Hint: The one CNN felt it had to use a euphemism for, is worse.
I haven’t been able to find a video of the entire segment, but here’s a clip of Tim Wise, the dude on the lower right:
Recent Comments
Cartoon: The Measure of Intelligence
Cartoon: The Celestial Politics of Trans Bans
Cartoon: Hey did you hear? Biden is old!
Cartoon: "Sex Is Real" Is A Euphemism
Cartoon: Let's Outlaw Being Homeless! That'll Work!
Cartoon: Appealing to Trump Voters by Getting Tough on Immigration!
Cartoon: Free Trade Is For Peasants, Not Cartoonists!
Cartoon: HOMOPHOBIC WOKE PARENTS ARE TURNING GAY KIDS TRANS!
- Older »
Most Recent Open Thread
The most recent open thread can always be found at the top of this page. When older posts have closed comments, please respond to them on the most recent open thread.Alas, a Blogroll
- Lawyers Guns and Money
Ron DeSantis’ Lessons in Communism
2 hours ago - Election Law Blog
“Turning Point Action official resigns after accusation of election-related fraud”
5 hours ago - The Incidental Economist
- Scott Wood Makes Lists
Your man got gigs
1 week ago - Family Inequality
Nationalism eats your moral brain
2 weeks ago
- Lawyers Guns and Money
Alas, A Subscription Service
Archives
Categories
Amp on Twitter
My Tweets
The fact that CNN felt it had to use a euphemism for one and not the other is a measurement of CNN’s biases, not objective judgement.
There was a time when the use of the word “nigger” to describe someone was acceptable in many societial contexts. Now it is not. Was it any less racist when it was acceptable?
What is the relevance of the question – and it’s answer, whatever it is – of which word is worse to use?
RonF, this business with Deen has demonstrated that the word, in fact, remains quite acceptable in, as you say, certain “societal contexts” (white social circles, workplaces where white people monopolize management and occupy positions of authority over people of color, environments where “nigger” features as a common punchline to well-worn jokes).
As for the relevance of the question, it would be appear that some white people want rather desperately to know whether the existence of “cracker” constitutes racism. Interjecting with irrelevant queries is a bit of handwave, yes.
Am I the only one who thinks that terms like “cracker” and moreso, “redneck” are classist terms, and to try and compare them directly to the n-word is really problematic, because racism and classism are two seperate things?
That’s my take on the issue anyways. If you want to talk about or compare insults that apply to different groups, the only context that makes any sense is intersectionality. That is, it is possibly to talk about “cracker” as a classist insult and the n-word as a racist epitaph, but to compare them directly is simply going to cause you to play “opression olympics” and that leads to no place good.
-Jeremy
I’d like to know how you can so confidently assert such. I might hear the word out of a white person’s mouth maybe once a year. My workplace’s management is monopolized by white people and I have never – and I mean never – heard the word used in the 15 years I’ve worked here. On what basis can you make such a claim?
Whether or not the term is racist is not the same as whether or not it is “worse” than some other racist term. So I’m still puzzled as to what the question of what’s worse is relevant to.
Ronf,
Regarding relevance:
http://www.theroot.com/views/nothing-compares-n-word
Eva, interesting article. The author recounts stories of racism from 40 years ago to put into context the emotional impact of the word “nigger”. I have no problem with that. I agree with everything she says about that word.
But I still don’t understand how that has anything to do with the alleged use of the word “cracker” (or the phrase “creepy-ass cracker”) by Trayvon Martin or the attitude towards the use of that term by the witness in the George Zimmerman trial. The fact that there are other words used in a racist fashion in the English language with more or less impact that “cracker” doesn’t mean that the use of the word “cracker” in the reported context isn’t racist, or that the racist attitudes of those who use it doesn’t reflect or affect their words or deeds.
I really don’t see why it should matter, in the context of the Zimmerman trial. Even if the word does have a racist connotation (and I think it does, for one common definition of “racist”), that doesn’t indicate that it’s okay for Zimmerman to have been following Martin in a manner that Martin clearly – and rightfully, as it turned out – found threatening or “creepy.” Nor does it mean that escalating a situation by bringing a gun into it and following someone around is responsible behavior.
RonF,
I strongly doubt that most white people- or any more than a small fraction of oversensitive white people- are bothered by ‘cracker’ to the same extent that most Black people are bothered by ‘n*****’.
Maybe it fits some technical definition of ‘racist’, but I really doubt most people care.
Amp, what you say is true, but moot. Zimmerman never heard the word applied to him by Martin, nor is there any allegation that he did, so no one’s proposing that it affected Zimmerman’s behavior. The question is whether it indicates that Martin or the witness or both were racist, and whether that racism influenced Martin’s behavior or the witness’ testimony. By “Martin’s behavior” I mean the open question of whether Martin, angry at being followed and questioned by Zimmerman, attacked Zimmerman. It certainly doesn’t prove anything, but proof isn’t needed for the creation of reasonable doubt.
Hector, I would certainly be offended if someone called me “cracker” and I would consider it a reflection of racism on the part of the speaker. How much it would bother me would depend on the circumstances. If it was jokingly spoken by a black man smaller than me who was referring to an athlete while we were sharing beers and watching a football game I would have an entirely reaction than if it was spoken angrily by a black man referring to me who was younger and bigger than me in a dark alley.
I ‘m not aware that there’s a “technical” definition of racism that differs from other definition of racism. Racism is racism. There are differing consequences based on different situations – and what they’re trying to establish in that courtroom is what occurred in this situation.
The role that racism played in this situation is going to be considered by the jury whether the judge wants them to or not, and it’s going to include both the potential of racism on the part of the black man involved and the potential of racism on the part of the Hispanic person involved.
“I ‘m not aware that there’s a “technical” definition of racism that differs from other definition of racism.”
Seriously? A decade spent nearly every day on Alas (call it 2500 days), and you have somehow never even become aware that there are different definitions of the word “racism” and that one of those definitions limits racism to interactions with a institutional power difference? I mean, I understand that you refuse to accept that that definition has any validity or relevance to anything, but I would still have expected that in a decade of repeatedly refusing to understand the use or purpose of that definition that you would have become aware that it exists. Were you sleep-arguing all those times before that you argued against this thing you now claim to be unaware of?
I was not aware that this was the distinction you were making when you referred to a “technical definition” of racism. Very well.
RonF,
Sorry, I should have read more closely before blowing up at you. Obviously Hector did actually mean the non-technical, predominant definition of racism used by white people when he said the “technical definition”, so it was a weird way of phrasing it and you were not being ridiculous to respond that you had no idea what technical definition of racism he meant or how it differed from the common definition of racism.