Since when is a racist slur justifiable under ANY circumstances? You're not adressing the Japanese Military of the 1930's and 1940's here, so don't go cloaking your racism in a humanistic outburst.

It apalls me the frequent incidences of racism on this forum. Now, given that these comments are tolerated and common the only logical conclusion is that either people do NOT see them as racist, or that they do not see anything wrong with racist comments in general.

In this particular case Hugo seems to be taking the approach that the people in question are a specific group of Japanese (being the perpretors of War Crimes (Gee, wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of international tribunal to handle those sorts of people) )

So I guess the question is how do you people feel about this sort of language?

I would equate it to being called a "damned slave owner" because my ancestors may or may not have owned slaves long ago. I respect the Japanese people, and it would not occur to me to use that term.

But in the thread about xenophobia, I quoted someone I knew who used a racial slur--I'm afraid that it will offend someone. If so, I am sorry. I was using it to make a point, and in no way do I or did I approve of the use of that word. Let me know, UltimateJoe, what you think. (Note: I modified it to make it less offensive)

I don't know who said it, but use of offensive words says more about the speaker than the group s/he is defaming.

Free speech is better when it's not "stinking free speech."

(Edited)

While I think there is no way to justify racism, I would rather someone be a racist and say what they think than hide behind what socirty considers (rightfully so, in my opinion) wrong.

If all racists said what they were thinking, then they could be properly osctacized.

On this forum? Then why don't you report it? How are we to enforce the Rules if no one tells us about violations?

No offense, Joe, but I think your premise for this debate is a bit off. I understand and respect wanting to debate subtle racism, but to claim it is frequent here is misleading.

Also, since when are the Japanese a race? Aren't they an ethnicity? (Not that it makes ostracizing an entire group of people right, but semantically it seems to matter)

I think you're way off base when you say this is found here often. I think it is extremely rare. There may be generalizations about ideologies and the like, but racist comments scarce.

Haven't seen it, Joe. There isn't a single racist on this board that I know of. There have a been a few instances of someone using "ethnically insensitive" terms to make a point, but I haven't seen any cases where the point being made was a racist one, except in the sense in which people like to label people "racists" over legitimate political disagreements, which IMHO is a PC abuse and a "boy who cried wolf" abuse.

Only to some people. In many people's opinion, including mine, there's no useful distinction to be made between race and ethnicity when it comes to defining racism. Also, most people who believe in the idea of race at all do consider the Japanese to be a separate race than our (presumably European/white) selves, so this particular case shouldn't even be in question.

There is no excuse for racist comments. Even if members of a race or ethnic group have done evil things, that does not justify condemning or belittling everyone who shares certain genetic characteristics. How do some of these people who complain about "crying wolf" and "PC" feel about reparations for slavery? I've seen some of them argue that modern white people shouldn't have to pay for the sins of their ancestors...but now apparently modern Japanese should do just that. Don't make me use the h-word.

As for frequency, I wouldn't say racist or other discriminatory comments are exactly common here...but they're not exactly rare either. It's not a big surprise to see one, and in my experience reporting hasn't made much of a difference.

Not in this particular case. The poster specifically used history to demonstrate that 'America started the nuclear arms race'. It was completely in context to bring up a direct reference to Japanese conduct during the same frame of time.

I wouldn't have used the word 'stinking', though.

Exactly. It wasn't a blanket statement. It gave both historical and anecdotal context.

The "stinking" Japs he referred to are all dead (or retired ).

Ok, enough beating up Joe for beating us up

I believe this is what he wanted us to debate, and it really is a worthy debate:

I have an anecdote to add as an answer to those questions (it goes along the same lines as mrs. pigpen's post)

When I was in college I had a writing professor who claimed that it was acceptable and common for historians to incorporate the vernacular of the era s/he is studying in his/her writings. For example, he claimed that is was OK for historians to use words like "negro" if they are writing about early 20th century American race relations. Or "shanty" to describe poor Irish neighborhoods in the US in the late 19th century.

Like, mrs. p I got the idea that was what hugo was aiming for. However, I would have chosen other words also. It is my personal opinion that there is no need to make such comments to get your point across. My historical writings only use the vernacular of the era when I am quoting actual people's words.

(Note: our spellcheck must not be racist, it didn't even recognize the word "negro" )

In Denmark, the word for a black man is still 'neger'. This is not considered a racist slur at all. Its simply what they are called. The G is soft, but the word basically means negro, which I was under the impression was Spanish for 'black'.

Since we often refer to people as black, or white or any number of other colours, its hard to see why these words by themselves are racist.

Its even more strange when the Cd shops and air waves are filled are filled with rappers refering to each other with the dreaded N word....

Jaime nailed it. I should have put the term "stinking Japs" in quotation marks. What the point was, is that the US, as a superpower, is a relatively benign one.

Was the novel Huckleberry Finn racist?

I don't care for racial slurs, and I don't use them, but I do believe that in a historical context there is a place for those words. I don't think we should bury our history in the name of P.C. I do think that exercising some sensitivity when using those terms is important.

I guess I'm confused by the premise of the question..."justifiable racism".

So much of what we are fed by the media and academia as racism is born and bred of groups whose sole existance is the perpetuity of racial strife.

So....justifable according to whom?

As usual liberals are crying racism where it does not exist. Liberals need minorities to continue to believe in the widespread existance of racism. Of course minorities who disagree with the premise of widespread racism are Uncle Toms,oreos, etc.

Hugo, I'm a liberal, and just two posts behind yours, I posted a view that did not cry racism. I don't quite understand the consistent blanket war between the right and the left, but I can say that these types of statements do not help to further this debate.

If you notice everyone who is trying to argue my statement is racist is a liberal. I am arguing the same point you often hear Walter Williams and Larry Elder make. It is a political strategy to exaggerate and in some cases manufacture racism. If exploitation and racism is rare then much of the liberal agenda has to be questioned. If 9% of African-americans had voted for Bush, instead of 8%, we would not be hearing the "selected, not elected" rhetoric.

There are multiple possible explanations, some of which would indict liberals and some of which would indict non-liberals, but for cripes' sake MOVE ON. It's not just about you, hugo. How about if we get back to the general issue of whether racism or racist language is ever justifiable? I think the point about a literary/historical exception was promising, but this highly personalized "is hugo evil" angle - including your rationalizations - isn't getting anyone anywhere.

To reiterate, I think the question comes down to one of whether two wrongs make a right. Ignoring history, being the first to condemn someone for their race - or ethnicity if you must, Jaime - is wrong. Does anyone disagree? If not, then how does history change that? I would contend that it doesn't. The person sin front of me is not history. To condemn or belittle that individual because of acts in which they did not personally participate is to commit a new wrong - not to redress or compensate for an old one. To say otherwise, IMO, is to say that sin can be inherited, and I just don't believe that.

Well I'm glad to see this discussion has stuck to the topic at hand.

Regardless, I think a few clarifications are in order here to allow things to progress more smoothly.



This is the third time (as I recall) that I have seen Japanese people slurred. However the actual use of racist labels is largely uncommon. The use of a RACIST DISCOURSE is however extremely common. I couldn't count the number of times that entire groups of people (be them Arabs, Europeans, etc.) are simply cast together and villified based on the posters observations on a specific element of that group. Lets be honest, this happens all the time. This very webpage would be almost non-existant if making generalizations about racial/ethnic groups was prohibited. Those generalizations ARE frequent, and in many incidences they take on a racist overtone.

Furthermore, it is tempting to pidgeon-hole the debate by questioning what is race, ethnicity, etc; but that temptation should be avoided. The very definition of those terms are extremely amorphous.

Now to the responses you have all made:



I never accused anyone of being a racist. One doesn't have to be to use racist language. I think this distinction is important. A racist has deep-seated prejudices; someone who uses racist language is just being insensitive to the racial identity of others.



I have reported homophobia before and have received nothing but a trite rejoinder. That is not an admonishment of the moderators of this forum, but a recognition that in cases where subjective values are applied to any possible infractions, reporting a problem isn't necessarily helpful.



And what if I were Japanese and my grandfather lived in Japan lived in Japan during the Second World War. How would you like someone calling your grandfather names and denigrating his memory? Contextualizing hate doesn't change the fact that it remains hate; whether it is a reflection of the speakers feelings or merely hate carried by the language itself.



There is a big difference here. In any historical discourse older terms are explored and studied for their value to their contemporary period. A historian writing on the period leading up to the Civil War in an attempt to chart racial tensions may use and even explore the meanings and uses of the word "negro," but they themselves wouldn't call black people by that term in their studies.



No, but the language used therein was. I don't understand what is so difficult in this distinction.



That is in no way what I have attempted to do with this discussion. This very debate demonstrates that these terms CAN and MUST be explored and discussed. There is a big difference between talking about the word "nigger" and using it to describe someone. That line has, in my opinion, been crossed.



And let the generalizations begin. Hugo, I don't care for your politics, but this thread is in no way and indictment of them so you can just relax. If you don't think that racism exists then feel free to demonstrate HOW someone saying "stinking Japs" isn't racist and at least attempt to challenge the assertions of others.

My fingers hurt, so I will wrap this up. I DO NOT think that Passion51 is a racist because of those comments.

Well,I will just state the referral to "stinking Japs", as anyone who could read something in context would know, was referring to the attitude of most citizens of Allied nations toward the Japanese in that era. It is no different than referring to Americans as "damn yankees' in context with American actions in the southern hemisphere in the 70's and 80's. I was not inferring that current Japanese or dead Japanese were "stinking Japs". I was inferring, in rebuttal to an individual who came here flaming and inferring that the Americans began the nuclear arm race (actually Germany and Japan had nuclear programs first) that their COUNTRY too, has it's faults.

I better not tell anyone here about the drunken Irishmen I ran into on St. Pats day.

Racism and internet discussion forums-- could either of them exist without each other?

Truly, we all deserve a pat on the back for keeping this forum very clean from the obvious racism that litters many other discussion forums.

Really, though, what one person sees as racist, another sees as, well, not racist.

For example, I am white. Caucasian, if you will.

Well, let's say I take offense to being called white. After all, my skin is not white at all, and I don't like to be associated with the word "whitie".

From now on, I want everyone to call any white person a "European American". Anything less and I will consider it racism.

If the news says "white", they must be racist, right? After all, I take offense at it.

Since racism is such a subjective concept, it is hard to draw a line.

So to quote Jaime quoting Ultimate Joe:



Well, of course racial slurs are justifiable when discussing the usage of racial slurs. Otherwise there would be little or no discussion. And, as I am sure you have noticed, that is why the word "nigger" has not been added to the forbidden words list.

In a public situation, I don't think racist comments are ever warranted. But, I think that many people have such a varied definition of racism that there is no standard.

If I describe someone, I could say, "He's a black guy." Or, I could say, "He's a black guy." On that particular instance, one of three things happens:

1. Someone takes offense that I use the word "black" at all, and not African American.
2. Someone takes offense in the way I say "black" (second example).
3. Someone feels that using the word "black" is appropriate (first example).

Where is the line drawn?

Mike

For me the line is drawn quite simply. When someone uses racist language to describe someone, then they have crossed the line. I feel that that was done. I think my quote (through Mike through Jaime back through me) deserves a second look:



I'm not asking when the word "Jap" for example is justifiable. The emphasis should be on the word SLUR there. The word was used to denigrate an entire group of people, and I fail to see how that is appropriate. The term "Jap", especially when the adjective stinking is attached, is offensive to Japanese people on the whole.

You think too much, Cracker.

Once again it was not used to denigrate anyone. It was used to demonstrate that actions of the Japanese government in WWII, and prior to, were so reprehensible that it manufactured racism against the Japanese people.

Some people hate Muslims today because of the actions of a few, others hate Americans for similar reasons. If any word is universally denigrating,then why do rappers throw around the N word? Why aren't white people universally offended by the word "cracker"? There are no words that are universally reprehensible, in every context. There are people who get upset when someone says, "eenie meenie, minee mo".

This topic is all over the place.

Just to be perfectly clear, everyone know that this is the subject we are debating, right?

SUBJECT:

...is a racist slur justifiable under ANY circumstances?...


...how do you people feel about this sort of language?

I thought so...

Mike

I guess I will no longer affectionately refer to my wife as "my little flip."

Since I called attention to your annoying habit of misquoting posters earlier today in another thread, I can't help but believe that this is intentional. Either that or you have an unhealthy fixation with me.

Which is it?

I agree with the point made regarding keeping alleged racism in the limelight to further the cause of certain elements of our society. It is always refreshing to read the comments from some of the alleged victims of this racism.

Yes, there are three instances (which I can think of) when racial slurs are 'okay':

1) The person is the race in question. A black person can say the N word all he/she wants to.

2) The person is using the 'slur' to emphasis a point, placed in historical context.

3)There is an understanding between the recipient and the person offering the 'slur' that it has a playful, non malicious context. For example, I often refer to my husband as 'Spick". WE think it's funny (since his parents are Cuban).

I have a friend that I love dearly but everytime we chat on the phone somewhere in the first five words she's going to say, "Hey 'lil nigger."

And I will invariably reply, "There you go again. Why do I have to be 'a nigger'? Why can't I just be a black man trying to make it in America?"

It's like a running gag between us and we both know our lines by heart.

So I must disagree with Mrs. Pigpen because this is one black person that is still repulsed when he hears the word "nigger" no matter WHO is throwing it around.

As far as the fact that young black kids call each other "nigger" with no thought to it, just because ignorance becomes popular doesn't make it acceptable. Oh, I've heard the rationalizations.

It doesn't mean what it sounds like anymore.

It's a term of endearment.

It's taking a negative word away from the racists and turning it into a empowering word.

Well, I'm sorry but I don't think you can take garbage and recycle it into tomorrow's dinner. The best way to get rid of the N-word is not to use the N-word. Period.

For those fans of Guns n' Roses, remember the controversy over the song "One In A Million" when Axl Rose sang, "Police and niggers, get out of my way"? Rose later said he didn't like anyone telling him what words he could say and besides black people use it all the time.

Well, Eminem seems to have become the most popular rapper on the planet and while he swears like a drunken sailor he doesn't use the "N-word."

Appearing at a festival where Guns n' Roses was headlining, Vernon Reid, the guitarist for the black rock band Living Colour said, "I don't use the word 'nigger. I don't like the word 'nigger' and I don't know any
'niggers.' It's a dead word and I want to keep it that way."

Works for me. Same thing with "fag" or "dyke" or "queer" or "wop" or "poor white trash" or "bitch" or "fat-cat rich white Republican." The best way to get past ignorant words is not to use them and if you don't know which one is going to offend a given individual, then you'd better make more of an effort to find out.

In other words, it's probably not cool to ask a Native American Indian how he or she feels the Washington Redskins will do this season.

Racism is never justified. Not mine and not yours.

Persecution Complex aside, what are you talking about? My message was petering out and I just wanted to close by saying that I didn't think you were a racist. I don't see how this is a problem. What do you mean by is it intentional? How does one unintentionally type a sentence? Is there some meaning to those words that are not familiar? And if I am the one with the fixation, why do you keep bringing this up and disparaging my posting style? I've been around longer than you have; at least in your current incarnation, and nobody has accused me of a fixation before.

Most importantly, what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

I disagree with all 3 examples. Well, two for sure and maybe the third after clarification.

1...The N word is no less offensive when used by blacks. In some ways its more so because it tends to set 'them' apart even more.

2...If this means you use it while discussing its very use, then ok. But if you're initiating the use, historical context doesn't help.

3...This is definitely a no-no if done in company of others.

In each of your 3 examples the 'user' may have had zero racist intent, but there's no way for the audience to know that for sure.

1) Sometimes when I'm with female friends, and I say 'bitch' in a joking manner. I see no problem. If a black person wants to use the N word I personally don't like it, but it's his prerogative.

2)Yes, I mean discussing its use.

3) I think people need to lighten up. If friends mention that they want to go to a country-western bar (there's one named Doo Dahs here), and I know there's a racial element there, I might say, "The Spick doesn't want to go to Doo Dahs." Emphasizing the point that he's Latino, it is a racial place, and it might be actually dangerous at worst, uncomfortable at best, for us to go.



Ever see me post a racist comment on this forum?

Nighttimer, let me just emphasize that I can't stand that word either, and would never use it. However, if a black person wants to in my prescence, who am I to tell them I'm offended? It's their choice.

mrspigpen

I think you just did...

I guess I must just be a racist then, huh Moif?
I hate hispanics, even though I took a hispanic last name and had hispanic kids.

Rest assured Mrs Pigpen. I don't think you are a racist. I was just making the point (or trying to) that some one with a different perspective might not agree with you.

Moif, I promise you, you can say all the Danish slurs you want, and I won't take offense. I don't think anyone else will either.

The discourse here illustrates an important point. First, I made the flippant (attempt to be funny) ‘cracker’ comment. This was an attempt to emphasize that racial ‘slurs’ are not always wrong. I think they are the equivalent of swearing… Not appropriate in every situation, but there are some instances in which they aren’t inappropriate (IMO). Anyone who enjoys the move ‘Pulpfiction’, by the ‘always wrong’ definition, enjoys watching racist behavior.



Every example I used had a predetermined context for the ‘audience’. In one instance, I used the example of my own husband, forgodsake!


Now, I am labeled a racist for my explanation. This is a microcosmic example of what has happened to society at large. Night timer mentioned that ‘racism is never justified. Neither mine nor yours.’ He sighted a specific example of a friend using the N word. Why would he associate with a racist? One can only conclude that the person in question wasn’t a racist, but our definition of racism has become much too broad and all encompassing.

There is nothing that would ever convince me that a person of whichever ethnicity cannot refer to THEMSELVES however they like. It isn’t racism. That is a patently ridiculous assertion. It might be crude, it might be rude, but it isn’t racist. The distinction is important because that accusation holds a lot of power.

I don't think many people would say that someone using a racist term in reference to themselves, or someone with whom they're intimate, is being racist themselves so much as that they're enabling or condoning racist speech. It's harder to criticize someone for using "spic" or "flip" when you do it yourself, or when you've been observed allowing your friends to. Some people object to blurring the lines like that. Whether that takes us into the realm of political correctness is certainly worthy of debate, but I hear a lot of "if you're not with us you're against us" in other contexts and I think we should recognize that some people might legitimately feel the same way about racial equality and racist language.

In Pulp Fiction there's a scene that makes me squirm uncomfortably every time I see it.

-- I'm talkin'. Now let me ask you a question, Jules. When you drove in here, did you notice a sign out front that said, "Dead nigger storage?"

Quentin Tarantino has had a lot of fun casually dropping the N-word. Just watch Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown or the script for True Romance if you don't believe me. So what? Gangstas, mobsters, bank robbers aren't the most Politically Correct of people anyhow. They do call black people "niggers" so in the interest of being accurate what else are they supposed to say?

The fact remains just because crass and vulgar language has become common does not make it acceptable. After a point it's not even a conscious thing. It's just another word and that is what I am opposed to.

Richard Pryor used to use the word "nigger" so much it was a staple of his comedy. His breakthrough comedy album was called That Nigger's Crazy. Richard reveled in the word and it made him wealthy. Then after a trip to Africa he came back and publicly renounced his usage of the word. "I ain't never gonna call another black man a nigger" Pryor said.

So if Richard Pryor through the force of his own will give up calling people "niggers" then what's to stop me or anyone else?

When people want to call others something that degrades them or makes them something less than human it's an indication of our mental weakness and laziness. We can't be bothered not to indulge our petty prejudices. Well, I might get ticked off when my brother breaks a big play on me while we're playing Madden 2003, but that doesn't excuse me if I call him a "lucky faggot."

Yes Mrs.Pigpen---you are right that merely using the N-word does not make one a racist, especially if the person using the slur is of the ethnic group being discussed, but that doesn't mean they can't be racist--even against their own race.

Just as there are self-hating Jews, there are Latinos, Asians and blacks who are virulently hateful of their own race. Being of a certain racial group in no way insulates a person from being a bigot.

Of course you used a slur against homosexuals in making your point that slurs are never acceptable.

A few decades ago, I would have said that if you wouldn't want to say it in front of your mother, then you shouldn't say it to anyone else, either. But that was assuming that everyone loved and respected Mom, and that Mom cared about the language her kids used.

It's just good manners not to use racial or ethnic epithets. We have an enormous language at our disposal, enriched by words from nearly every other language on earth.

We degrade ourselves when we offend others. If there is to be any justice and peace in this world, it has to come from the determination to treat others courteously and respectfully, and to set the example if it appears that the other side doesn't know how to or is unwilling.

Did you notice the quotation marks? Do you know what they mean? They clearly indicate that nighttimer was writing about the word, not using it directly - which was obvious from the context anyway. It's in direct contrast to your authentic use of "dirty Jap" (without quotes) earlier.

Yes, Nighttimer. Of course I see your point.

Here's a brief history of how we came to use the word 'spick' in our home. My now husband then boyfriend and I were living together in college. My father is a very prejudiced guy, who had never met him before. We were driving to my house, and I admitted that I had some reservations about introducing him to my dad. My husband gave me a little smirk and said,'What's wrong, you don't think he likes 'Spicks'?' Then, we laughed about Richy Valens and the whole 'Donna' thing. He said if I left him because my dad didn't approve he would be on the radio serenading me. He was the first to use the term, and it sort of became a term of endearment after that. A rare term, but occasionally for humor.

I don't have a compost pile for a mouth. I don't use racial slurs in front of kids, nor would I swear in front of them, a group of strangers in the mall, or in a formal social situation. I don't do that because the context would be lost. Children or strangers don't know the meaning of our conversation, or the subtle humor behind it. This is the difference between loudly and proudly uttering expletives in public, or humorous, innocuous conversation between respecting adults.