"Can We Hear the N-Word One Day and Not Get Upset?"

I start this post by admitting that I will never know what it is like to be a black person. I was born white, I am white, and I will always be white. If that admission causes you to not want to read any further, that is on you. I do, however, know what it's like to be a human being, to be a part of the economy, of society. My skin color does not define who I am anymore than it defines the person to my left or to my right. A person is defined by his beliefs, by the way he lives and interacts with the world around him.

But growing up, I have often wondered why the word nigger is so taboo. It is, after all, just a word. While other words (e.g., fuck, kike, cunt, Jap) are considered--shall we say--less than ideal in the public forum, they are never met with the same amount of vitriol as when someone utters the word nigger.

The word is not off limits to everyone; those within a group tend use it freely, or it's derivation nigga, as a term of endearment, while those without are immediately condemned for using said word, often regardless of the context. That's not to say that every time the word is used by a non-group member it is completely neutral, as Michael Richards and countless others have proven in the past. Still, we do not see a mass movement by all Buddhists to prevent non-Buddhists from saying nirvana. Perhaps an odd example, but it does illustrate that there is a group of insiders who have a better understanding of a word than those on the outside.

There is a history of oppression with the word nigger, so it does make sense that there will be some who remain sensitive to hearing it said. But the outrage generated by the use of this one word has grown so great over the last 15 or 20 years that even similar sounding words with long-standing usage are becoming more or less taboo. In 1999, a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was offended by her professor's use of the word niggardly (meaning extremely stingy or reluctant to give or spend) while discussing Chaucer. Chaucer, as in the author of The Canterbury Tales, who lived in the 14th century and used that and other words in their original meaning (I recall at least one classmate in English class who would involuntarily gag when reading across the word cunt) regularly.

We are told that it is racist for a white person to say nigger. And yet it seems far more racist to automatically assume an entire group of people will be offended by a word's usage (and thereby banning it, censoring it, or casting out all who use it), then to actually just say or write nigger. In the former example, you are treating hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of individuals as a uniform block who can only feel one way when they hear a word, and in the latter you--an individual--are interacting with other individuals and do not know how they will react. Much like a declaration that someone is renouncing their religion, or coming out of the closet, or starting a new career, there will be those who are shocked or bewildered by such news, those who are indifferent, and those who are pleased, among any number of additional reactions.

Ultimately, the use of the word nigger boils down to whether one's right to free speech (highly valued in this country) overpowers one's perceived right to not be offended. The latter simply does not exist; for if it did, there would be no shortage of harassment lawsuits claiming so-and-so had offended such-and-such. Unfortunately, while the lawsuits are kept more or less in check, that does not mean that people are completely free to say what they would like. Some people still like to believe that their feelings are more important than open discussion or freedom of speech. Going back to the example of the use of the word niggardly at UW-Madison, that was the brunt of the argument made by the Amelia Rideau, the offended student. From Reason Magazine:

"I was in tears, shaking," [Rideau] told the faculty. "It's not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid." Rideau's plea was a reality check. If the proper use of a Chaucerian term while teaching The Canterbury Tales could be construed as harassment of a student who did not know the word's spelling or meaning, then the code was teaching some interesting expectations indeed. Many "abolitionists," as they now were called, believe that Rideau's speech, widely reported, was the turning point, setting the stage both for greater attendance at the March meeting and for the final vote. John Sharpless, a history professor, asked, "What other words are to be purged from our language? Thespian?"

Free speech is one of the foundations of liberty. This does not mean one is totally free from judgment, but it should mean that if we truly value free speech then we will not allow someone's thoughts or ideas to be suppressed just because they contain offensive language or words. Punishing someone for something they said is no different than punishing someone for the way they look, and isn't that the mentality that we have been trying to break away from as a country for the last 50 years?

Christian Radio: The FM Hypocrite

My last post regarding Orlando's local Christian radio station, Z88.3 has incited some reactions from the masses. It's only fair that I do a follow-up post to complete my thoughts on the topic.

So to elaborate, my last post mentioned how Z88.3's playlist was glorified by the station as being "Safe for the little ears" which I believe eventually leads to complacency in one's faith. To refute some of the arguments laid out in the comments section of my last post, I am not saying other Orlando stations are more varied in their music. All radio stations seem to be increasingly guilty of saturating their airwaves with the same hour and a half cycle of tunes. But a Christian radio station should be more concerned with the Great Commission than with Arbitron ratings.

Another beef I have with this station actually seems to contradict what I said yesterday. At least it would if Z88.3 wasn't guilty of publicizing plagiarism. Perhaps an example is in order: This song, entitled "Heaven" by Los Lonely Boys, was released by the secular band in 2004 to a flurry of popular acclaim. Instead of playing this uplifting song that has been out for 4 years, Z88.3 has recently begun playing a version sounding exactly the same recorded by a Christian band named Salvador.

Before the flame war starts, let me state that I understand what a cover song is; I know what a cover band does. But generally a band covers a popular song in addition to playing their original songs to generate a fan base. A band like Salvador, who has been around since 2000, should have no need to establish a fan base. And it really just comes down to Z88.3 being hypocritical by not playing a song that is EXACTLY THE SAME just because it isn't sung by a Christian artist originally.

For a station that plays songs proclaiming the power of God, why is Z88.3 afraid to play more songs with an uplifting message (albeit sung by a secular artist) and let God's power work through that song?

Christian Radio: The First Harbinger of Doom

There is a local radio station where I live, Z88.3, that plays "Christian" music twenty-four/seven. I use quotations because it needs to be emphasized that this music is not all-inclusive; they are only the feel-good songs of Christianity where God is mentioned every other line.

The motto for this station isn't even something like "Z88: Praising God on your way to work" or "Z88: Showing the meaning in a meaningless world", but actually "Z88: Safe for the little ears."

Is that what's become of mainstream Christianity??? It's safe for children?! That is not a faith I would want to raise my kids in. Safety begets comfort which leads to stagnation. I want a faith that challenges me, that lets me think and question my existence and the world around me; not some white-washed fabrication that is deemed safe for children's ears and minds.

The other problem I have with this station is that they claim to play "positive hits". Now your guess is as good as mine as to what the hell they are talking about when they say positive hits. To me, positive hits means any song that makes a person feel good. Makes sense, right? Good luck trying to hear uplifting songs like "Arms Wide Open" or "Higher" by Creed, or even songs by other Christian artists like Flyleaf because they don't expressly mention God in their works.

Z88.3 and stations like it alienate a lot of Christians who have varying music tastes. The greatest thing about music is that it is open to the listener's interpretation--a fact that this station ignores--so even a song that doesn't mention God outright can still relay a deeply spiritual meaning. Until Z88.3 changes their programming to include a larger variety of songs (or an entirely different line-up during the midnight to 4am block when the "little ears" should be in bed anyways) I am boycotting this station and writing emails, and I encourage everyone who reads this to do the same.

At Least They are Dignified... Oh Wait

Because it's no longer funny, I no longer watch it. But apparently SNL has targeted the McCain/Palin campaign for the second week in a row.

This is surprising to me. Not because SNL shouldn't criticize McCain; they are a very liberal program with a young audience so they obviously fully (and blindly) support Obama. I am surprised that, according to the article, they went after McCain because of his age. McCain went on SNL last spring to poke fun at himself for the exact same reason. So for them to call him old in a current sketch is not only redundant, but incredibly played out.

Where are the sketches that portray Obama as a self-made messiah? Maybe next week's airing will portray Barack as Hitler, since both have (had) the ability to rally massive support before enacting their socialist ideas on the people who support(ed) them.

Oh that's right, we can't do those sketches because they target a Democratic candidate who is also black.

It doesn't bother me when people make fun of someone else for something outside their control (such as McCain's age). In fact, I do it all the time. I think political correctness is a major threat to our first amendment rights of freedom of speech.

What bothers me is when one side does it, but when the return joke is made, it is deemed unacceptable, rude, ignorant, racist/sexist/pick your adjective. It's getting to the point where no one is allowed to speak their mind anymore because a soundbite will be made of it that people will inappropriately react to.

If you haven't seen/heard/witnessed it for yourself, then don't give any merit to it.