.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
so if one person doesn't find it offensive
November 16, 2007 - 19:51 ET by UndercoverConservativethen it's okay? If I can find one poor beat down, "open minded" "deep thinking" dark complected man of African descent who isn't "offended" by being called a "nigger" then it's all good?
I see lots of folks ripping that one off on TV, and on the radio. Their pals aren't seeming too offended. Same goes with "bitches". I know some "I-am-woman-hear-me-roar!" types who are PROUD to be called a "bitch". So let's give a big B to everyone, especially to the soon-to-be Queen Hillary!
P.s.-it's common knowledge, that when an "offensive" statement is made, it *does not matter* the intent of the one making the statement if the receiver chooses to be offended by it, when the "offended" is a favored racial/social/gender/orientation class. The "I didn't mean it like that" excuse NEVER flies in workplace complaints or discrimination lawsuits. Unless the target is white, apparently. And if the target isn't "offended", it is common for someone else completely to file the grievance or lawsuit on their "behalf"!
That's the real world of tolerating slurs and playing the excuse of some words being worse than others, or that their damage is dependent on who says them. Justice MUST be blind, and treat EVERONE the same. Either something is "bad" or it is not-for everyone.
NMC, You don't think they
November 16, 2007 - 15:34 ET by LeonNMC,
You don't think they might come here to find a better life? Are you joking?
So you really consider doing horrible jobs like cleaning dishes, cleaning hotels, working for shady contractor's for meager wages to be freeloading???? How do you figure? Technically to be freeloading they'd have to be contributing nothing, but that's simply not the case.
If their presence is deeply offensive, then why don't you push for accountability for those that employ them?
Whine whine whine all day, no solution in site. Your hate is probably just blinding you to rational thought. It's cool.
Why dont they fight for there rights back home?
November 16, 2007 - 16:06 ET by general companyDepressing wages, burdening our resources, committing crimes and filling up our jails. But it is just like you to have a double standard for every thing. Bottom line, if you cannot work under the US labor laws then you are in the wrong Country.
Some of us would like to see the end of slavery in this country.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
GC,My immigration stance
November 16, 2007 - 16:21 ET by LeonGC,
My immigration stance is simple.
Punish employers that employ illegal immigrants.
If they can't get jobs while being illegal, they either won't come here or they'll come here legally.
It's so simple. I don't blame illegals. If I was in their situation I'd do the same thing. I blame the people that pay them.
However, to be fair, this story has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. I just couldn't help commenting on NMC;s outrageous post.
Not just the employers
November 16, 2007 - 16:33 ET by bassndudeNot just the employers Leon, but the state sponsered welfare, ie: food stamps, monthly checks, unemployment, ect. ect. Take it all away, after all, it is meant for citizens of the US that have fallen on difficult times. Not for criminal immigrants. There is no need for the citizens of this country to pay taxes to support the citizens of another country.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, I think I agree but
November 16, 2007 - 17:28 ET by LeonBass,
I think I agree but I don;t know enough about that system to comment.
It seems bizarre to me that you could get all that stuff without a social security card/birth certificate/driver's license or state ID card.
Leon, simply the most
November 16, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Gary P JacksonLeon, simply the most coherent post you've had. And you are right, if we punish employers who hire them, they won't come.
But we also must punish cities who give them sanctuary, and agencies that give them aid.
We are all human beings, and we all care about our fellow man. But the United States has a legal program for folks who want to come here. It is our right as a Nation to say "no, you can't come here".
Thanks Gary, I've
November 16, 2007 - 17:26 ET by LeonThanks Gary,
I've actually said this before and this has always been my stance.
People blame the immigrants, but that doesn't get us anywhere. So long as they can get paid, they will come. I mean, would you stay in Mexico and make pennies a day if you could walk 20 miles to make $60 a day?
I sure as heck wouldn't.
This is what I've never understood about the whole immigration debate. As far as I can tell, we already have the laws on the books to effectively enforce immigration, so why not just follow them.
let's make it simple
November 16, 2007 - 20:11 ET by UndercoverConservativejust because something is available does *not* mean you can just go grab it. If I have an unlocked door it does *not* give you the right to take my stuff. If there is a market for illegal drugs and guns for street kids, it does *not* absolve me in any way should I take advantage of that market.
Your justification also absolves rapists (If she'd been wearing a chastity belt they couldn't have raped her) All sorts of burglary (that's what you get for having glass windows, or If people didn't have nice stuff, then no one would steal it)
Freedom means not just making choices, but having them. Just because there is a tempting illegal choice does not absolve one from making it or make them less guilty than the one who opened that choice. Also, moral superiority does not come from living a "good" life simply because the option for "bad" was unavailable.
We try to have a free country. This means leaving the opportunity open to make what some would call "wrong" decisions. Removing the choice is removing the freedom. That's the politician's way out, and leads to oppression when more and more things are considered "wrong". Sure it's fun when it's your people in control, but you gotta think ahead-you set a precedent and it'll come back when your people are out of favor.
Adding more government control over business not only fails to solve anything, but also fails to put the blame securely where it lies-on the *individual*. Not "The Man", not "The System", not "Big Business","Big Oil", "Big Tobacco", or "Big Fast Food".
It's that scary "responsibility" thing all over again.
'Gringo' used in the
November 16, 2007 - 16:26 ET by NL207'Gringo' used in the context described is a racially based disparagement of the same kind and degree as the word 'nigger'. I don't see you or anybody that agrees with you defending the application of this latter term to black people. Why do you suppose the former should be socially acceptable to apply to white people?
not at all right
November 16, 2007 - 16:39 ET by mvfreemanI just asked a lady in my office who was born in Mexico and who is now a citizen if the word gringo for white is analagous to ni**er for blacks. The horrific look on her face told me all I need to know. On top of that she could only think of one other spanish word for white people:bolillo.
How do we know Ms.Granado isn't Puerto Rican? Their use of gringo isn't racist.
Just out of curiosity...anyone who speaks spanish know the supposedly pc way to say white person?
Euro-American! Get
November 16, 2007 - 16:50 ET by Clear thinkerEuro-American!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Actually, CT, I've decided
November 16, 2007 - 17:00 ET by motherbeltActually, CT, I've decided from now on I'm going to call myself an ethnic Italian living in the US.
it's easy
November 16, 2007 - 20:18 ET by UndercoverConservativethe "PC way" to refer to whites, also works for black indian hispanic or whatever.
it's "Americans". Drop the tribal identity at the door. get the citizenship, pay the taxes. Add your holidays and bring your homeland's foods. Get your @ss in the Melting Pot, it's American Stew and we're feeding the entire nation with it. The same stew that kicked @ss in WWI and II, invented the Internet, landed on the Moon, and got this "democracy" thing working for over 200 years.
You ain't "european", you're not "african", and you sure as hell ain't "irish" or "russian" anymore. Your taxes aren't going there. Their constitution (if they have one) isn't applying to you. You're not getting drafted into their Army and you're not electing their President. Former Mexicans? jump into the pot and bring some tequila and chiles with you! The stew needs some spice!
Yep, that's a load
November 16, 2007 - 16:05 ET by Ten7sYeah JC, that's a load of politically-correct Marxist B.S. you spout. If you're not offended, you can't call yourself an America, and I know that you can't be a man. But then you did say "male" didn't you? That's how sissy Leftists who used to be men refer to themselves.
These are Illegal Aliens, breaking my laws, stealing my tax dollars, and a business aids and abets them while insulting my race, culture, and ethnicity. Any business that does that or flys foreign flags or any nonsense like that should be shut down, and the owners thrown in jail for aiding Illegal Aliens and/or fraud, end of story! And if they or you former-American, former-men don't like it well that's just tough.
Like NMC, you've made the
November 16, 2007 - 16:20 ET by JasonCLike NMC, you've made the absurd leap to assuming that this is about illegal immigrants. Nothing about this story, or anyone else's posts in this thread, have anything to do with that.
I can't call myself an American because I'm not offended by "Gringo"? That's possibly the dumbest attempt at an insult I've ever taken.
fine, let me phrase, I am a White American Man. Does that satisfy the macho, red-blooded, beer-swilling tribunal.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
They were clearly appealing to Illegal Aliens
November 16, 2007 - 19:17 ET by Ten7sThey were clearly appealing to Illegal Aliens with that sign!
No I seriously doubt your loyalty to America because you seem thoroughly unconcerned about Illegal Aliens and businesses that enable their crimes. The insult is on top of the serious injury to Our Republic.
If you're not offended, you
November 16, 2007 - 17:05 ET by dvdaughtryIf you're not offended, you can't call yourself an America, and I know that you can't be a man.
I could not disagree more. To NOT be offended makes you more of man and makes one stand on convictions.
To be offended is a choice.
Being offended happens far to often in this country. When you are offended you become a victim.
Maybe that is why people like it so much.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
Having Honor
November 16, 2007 - 19:43 ET by Ten7sTaking offense does NOT make a "victim". Having honor makes us take offense at violations of Our Country, our law, and our culture. You'd have to be dishonorable of these to not take offense.
ack!
November 16, 2007 - 20:23 ET by UndercoverConservativethat H word! How dare you...call the censors! Honor is a dead thing, like chivalry (women hate it when you treat them like royalty, it's chauvanistic!) Honor is a throwback. Turn the other cheek brother (not *that* one, unless you're really into that sort of thing!) Nothing is worth fighting over (except a cartoon of a bomb turban or a book down the gurgler)!
Someone attacks you and your beliefs, (bend over and) take it like a man! That'll show those intolerant racist b@stards a thing or two! Your beliefs will be obliterated, your institutions burned and their grounds salted, your enemies kicking you around and having no respect for you, but you can be proud inside (just don't show it or you'll get the hose again!) that you were a "real man" and just "chose" not to be offended! :)
Don't take a refusal to be
November 17, 2007 - 10:05 ET by dvdaughtryDon't take a refusal to be offended as choice to not stand up for me or my beliefs.
I am plenty for my rights. But if someone wants to call me Grigo, Cracker, etc. that is fine with me. At least I know where I stand with them.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
I wish you would quit
November 17, 2007 - 10:13 ET by dvdaughtryI wish you would quit telling me what I have to do, be, and feel.
I agree its wrong, and I agree something should be done.
To take it to a level of "offense" (in the context I believe we are speaking) is a choice.
My other point is that level mentioned directly above happens way, way to often and it turns the situation into "he did this to me so this has to happen to him".
Thus, a victim that needs retribution.
My vote is to get some thicker skin and figure out a way to make this guy regret his decision (if he is a legal citizen). If he is not legal, I personally volunteer to drive the bus to take him home.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
Jason, that is the old
November 16, 2007 - 16:53 ET by motherbeltJason, that is the old "blacks can't be racist because they have no power" argument and it is bogus. Racism is an attitude....a belief that one race is superior to another. There doesn't have to be subjugation. Discrimination may have concrete consequences (re jobs, etc) but racism can and certainly does exist without the subjugation.
Motherbelt, I see your
November 16, 2007 - 17:12 ET by JasonCMotherbelt, I see your point but I don't think that's quite what I'm doing. I'm not arguing that one word is more or less racist than another (as you rightly point out racism isn't really encoded in the word itself), but that some epithets are worse than others based on their historical context and etymology. I'm not saying black people can't be racist, I'm saying that their use of "cracker" or "honky" is not steeped in the same traditions of subjugation that "nigger" is.
I don't think it's some sort of affirmative action conspiracy that "nigger" is considered universally vile, whereas black slang for white people is generally considered benign. I think it's rendered that way by a collective unconscious that realizes the linguistic roots of the former.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason you are wrong on the
November 16, 2007 - 17:22 ET by MightyMouthJason you are wrong on the word "Cracker". It had to do with the crack of the masters whip. The same time period as the subjugation. So you see they both have the same etymology. In fact they were used at the same time by the opposing races. busted big guy...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
HAHA, I feel like a big
November 16, 2007 - 17:27 ET by dvdaughtryHAHA, I feel like a big dummy. I thought it came from a cracker, like Saltines--a white cracker.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
Don't feel bad dvd..
November 16, 2007 - 17:41 ET by MightyMouthI thought the same thing! I think I learned the true origins reading NB a while back.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
As Toni Morrison writes in
November 16, 2007 - 17:36 ET by JasonCAs Toni Morrison writes in Beloved: "definitions belong to the definers." Definer = Slaveholders. They chose to use whips to keep their slaves subservient. Definitions that evolve from that belong to them, not to the black people who use them.
But your right, it does put a dent in my etymology argument. Yet, I still don't find 'cracker' offensive.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Apparently more than one theory.
November 16, 2007 - 17:46 ET by mvfreemanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)
I have yet to hear a black person say it. White-boy is easy enough.
Watch a few black comedians...you'll hear it.
November 16, 2007 - 17:55 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I meant black people whom I know personally.
November 16, 2007 - 18:14 ET by mvfreemanLike I said they all just say white-boy or white-girl.
definition depends on nationality
November 16, 2007 - 16:28 ET by mvfreemanFrom wiki:
Meaning
You know, the Anglo comes
November 16, 2007 - 16:58 ET by motherbeltYou know, the Anglo comes from the old "Anglo-Saxon." Well, my ancestors didn't come from either of those bloodlines....my heritage is 100% Italian. So how can I be an "Anglo"? But I don't have the right, apparently, to pitch a fit and say I don't want to be called that. No one ever asked me.
True
November 16, 2007 - 17:49 ET by mvfreemanThat is the english language definition. In latin american countries it is not used as a ethnic modifier but rather this way:
"It is also used, in non-English-speaking countries, to refer to someone from any English-speaking country.
It is important to note that Anglo is not a technical term. There are linguistic problems with using the word as an adjective or noun on its own. For example, the 'o' in Anglo means 'and' (Anglo-Saxon means of Angle and Saxon origin), so there is only an apparent parallelism between Latino and Anglo."
So don't worry, you're still a guido. ;)
I've never spent much time in Virginia . . .
November 16, 2007 - 18:49 ET by Junk Science SkepticOr gone to an ivy league college to study linguistics, but as a Gringo, I have spent a lot of time in Arizona, Southern California, Baja and Sonora, in real-life unpretentious use of everyday language by Gringos, Gringas, Latinos, Latinas, Indios, Mestizos, etc.
Unless one has dedicated their life to victimhood, the use of Gringo by itself has no negative connotation. Everyday Spanish/Spanglish is filled with examples of a single word being used for everything from the worst insult, to the highest term of affection.
Think of the potential ways that English speakers might use the term "buddy." There's a tremendous difference between its use in "Watch it buddy," and its use in "Hey buddy, let's go get a beer."
While there are certainly terms that are intended to be an insult, Gringo isn't one of them.
On the other hand, if somebody calls you a "Pendejo," that's an insult. Literally translated, it's equivalent to calling somebody an idiot, but the real-world usage is much closer to an English expletive that equates to the terminal point in one's intestinal tract.
The whole PC idea of demonizing race-defining words is an invention of the American left.
With the exception of those in the "irreconcilable wing of Islam," the race-shakedown industrial complex (Jesse, et al), and the American left, most other adults in the world figured out the whole "names will never hurt me" concept long before they ever left grammar school.
Get a grip, people.
Thompson/Giuliani 2008
Doubleplus Ungood
November 16, 2007 - 19:40 ET by UndercoverConservativethey rewrite the meanings of words to cover their @sses. just like "La Raza" doesn't mean "The Race", which if it were a white "Race" would be considered neo-nazi and banned.
It's perfectly acceptable to put ads and make a giant radio station targeted to one "Race", as long as it's Mexi..err "hispanic".
http://979laraza.lam...
Saw some punk at the Mall, wearing a shirt, proclaiming in huge letters, "I am MEXICAN. I am Not Hispanic, I am Not Latino"
If I'd had some backup I'd have asked to see his passport. If he had a driver's license and was actually an American citizen, I'd have called him out as a wannabe, poseur who couldn't cut it as an actual Mexican and was just putting on a front. If he wasn't a citizen, well, either he gets arrested for illegal entry, or we'd scare the hell out of him by reminding that, since he's not on any records as here,he can't be "missed"...;)
Punks hate being the victims of a little bit of intimidation, but they sure like giving it out. It's fun to catch them outnumbered, with a few current and ex-military friends around.