Larry's Comics at it again...

[USArmyParatrooper]

 

"Mick" is a racist, derogatory term used to refer to the Irish.

 

Just sayin'....

 

Oh, no. I offended myself.

 

Oh, right. The "I'm one of them, so that gives me a free pass to use the term" argument.

 

 

As an Irishman who has Irish family including my Irish grandfather who immigrated to US from Ireland I can tell you the term doesn't invoke nearly the same emotions as the N-word for the African American community.

 

 

[oakman29]

 

"Mick" is a racist, derogatory term used to refer to the Irish.

 

Just sayin'....

 

Oh, no. I offended myself.

 

Oh, right. The "I'm one of them, so that gives me a free pass to use the term" argument.

 

 

As an Irishman who has Irish family including my Irish grandfather who immigrated to US from Ireland I can tell you the term doesn't invoke nearly the same emotions as the N-word for the African American community.

 

Did you have Irish family who were slaves building our railroads in the 1800s too?

[USArmyParatrooper]

 

You know I'm a "Mick" and I feel like your degrading me.

 

Maybe this will cheer you up.

 

 

 

 

[oakman29]

Guinness

[USArmyParatrooper]

Guinness

 

Being untrue to my roots, I'm a Sam Adams man.

 

Brewer and Patriot! 'Nuff Said

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

"Mick" is a racist, derogatory term used to refer to the Irish.

 

Just sayin'....

 

Oh, no. I offended myself.

 

Oh, right. The "I'm one of them, so that gives me a free pass to use the term" argument.

 

 

As an Irishman who has Irish family including my Irish grandfather who immigrated to US from Ireland I can tell you the term doesn't invoke nearly the same emotions as the N-word for the African American community.

 

 

Oh, right. The "it's not nearly as offensive as some other group's offensive term(s), so that makes it ok" argument.

 

[USArmyParatrooper]

 

Oh, right. The "it's not nearly as offensive as some other group's offensive term(s), so that makes it ok" argument.

 

 

If you're going to cast your reel a second time might I suggest different bait?

[COI]

RMA, admittedly I know little about American history, but can you back your claim that we had Irish and Chinese slaves?

 

I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

 

There's nothing to guess. I'm asking you to back your claim that in the slave days we also had Irish and Chinese slaves.

Linky http://understandingrace.org/history/timeline.swf

 

Unless I'm missing something, that timeline only makes mention of slavery itself. It doesn't specify Chinese people and Micks were on the slave market.

Keep looking.

 

I gave up and found it elsewhere.

 

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

 

Very interesting indeed. It's a shame this is seldom taught or discussed. Either that or I'm even more clueless than I thought.

 

Slavery wasn't originally based on race. In fact, race is a construct that was, in part, devised as a "divide and conquer" tactic to ensure that different slave groups, and in particular Black and Irish slaves, didn't get together and turn on plantation owners.

 

Based on the internet, I'm convinced that American schools don't actually teach anything except "God Bless America".

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Oh, right. The "it's not nearly as offensive as some other group's offensive term(s), so that makes it ok" argument.

 

 

If you're going to cast your reel a second time might I suggest different bait?

 

Why mess with a working formula?

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA, admittedly I know little about American history, but can you back your claim that we had Irish and Chinese slaves?

 

I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

 

There's nothing to guess. I'm asking you to back your claim that in the slave days we also had Irish and Chinese slaves.

Linky http://understandingrace.org/history/timeline.swf

 

Unless I'm missing something, that timeline only makes mention of slavery itself. It doesn't specify Chinese people and Micks were on the slave market.

Keep looking.

 

I gave up and found it elsewhere.

 

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/

 

Very interesting indeed. It's a shame this is seldom taught or discussed. Either that or I'm even more clueless than I thought.

 

Slavery wasn't originally based on race. In fact, race is a construct that was, in part, devised as a "divide and conquer" tactic to ensure that different slave groups, and in particular Black and Irish slaves, didn't get together and turn on plantation owners.

 

Based on the internet, I'm convinced that American schools don't actually teach anything except "God Bless America".

 

Canadian Elitist.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Either that or I'm even more clueless than I thought.

 

Way too easy.

[Doohickamabob]

Slavery wasn't originally based on race.

 

Did anybody in this thread claim it originally was?

 

In fact, race is a construct that was, in part, devised as a "divide and conquer" tactic ..."

 

The concept of race wasn't devised by American colonists. The word "race" had been in wide use for centuries, used in contexts other than slavery.

[Doohickamabob]

I reject that concept. A word only has the power that the listener gives it. "Considered less than people"...by whom? Everyone? Of course not. Does the fact that evil people use a tool for evil make the tool itself evil?

 

You say a word only has the power granted by the listener, but what about the power intended by the speaker? This should also figure in to our evalutation of not just the word itself but the dynamic of the communication. Also, saying "A word only has the power that the listener gives it" is sort of like saying "Nothing is offensive as long as nobody ever chooses to be offended." It's true only in the most idealized, perfect-world, fantasized sense that something can be true. You could just as easily say, "A joke is only as funny as the listener decides to feel like it's funny," or "A screeching, raspy sound is only as grating as the power the listener gives it." When a person laughs at a comedian, you don't give the person credit for understanding the joke and reacting with mirth; you also point to the comedian's delivery and the cleverness of the gag. Similarly, you can't really tell people who complain about the screeching, rasping sound that if they would only decide not to find it offensive, they'd be able to sleep like babies even if the sound was blaring right into their eardrums. That is to say, you can ignore reality all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that using a racial slur is going to stir up many people's emotions. Nor does it change the fact that they have every right to have a negative reaction, or that their negative reaction is completely rational and justified.

 

Regarding the question: "Considered less than people....by whom?" are you denying the history of slavery and discrimination in the United States, and that dehumanization, abuse, double-standards, and other codified forms of injustice have been part of the social history of the United States?

 

As for your rhetorical question about a tool being used for evil, the question is not whether the tool itself is evil. The question is whether it's appropriate to expect a positive reaction to waving the tool in the face of people whose families and social groups have a long history of being abused via the tool. If you're going to use an analogy then at least make it more credibly parallel the situation. I would also point out that there do, in fact, exist tools that were not only used by evil people, but that actually only function in the service of evil purposes. For example: Torture instruments. Reduced to a collection of molecules formed into a shape, then no, you can't say such a tool is "evil," nor can you claim the formation of breath-emanated vocal tones into a phonetic structure that travels via waves through the gaseous medium of air is, on a purely reductivist level, "offensive." Nor does a tree falling in the forest make a sound, etc. Remove all context and nothing means anything. But if you step back into reality, where people have feelings and memories and a reasonable expectation of social decorum that does not involve crass reminders of some of the lowest forms of spiteful bigotry and dehumanization inflicted on their recent ancestors, then yeah, it's safe to say that the N-word is legitimately offensive and that no, the person taking offense is not the solely responsible party.

 

No, of course not. Larry's words were meant to be inflammatory, and he got the reaction he wanted. My question is simply this: why do we keep need to give him that reaction?

 

How do you know Larry's intentions? Second question: Why do you use the word "need" when you say people "need" to react a certain way? They could just as easily "want" to react the way they do, or they could simply "feel like" reacting that way. Your question implicitly assumes there's something wrong with people's reaction, and it's notable that you have put far more effort into questioning the way people react than that which they are reacting to.

[Chespirito]

This is giving me a headache.. but go on..

[USArmyParatrooper]

Either that or I'm even more clueless than I thought.

 

Way too easy.

 

As you commence to leaving yourself open to wife, mom, sister etc. jokes.

[comicwiz]

Racism needs to be exposed. People have every right to react to it, whether they are a bystander witnessing it, or are themselves victims.

 

When people in positions of authority are themselves racist, it matters that people stand up against it and expose it, whether it's a family member, your boss, a co-worker, entertainer, judge or police officer.

 

An argument teetering on racists not being given any attention, or that it's alright to allow them to continue to dehumanize others, and/or that we can make their actions and words powerless as long as we close our eyes, cover our ears, and shut our mouths is a dangerous one.

 

The blog also mentions Larry's penchant for discriminating against women, which is twice as concerning considering women of colour (most often referred to as "red" for Indigenous peoples, "black" for African-American, "yellow" for Asian) - represent the North American people most discriminated against in that order.

 

When we drag out and refute the way colour coding and racial profiling dehumanizes our very humanity, we don't allow denial to thrive and/or racism to linger.

 

Those of you who don't believe racism permeates within the ranks of professional society and those in positions of authority, have a look at a YouTube video which shows the aggressive and hostile arrest of Akwesasne, a Mohawk, First Nation, Aboriginal sovereign nation living in Canada and the US.

 

Ask yourself if non-visible minority groups would ever be treated the same - notice especially how the bald officer (the agitator in the group) calms down as soon as he catches on that they are being filmed:

 

[mikenyc]

RMA, admittedly I know little about American history, but can you back your claim that we had Irish and Chinese slaves?

 

You're not even trying.

 

Never serve yourself on a platter to someone who knows very little about a lot.

[USArmyParatrooper]

I reject that concept. A word only has the power that the listener gives it. "Considered less than people"...by whom? Everyone? Of course not. Does the fact that evil people use a tool for evil make the tool itself evil?

 

You say a word only has the power granted by the listener, but what about the power intended by the speaker? This should also figure in to our evalutation of not just the word itself but the dynamic of the communication. Also, saying "A word only has the power that the listener gives it" is sort of like saying "Nothing is offensive as long as nobody ever chooses to be offended." It's true only in the most idealized, perfect-world, fantasized sense that something can be true. You could just as easily say, "A joke is only as funny as the listener decides to feel like it's funny," or "A screeching, raspy sound is only as grating as the power the listener gives it." When a person laughs at a comedian, you don't give the person credit for understanding the joke and reacting with mirth; you also point to the comedian's delivery and the cleverness of the gag. Similarly, you can't really tell people who complain about the screeching, rasping sound that if they would only decide not to find it offensive, they'd be able to sleep like babies even if the sound was blaring right into their eardrums. That is to say, you can ignore reality all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that using a racial slur is going to stir up many people's emotions. Nor does it change the fact that they have every right to have a negative reaction, or that their negative reaction is completely rational and justified.

 

Regarding the question: "Considered less than people....by whom?" are you denying the history of slavery and discrimination in the United States, and that dehumanization, abuse, double-standards, and other codified forms of injustice have been part of the social history of the United States?

 

As for your rhetorical question about a tool being used for evil, the question is not whether the tool itself is evil. The question is whether it's appropriate to expect a positive reaction to waving the tool in the face of people whose families and social groups have a long history of being abused via the tool. If you're going to use an analogy then at least make it more credibly parallel the situation. I would also point out that there do, in fact, exist tools that were not only used by evil people, but that actually only function in the service of evil purposes. For example: Torture instruments. Reduced to a collection of molecules formed into a shape, then no, you can't say such a tool is "evil," nor can you claim the formation of breath-emanated vocal tones into a phonetic structure that travels via waves through the gaseous medium of air is, on a purely reductivist level, "offensive." Nor does a tree falling in the forest make a sound, etc. Remove all context and nothing means anything. But if you step back into reality, where people have feelings and memories and a reasonable expectation of social decorum that does not involve crass reminders of some of the lowest forms of spiteful bigotry and dehumanization inflicted on their recent ancestors, then yeah, it's safe to say that the N-word is legitimately offensive and that no, the person taking offense is not the solely responsible party.

 

No, of course not. Larry's words were meant to be inflammatory, and he got the reaction he wanted. My question is simply this: why do we keep need to give him that reaction?

 

How do you know Larry's intentions? Second question: Why do you use the word "need" when you say people "need" to react a certain way? They could just as easily "want" to react the way they do, or they could simply "feel like" reacting that way. Your question implicitly assumes there's something wrong with people's reaction, and it's notable that you have put far more effort into questioning the way people react than that which they are reacting to.

 

 

Exceptionally well said.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Racism needs to be exposed. People have every right to react to it, whether they are a bystander witnessing it, or are themselves victims.

 

When people in positions of authority are themselves racist, it matters that people stand up against it and expose it, whether it's a family member, your boss, a co-worker, entertainer, judge or police officer.

 

An argument teetering on racists not being given any attention, or that it's alright to allow them to continue to dehumanize others, and/or that we can make their actions and words powerless as long as we close our eyes, cover our ears, and shut our mouths is a dangerous one.

 

The blog also mentions Larry's penchant for discriminating against women, which is twice as concerning considering women of colour (most often referred to as "red" for Indigenous peoples, "black" for African-American, "yellow" for Asian) - represent the North American people most discriminated against in that order.

 

When we drag out and refute the way colour coding and racial profiling dehumanizes our very humanity, we don't allow denial to thrive and/or racism to linger.

 

Those of you who don't believe racism permeates within the ranks of professional society and those in positions of authority, have a look at a YouTube video which shows the aggressive and hostile arrest of Akwesasne, a Mohawk, First Nation, Aboriginal sovereign nation living in Canada and the US.

 

Ask yourself if non-visible minority groups would ever be treated the same - notice especially how the bald officer (the agitator in the group) calms down as soon as he catches on that they are being filmed:

 

 

Sorry, but those kids were the ones being d1cks in this case.

[comicwiz]

Racism needs to be exposed. People have every right to react to it, whether they are a bystander witnessing it, or are themselves victims.

 

When people in positions of authority are themselves racist, it matters that people stand up against it and expose it, whether it's a family member, your boss, a co-worker, entertainer, judge or police officer.

 

An argument teetering on racists not being given any attention, or that it's alright to allow them to continue to dehumanize others, and/or that we can make their actions and words powerless as long as we close our eyes, cover our ears, and shut our mouths is a dangerous one.

 

The blog also mentions Larry's penchant for discriminating against women, which is twice as concerning considering women of colour (most often referred to as "red" for Indigenous peoples, "black" for African-American, "yellow" for Asian) - represent the North American people most discriminated against in that order.

 

When we drag out and refute the way colour coding and racial profiling dehumanizes our very humanity, we don't allow denial to thrive and/or racism to linger.

 

Those of you who don't believe racism permeates within the ranks of professional society and those in positions of authority, have a look at a YouTube video which shows the aggressive and hostile arrest of Akwesasne, a Mohawk, First Nation, Aboriginal sovereign nation living in Canada and the US.

 

Ask yourself if non-visible minority groups would ever be treated the same - notice especially how the bald officer (the agitator in the group) calms down as soon as he catches on that they are being filmed:

 

 

Sorry, but those kids were the ones being d1cks in this case.

 

I disagree. The Mohawk hairstyle is a traditional haircut of their Aboriginal heritage, not a gang style and the police officer who acted aggressively should have received more training.