"Nigger" - was Re: [Peace-discuss] Flag flap

Sat Nov 15 07:36:52 CST 2003

I have followed these discussions with great interest and am mightily impressed with all the care and reasoning put into them. Yet I remain confused as to what is “OK” and what is not. I got to wondering if a Native American of today would ever say “wild as Indians.” Then the thought hit me: “Why is it OK for, (and now I don’t know the current proper term, so will use African American, if it is wrong I mean no offense,) an African American to use the term “nigger” (and use it with wild abandon at that,) while it is virtually criminal for anyone else to use it?”

I kinda get the feeling that its racist to reserve a word for the use of one race only. I don’t know.

I would appreciate being straightened out. This is not argument. 

Robert Dunn <prorobert8 at hotmail.com> wrote:
thanks Ricky. Unfortunately, some on the "left" do not get it. They have had a life of privilege and comfort. Its easier to do a lecture on police repression behind a podium at a prestigious university than to see your loved ones/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend being a victim of police brutality. Here are some suggestions for AWARE and race.

1. Admit Racism exists here at home, and in particular your own, not in some abstract intellectual world but real world shit at home, like the "Chief", police brutality, Prop 187,209 13, and 54.

2. Don't always listen to the "gurus" who think they know it all. They don't know a damn thing! Usually these "gurus" are old white male intellectuals who live a rather comfortable life inside having access to Chomsky and the Internet. I may not be old but I qualify for the other three though. Yet some people can't afford the Internet or Chomsky.

3. Stop whining about the race card, sex card, anti-semitism card. All three do exist and must be combated inside and outside the peace movement. Saying that people are being to overly sensitive over institutionalized racism, homophobia, and sexism, just confirms what these groups may fear, that the peace movement could care less about their problems.

4. The Door is not open! That is not a reason but an excuse why there are no people of color in AWARE, IMC, PraireGreens. We must get up off our lazy butts and get to work in their communities. But, does that mean we have to go on the other side of the "tracks". YES!! I know its hard to hear this, but we have to get out of our middle class white neighborhoods, and head into the "North end". Don't worry, I used to live their, as long as you are there for a legitimate purpose, no one will mess with you. Also, here in Southern Cal, the main ones who are out here organizing their asses off are people of color. Its refreshing to hear on KPFK that the weekdays are dominated by radical/alternative perspectives from the grassroots, not some snobbish university professor. 

5. Take OVER WEFT!!!!!!! WEFT needs a renewal. Its dominated by the alternative music with a handful of decent public affairs. Take over the PC, BOD, and make it real community radio. not just for different subcultures. KPFK is more about providing that grassroots coverage from bottom up. It is ordinary people not just leftist intellectuals doing the shows.

>From: Ricky Baldwin 
>To: peace discuss 

>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Flag flap 
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:31:26 -0800 (PST) 
> 
>Mockery and sarcasm are not helping anyone understand 
>what is after all a deadly serious issue: racism. And 
>as a fellow white Southerner, Carl, I have to tell you 
>that it seems you dismiss these questions far too 
>lightly. I say this as someone who agrees with you 
>about 98 percent of the time. 
> 
>I believe there's obviously a lot more at stake here 
>than whether Dean or Clinton or Sandra or Carl or I 
>have committed "thought-crimes" -- or "sins" for those 
>who prefer. At issue is the extent to which white 
>people, particularly those in positions that have 
>ramifications for many others, are wearing a kind of 
>racial blinders -- and to what extent those blinders, 
>whether conveniently or not, reinforce a complex 
>structure of racial division and inequity -- one that 
>helps rationalize wars of conquest and subjugation. 
> 
>I suppose I should say that when I was a kid, I used 
>to have 'Rebel' flags around. (That flag was, after 
>all, never an official flag of the Confederacy, yet it 
>has enjoyed a popularity in the hundred-plus years 
>since as an emblem of resentment over a number of 
>things, including the civil rights movement as well as 
>Northern snobbery.) I dislike confessionals, but I am 
>the example I know best. I never considered Rebel 
>flags to be racist when I had them -- but I always 
>knew it had something to do with my race. I knew my 
>black friends didn't like them and I knew why. I 
>suppose I just thought they were 'oversensitive' or 
>something, which I later discovered was precisely 
>where my racial blinders began. 
> 
>Do I think Dean is a racist? I don't know if he is, 
>but I'm sure he needs to explain himself now. It 
>seems his statement was likely not so much a 
>revelation of hidden animosity as one of his famous 
>stumbles over an issue he has never seriously faced. 
>But the problem is precisely that this convenient 
>ignorance among whites is a primary support for racial 
>injustice. It's just so easy not to look under the 
>carpet if you believe, perhaps in the back of your 
>mind, that you have nothing to gain and everything to 
>lose by doing so. (I would argue that most whites are 
>also harmed by racism, but most don't see it that 
>way.) 
> 
>I do think that what Dean was probably trying to say 
>is correct: that ordinary folks, regardless of 
>ideology, have an interest in universal health care 
>and other social programs. The problem is his 
>depiction of 'ordinary.' 
> 
>What Dean said to people of color, in my opinion, 
>consciously or unconsciously, is something like: "I am 
>speaking for the ordinary person, who is not you, 
>although I may be for you, too, without feeling that 
>you are important enough to say so." In fact, he is 
>also saying: "I will go out of my way to embrace 
>someone who is white and hates me, and may be racist, 
>moreso than someone who isn't white who is more likely 
>to agree with me." (This last is something we in 
>AWARE should also be wary of, in my opinion.) 
> 
>I doubt, perhaps naively, that any of that was what 
>Dean meant, and I think Dean can explain himself and 
>make his point even stronger if he will. And I think 
>not to do so now would send another message, that he 
>doesn't care if black folks are offended -- the 
>convenient subtext, perhaps unintended, being that 
>they are, after all, oversensitive. (Ironically, in 
>my experience, white folks are the most touchy when it 
>comes to racism.) 
> 
>But I think the reason it's important for AWARE to 
>take this discussion seriously is that we face quite a 
>hurdle, not just as AWARE, or as part of the anti-war 
>movement, but as a part of a scattered and deeply 
>divided opposition to the destructive rule of powerful 
>elites. Racism -- the structure of racial injustice 
>as well as the persistence of racial blinders -- is a 
>big part of what divides us and renders us 
>ineffective, over and over. (Considering our 
>obstacles, I think it is nothing short of amazing that 
>we and others in other fragments of opposition have 
>accomplished what we have, but it is obviously not 
>enough.) It screams for attention, as we have noted 
>before, all the more in a movement like the current 
>anti-war movement with which black Americans agree in 
>higher proportions than whites, yet whites still 
>dominate the movement. 
> 
>The only example I can think of that is more 
>illustrative is that during the anti-apartheid 
>movement many US cities had two anti-apartheid groups: 
>one white, and one black. Chicago did. These groups 
>typically did not work in tandem or in anything like 
>mutual respect, but often in an atmosphere of 
>patronizing, egoism and distrust. The irony is, I 
>think, obvious. 
> 
>What to do about this problem is a longer discussion 
>and a process, and I think we are on the right road 
>generally. Unfortunately, I think the road is long 
>indeed, and torturous, marked by pitfalls, and 
>progress is by no means uniform. We are also nowhere 
>near a point where we can afford to take the issue 
>lightly. 
> 
>And, by the way, I think it was pretty clear what 
>Sandra meant, too. 
> 
>Ricky 
>--- "C. G. Estabrook" 
>wrote: 
> > I am shocked, Sandra: we all know you should have 
> > said "Native 
> > Americans"... 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Sandra Ahten wrote: 
> > 
> > > Last week I said that my niece and nephew 
> > shouldn't "behave like 
> > > Indians." -- Certainly a racist comment made by 
> > someone probably 
> > > about as racist as Dean is... someone who tries 
> > hard to overcome what 
> > > has been socialized into me... and who has good 
> > intention (like Dean) 
> > > but is still racisit and has to be able to admit 
> > it in order to 
> > > overcome it. Sandra 
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > Peace-discuss mailing list 
> > Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com 
> > 
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard 
>http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree 
> 
>_______________________________________________ 
>Peace-discuss mailing list 
>Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com 
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss 
> 

---------------------------------