"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?

That's Racist?

I think that in writing this post I may have missed the mark a little. I'm not saying people can't be prejudiced, that they can't offend with their words and actions. I am saying that on the receiving end of said words, people are too quick to cry "RACISM." It's exactly like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. When every offense is punctuated by the thought that it was racist simply because it was offensive, it undermines the times when someone is legitimately wronged based on the color of their skin.

I apparently wrote this article a day and a half too soon, as LeBron James and his manager have come out and said themselves that they think the hate against James has a racial undertone to it.

While I disagree with many that racism is a complex issue, I unfortunately over-simplified the discussion by using a dictionary definition of the word in my last post. I don't think prejudiced thought is gone from our society; in fact, I said the opposite, in that people will always have a prejudice because there's something innately human about finding flaws in others to make ourselves look better. People will always be biased about something. However, I don't think the collective racism that was standard throughout the founding of our country up to the 1970s or so exists anymore.

Let me reiterate: the Ku Klux Klan and other white-supremacy groups may still meet in backwoods fire departments, and the Black Panthers may hold gatherings in their houses. But those are the principles that our country was founded on. No, not that clandestine groups can plot destruction against others, but that people of like mind may freely assemble, may speak freely, and may express their own ideas as they wish. But the second they infringe on the rights of others--say, attacking someone on their way home from school--then they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Despite what a misguided majority of the American people believe, there is no "right to not be offended." In fact, I'm probably offending people at this moment by writing this blog post. And I hope that I am, because it means that A) I still live in a country where I can express myself freely; and 2) you still live in a country where you have the freedom to read this (or not) and disagree with me (or not). People will say offensive things... it's their right to speak freely. You can try to not listen, which is not always easy in this Information-overload era we live in. But rather than screaming "Racist!" and demanding certain types of speech be regulated, why not join in the discussion and try to change these people's minds and then their tongues?

But allow me to go back to something I mentioned earlier--racism is not a complex issue. To me, a complex issue is something that has many levels which are in turn difficult to define, not unlike the dream navigation that took place in the recent movie Inception. But what about this idea we call racism? Well, to my child-like mind it seems to only have 2 layers, or faces really. Something is either racist, or it's not (and most often it's not).

When regarding a "racist" action or comment, there are only two options: YES or NO? Up or Down? Black or White? Was it racist, or wasn't it? Again, I think the reason many people get so worked up over things they think are racist is because they confuse offending someone with racism.

Don Imus was fired from his job for calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hoes" on his radio show. It was an inappropriate comment made about a team that did very well in the NCAA tournament, and it was perfectly within CBS's right as his employer to fire him. But the outrage towards Don Imus went completely overboard. I think context says a good deal about someone's mindset as well, and Don Imus is a radio personality not unlike Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge, but with far less popularity. Therefore, when he calls a bunch of college girls "nappy-headed hoes," it is in very poor taste, but nothing out of the ordinary for him and his ilk.

Another story involves Michael Richards and his "comedic" tirade at a stand-up show. This is one of those cases that is harder to argue about because of the specific word that Richards used. But again, I think context plays a larger part in this. The man is doing stand-up and bombing, so when he gets heckled by some members of the audience he tries to go after them to jump-start his act. I'm not excusing his actions, but it's not as if he's throwing these epithets at some church-going grandmother that only asked him if he'd like some tea. In other words, it was a rant made in extemely poor taste but he was going after shock laughs, and the outrage towards him was overblown.

I suppose my rants on racism are really more of a problem with the push onslaught of political correctness in our country. Everyone has to fit under a singular label--i.e. Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative, white/black--and those who don't are thrown into any pile anyways. Someone always has to be the blame for something, and it's generally easier to blame an individual by the group to which they officially or unofficially belong. As racist speech is often the type that is most often cited as needing to be regulated, I am therefore quick to defend those accused of being racist and point out the flaws of calling someone racist. I think more discussion, and less reactionary yelling, is the only thing that will solve this issue.

Even more so now, in the Age of the Internet, cries of racism should ring hollow. Who is the person behind the comment? Do they even really feel that way, or are they being sarcastic? The truth is it doesn't matter. Who cares what they say? You can either choose to let it affect you or you can be the bigger person and move on with life. You can fuel the idiotic fire of people like Don Imus, Michael Richards, and Mark Williams by falling for their race-baiting, or you can say, "You know what? I'm not who they say I am. I'm (insert name here) and I won't be affected by what others think of me."

"That's Racist!"

If you've hung out with me in the last, I don't know, 5 years, you've probably heard me say "that's racist against ______" about some off-color (pun definitely intended... "That's racist!") remark. For example, someone makes a joke about how women should be barefoot and in the kitchen; "That's racist against women!" Or perhaps a remark is said about the sexual preference of priests; "That's racist against Catholics!" Or a couple of times someone may have even stated that they think 1080i is far superior viewing quality to traditional television sets; "That's racist against non-HDTVs!"

Now, I don't think women, Catholics, or even TVs are a different biological race. But my point remains the same. And what is that increasingly confusing point?

That the term "racist" isn't even relevant anymore.

Hold up, wait a minute, is this fool crazy? Did he just say racism isn't relevant anymore?

That is exactly what I am saying my observant friend. Racism, as defined by Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, is

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; OR
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Now I believe that prejudices can still exist based on things such as, language, economic background, and even someone's name. That's called human nature. Everyone always has to think they're better than someone else. But racism as the first definition listed above, that's become obsolete. There isn't a collective mindset that one group of people is better than another based on physiological traits or characteristics.

There isn't even a need to keep track of the differences in physiological traits or characteristics. In fact, it seems like the only people who are at all concerned with race, are those who claim to be victims of racists. Why does any instance of prejudice or dislike for a person of different skin color or background in general have to be a case of racism? Some people simply hate other people. Take, for example, the case of LeBron James.

LeBron James was a hero to the city of Cleveland, Ohio. He was the star player on a successful basketball team. He had brought recognition to the city of Cleveland, and they loved him. But in the summer of 2010 his contract was up and he was a free agent. This meant he could choose to play for any other team in the NBA that could afford him. Many in Cleveland hoped he would remain with them, although they didn't expect it. Other cities, like Chicago and New York, thought he might sign with their teams. In the end, he chose to play for the Miami Heat with friends he became close with during the 2008 Olympic Games, Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade.

Now, no one can fault James for the decision he made. A free agent may go where he pleases when his contract has expired. However, that isn't exactly how it happened. In a big debacle "cleverly" named The Decision on ESPN, LeBron James took a primetime hour to announce where he would play ball in the future. Most people could see he had already made up his mind. And instead of thanking the city of Cleveland for all the love they had shown him during his years there, he basically made a show about all the good things he had done for the city; everything he had brought there. He basically chose to play in Miami and spit in Cleveland's face as he left.

Oh, plus he's black. At least, that's the only reason ESPN columnist Vincent Thomas could find for why people in America suddenly hated LeBron James. Nevermind that he acted like a complete a**hole on national television; America simply doesn't like him because he's a black man. But wait! there's more. Black people like James even more, says Thomas. He claims black people rally in support of a fellow black man, and then goes on to compare the trials and tribulations of LeBron James' off-season free agency with the actual racism legendary sports figures like Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens.

Thomas uses the Q Scores Company data for his commentary, the "Q" most likely standing for questionable. The Q Scores Co. uses polling data across America to rank everything from brand recognition to TV show likability. Advertising companies pay top dollar for this polling data. But it's not as if LeBron James went from first to worst after The Decision aired on ESPN. And sports figures are already anathema to love/hate polling data. Tim Tebow, a talented athlete and amazing human being by most standards (eww, I can't believe I just typed that appositive phrase), is deeply hated outside of the University of Florida. Does that mean everyone who dislikes Tebow hates Christians or charity work?

The other problem with throwing out the "racist" label whenever someone is offended or put off by a group is that it diminishes the discussion that could be had otherwise. Many people have tried to label the conservative Tea-Party movement as racist. They know that when the word "racist" is thrown around, it ends any possible discussion, just as calling someone a "fascist" or "nazi" closes the avenues of conversation. Instead of arguing about the demands of the Tea-Party on a rational level, such as what can be done about the massive debt America is in danger of collapsing under, detractors call the movement racist because it was started seemingly in opposition to Barack Obama and his policies, who also happens to be the first black president the United States has elected.

Keep the lines of communication open. When speaking with someone who does spout prejudiced speech, point out out the error of their ways. If all else fails, you can write them off as an incorrigible idiot. But there is no reason to cry out "Racist!" and ask for their head on a plate just because they offended. The biggest problem with living in a free society means we have to put up with the people who say things that offend us. But that's a small price to pay for all of the luxuries and rights we do enjoy.

The shackles of disparity have been removed ("That's racist!"). Americans from all walks of life are finally on level playing field. They can be whatever they want to be. The only thing standing in a person's way is a feeling that the system is gamed against them. If you go in thinking you're going to lose, then how can you win?

Can We Stop Calling Each Other Racist?

These days it is more likely for soylent green to be referred to as people than an actual human being. Everyone has to referred to by their ancestry, which may or may not even be accurate most of the time. A so-called African-American could be a 6th generation American, and his ancestors didn't even come directly from Africa then but from Europe. A Latin-American inaccurately refers to South Americans as well as Central Americans, not to mention immigrants or descendants of immigrants from those countries in those areas; all this despite the fact that none of those countries uses Latin. The worst is Asian-American, since Asia is the largest continent in the world and contains people from the middle east, Russia, India, Malaysia, and the far east. Why can't we all just be called "people?"

While researching the old mascots of my college--which I found out to be the Citronaut and later Vincent the Vulture; the latter name dropped because vultures are disease carrying harbingers of doom--I came across the Student Profile entry on Wikipedia. I was astonished, flabbergasted, mildly outraged, calm, greatly outraged, and finally annoyed with our country after reading that bit of information.

You see, the entry contains a little chart that divides the student body up into categories. Rather than allow the population of UCF to be counted on a one-by-one basis, students have to be divided into demographics, a fancy word for categories based on physical attributes. I thought the whole point of the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s was to shed these barriers and show that despite a person's misplaced beliefs, all Americans, and in this case all people attending an American university, are equal. But I guess I was wrong (if anyone knows a way to portray in text that I am over-enunciating each word to make them longer for dramatic effect, please tell me).

I imagine this was the reaction of someone after these numbers came out:

"Sure, the University of Central Florida has 53,537 students enrolled in the fall of 2009. But how many of those students are African American? Oh okay... let me see... 8.81%. That's nowhere near the national ratio of blacks to general population! Less than ONE PERCENT are Native American! And you can't be serious that we have a higher percentage of Asian Americans and European Americans enrolled than the state averages!? We can't allow this to go on! Stop the presses... Hey you, over there in the corner! Why are you still typing?? I said STOP the presses! We have to figure this thing out!"

Why are demographics even an issue anymore? For all of its good intentions after the Civil Rights Act and the subsequent issues that came up because of that, affirmative action is an outdated method of controlling who gets something at the expense of someone else. I agree, affirmative action (or something like it), was needed at a time when certain people were getting shafted on job, college, housing applications. But now, this system giving special treatment or denying it to others based on physiological differences, even in the name of helping minorities, is creating the same problem it was meant to destroy.

Perhaps I went a little overboard regarding the student profile of UCF. There was nothing in the entry that actually suggested affirmative action needed to right the wrongs of disproportion at UCF. But it owes to a much bigger problem in our society: the issue of race.

A quick background of myself if I can. I graduated from this fine university with a bachelor of science in anthropology. Anthropology means "the study of humans." That can mean from a cultural standpoint, through biological, historical, or even linguistic study. In my biological courses, one of the main points that is hammered down repeatedly is that the races, as we have come to know them, do not exist. Sure, there are physiological tendencies, and original biological anthropologists divided these characteristics into three groups, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids, which we have come to refer to as Caucasian, Asian, and African, respectively.

But even so, these features that are used to categorize humans come from the bone structures, and the differences are minor if there at all. Any outward appearance has little or nothing to do with the internal bone structure of a human, the most noticeable being the size and shape of the nasal bones and mandible. Other than the facial differences--which have everything to do with dietary and climatological differences and nothing to do with proximity to lower beasts--all human beings contain the same number of bones, the same internal organs, the same number of teeth, the same anatomy through and through.

The problem is fear. Fear that one group will be oppressed in order for another group to be lifted up. Fear that we will revert to the misinformed days of lore, when people were killed simply for the way they looked. I hope that we will never go back to the old ways of oppression, but not as much hope that we won't enter some new version, where people are oppressed just for ideas they hold, regardless of action.

There was a time when great injustices were done, but I've believed we have moved past that. That's not to say society is completely blind and fair now, as a rare event in Louisiana pointed out. But those occurrences are fewer and far between, and the norm now seems to be swinging in favor of curtailing any kind of dissension. It seems a person's first thought after not getting a job is whether or not racism had something to do with it. The same can be said for the concepts of sexual orientation and sexism (although the latter is a subject for another day.)

It's no longer about righting past wrongs. It's about having power and keeping power. Therein lies the second, and more telling problem.

We no longer live in a society where the best and brightest are chosen, because that would mean someone else could not be chosen. For the same reason that it has become a common practice for every kid to receive a trophy, regardless of how shitty s/he or their team did, the playing field must now be leveled so that everyone is on equal terms. But unfortunately that doesn't mean everyone else raising their game; today's society coddles those who can't even play.

We need to stop playing "the race card" and start getting people to make the most of themselves. The idea of racism is more like a crutch for people who are too afraid to fail, let alone to even try. Rather than work from within to become better, they would rather use the system to work for them and punish those who rejected them. Instead of showing that moxie and inner strength truly define a person, we would rather quit and rely on an outdated principle of discrimination to fight our battles for us.