Thursday, March 23, 2006
The Deplorable Word
Yesterday, in St. Louis, Missouri, a morning show radio host, Dave Lenihan, was discussing Condoleezza Rice on the air. Apparently a big fan of the Secretary of State, he had been piling on the praise, even saying that if she ever ran for President, he would love to work on her campaign. Rice had expressed interest in running the National Football League some day - the lady loves football - and Lenihan wholeheartedly approved of this aspiration. While discussing her qualifications for that job, he said the following:
Wait. Hold it. Stop.
What??
Lenihan later apologized again, officially, and reported that he'd meant to say "coup", as in a sudden appropriation of leadership or power. In the NFL, only 35% of the players are white. On the other hand, 80% of the coaches are white. 71% of the assistant coaches and support staff are white. The commissioner is white. Replacing with this word, his comment makes sense - it would indeed be a coup for an African-American to run the NFL. A big coup.
A second word that makes sense, in context, is "boon". As racism is a common problem within the NFL, it might greatly benefit the large number of minority players should Condi, both a woman and member of a minority group, control the league. Whether it would be a great boon for her to replace the current commissioners is questionable, but since this radio host seems to find her qualifications impeccable, it isn't difficult to imagine that he might have been trying to say "boon". Having an experienced African-American woman in charge of the NFL would indeed be kind of a boon. A big boon.
Have you ever tried to say two words at the same time, and the resulting verbal utterance was a mangled combination of the two? Is it difficult to imagine that, after talking almost uninterrupted, live, for almost three hours, a radio host might make the same mistake?
Even if we can't trace the precise mental etymology of the word used, it remains unacceptable to fire the man on the spot. Lenihan spent the few minutes preceeding the "coon" remark praising Condi, live, on the air. He even said he would love to help her be elected as President of the United States. He mentioned that she possessed serious skill and has held a prestigious academic position. Obviously, he'd done some background research to determine her qualifications for those positions. So let's get this straight - a man was fired for making apparently racist remarks about an African-American woman he would love to see run either the lily white NFL or the United States of America. Let's repeat that. It's important. Lenihan wants to work on the United States Presidential campaign for an African-American female. These are not the marks of a racist man!
Apparently, there is a deeper problem than the use of a single racial slur by a radio host. According to the press, a large number of listeners were so offended by simply hearing the single word mistakenly uttered in a nonsense context that they took the time to call the radio station and complain loudly enough that the man was promptly fired. Are we so thin-skinned that we cannot accept the use of a single word which may, in some circumstances, be offensive? Are we so paranoid that we assume all users of that single word are avowed white supremacists having a difficult time keeping their secret desire to lynch minorities off the airwaves? Are the words themselves so evil, so deplorable, so harmful, that public speakers should be terminated immediately for saying them? Are these words, uttered by any human being (not just a racist), really reprehensible?? Does simply hearing these words send tolerant listeners (or any other kind) into uncontrollable frenzies of racial hatred?
At some point in history, many words we consider destructive slurs were accepted labels for a particular group of people. Many were used by the groups themselves as empowering labels. Some still are! Words like "gay", invented by the homosexual community, have become terms of disparagement ("That's gay"). "Negro" (from nigris, Latin for black) was once the de facto label for a person of African descent, but has since become the catchphrase of the racist. Sometimes "black" is even considered offensive, depending on who says it and why. Once offensive words like "nigger" have been adopted by youth as "nigga", a synonym for "dude", but don't dare use the term if you aren't black yourself.
It's the meaning - that a certain group is a subhuman - that matters, not the word itself. Furthermore, it's the perception of the listeners, not the intention of the speaker, that matters. Any word yelled with enough hate or violence becomes an insult. I could use the word "coon" or the word "kerbungus" to express the same sentiment, provided that my listeners understood that I disliked the target. If I innocently use a term considered offensive in a particular culture, I might be considered a bigot. I could invent a nonsense word and apply it solely to Mexican-Americans, and it would probably be considered a racial slur within a year.
In 2006, we use cumbersome terms descriptive of ancestry, like African-American, Japanese-American, and Italian-American, to describe different ethnic groups. Perhaps that was the intention; nobody is likely to adopt a seven- or eight-syllable phrase as a quick ethnic slur in the near future. However, much racism takes place online today, and syllables are irrelevant to typed language. If white supremacists started using any of these words to offend an ethnic group, all of them would quickly become offensive to every right-minded liberal in the country. The year 2000 census documentation would become a quaint example of our racist past when we used horrible slurs like "African-American" to describe our own citizens.
Everybody really knows in the back of their minds that when we say African-American, we really mean "black person" (and so on). I once knew an African-American. He was born in South Africa, as were his parents and grandparents. He personally immigrated to the US directly from Africa. He spoke with an almost British accent. And he was as white as the Queen of England. Now, hypothetically, he could write "African-American" in the race area on his census form, but he would probably be criticized for it if anybody knew. He could probably apply for scholarships intended for African-Americans, but he probably wouldn't win. Some people might even be offended if he applied. The same people would not be offended if a dark-skinned American ten generations (200 years) removed from the African continent applied and won. So, why don't we just say "black"?
How does the cycle stop? We ignore race altogether and recognize it as the pre-genetic analysis artifact it really is. We discard all organizations, laws, and support groups that help or augment a particular race and no other. We don't cry foul when a white man is selected for a job over a black man, or vice versa. We don't analyze racial statistics at colleges and universities to make sure we're accepting enough minorities. Affirmative action goes out the window. When a person does make a racial slur, we don't identify with it because we don't have a race. The entire concept of a race is reduced to the realm of 19th century plantation owners and their children who refuse to give up the past.
Unfortunately, this is impossible. Children mentally identify themselves according to their skin color as young as five. The human brain uses the simplest descriptor possible to categorize and then identify an entity. In many cases, "different skin color than mine" or "African hair structure" is sufficient to select a list of candidates. It would take us 10 seconds to recognize every person we saw if we used micro-characteristics like nose shape and distance between the eyes to characterize their appearance. Walking into a room with ten people would require minutes of orientation.
So it goes on. Somebody uses a word offensively, another person gets offended, and the media panics. Anybody who hadn't heard "coon" used as a racial slur, or had forgotten about it, certainly knows about it now. In the future, when they hear the word "coon", they aren't going to think of a lovable forest creature - they're going to think about racists and racism! In the back of their mind, hearing that word, like hearing the notorious "N-word", will always produce imagery reinforcing the differences between races.
Children who had heard it used before aren't likely to start using it because of some random radio host - they're likely to use it because their peers or parents already use it! Furthermore, the speech patterns of children aren't necessarily important. When I was 13 years old, it was popular to say "that's Jewish" to indicate that something was stupid. I'm not aware of any of my classmates who still use that phrase for any reason.
If Dave Lenihan was a racist, then his views have now achieved notoriety - negative though it may be - across the world.
If you disagree with me, you're as stupid as those Hubgubbles.
Obviously, somebody's going to get offended reading this article. I would be shocked and amazed if somebody did not, since Americans are likely to be offended by everything from coffee to particle physics.
So here's a simple and blunt summary: I am not encouraging the use of racial slurs. They are stupid, archaic, and reaction-seeking. Like other reaction-seeking behaviors, the remedy is often to simply ignore them. In 20 years, those who use them with an intention to intimidate or harm another preson will spread their hate through nursing homes and senior living communities, and then die with their beliefs.
She's been chancellor of Stanford. She's got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She's African-American, which would kind of be a big coon. A big coon.He immediately realized what he'd said and apologized profusely. In fact, he said he was "terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly sorry". Nonetheless, listeners called and complained. Twenty-five minutes later, the general manager came on the air and reported that Lenihan had been fired on the spot and would never again be employed by that radio station. He called the remark "unacceptable, reprehensible, and unforgivable."
Wait. Hold it. Stop.
What??
Lenihan later apologized again, officially, and reported that he'd meant to say "coup", as in a sudden appropriation of leadership or power. In the NFL, only 35% of the players are white. On the other hand, 80% of the coaches are white. 71% of the assistant coaches and support staff are white. The commissioner is white. Replacing with this word, his comment makes sense - it would indeed be a coup for an African-American to run the NFL. A big coup.
A second word that makes sense, in context, is "boon". As racism is a common problem within the NFL, it might greatly benefit the large number of minority players should Condi, both a woman and member of a minority group, control the league. Whether it would be a great boon for her to replace the current commissioners is questionable, but since this radio host seems to find her qualifications impeccable, it isn't difficult to imagine that he might have been trying to say "boon". Having an experienced African-American woman in charge of the NFL would indeed be kind of a boon. A big boon.
Have you ever tried to say two words at the same time, and the resulting verbal utterance was a mangled combination of the two? Is it difficult to imagine that, after talking almost uninterrupted, live, for almost three hours, a radio host might make the same mistake?
Even if we can't trace the precise mental etymology of the word used, it remains unacceptable to fire the man on the spot. Lenihan spent the few minutes preceeding the "coon" remark praising Condi, live, on the air. He even said he would love to help her be elected as President of the United States. He mentioned that she possessed serious skill and has held a prestigious academic position. Obviously, he'd done some background research to determine her qualifications for those positions. So let's get this straight - a man was fired for making apparently racist remarks about an African-American woman he would love to see run either the lily white NFL or the United States of America. Let's repeat that. It's important. Lenihan wants to work on the United States Presidential campaign for an African-American female. These are not the marks of a racist man!
Apparently, there is a deeper problem than the use of a single racial slur by a radio host. According to the press, a large number of listeners were so offended by simply hearing the single word mistakenly uttered in a nonsense context that they took the time to call the radio station and complain loudly enough that the man was promptly fired. Are we so thin-skinned that we cannot accept the use of a single word which may, in some circumstances, be offensive? Are we so paranoid that we assume all users of that single word are avowed white supremacists having a difficult time keeping their secret desire to lynch minorities off the airwaves? Are the words themselves so evil, so deplorable, so harmful, that public speakers should be terminated immediately for saying them? Are these words, uttered by any human being (not just a racist), really reprehensible?? Does simply hearing these words send tolerant listeners (or any other kind) into uncontrollable frenzies of racial hatred?
At some point in history, many words we consider destructive slurs were accepted labels for a particular group of people. Many were used by the groups themselves as empowering labels. Some still are! Words like "gay", invented by the homosexual community, have become terms of disparagement ("That's gay"). "Negro" (from nigris, Latin for black) was once the de facto label for a person of African descent, but has since become the catchphrase of the racist. Sometimes "black" is even considered offensive, depending on who says it and why. Once offensive words like "nigger" have been adopted by youth as "nigga", a synonym for "dude", but don't dare use the term if you aren't black yourself.
It's the meaning - that a certain group is a subhuman - that matters, not the word itself. Furthermore, it's the perception of the listeners, not the intention of the speaker, that matters. Any word yelled with enough hate or violence becomes an insult. I could use the word "coon" or the word "kerbungus" to express the same sentiment, provided that my listeners understood that I disliked the target. If I innocently use a term considered offensive in a particular culture, I might be considered a bigot. I could invent a nonsense word and apply it solely to Mexican-Americans, and it would probably be considered a racial slur within a year.
In 2006, we use cumbersome terms descriptive of ancestry, like African-American, Japanese-American, and Italian-American, to describe different ethnic groups. Perhaps that was the intention; nobody is likely to adopt a seven- or eight-syllable phrase as a quick ethnic slur in the near future. However, much racism takes place online today, and syllables are irrelevant to typed language. If white supremacists started using any of these words to offend an ethnic group, all of them would quickly become offensive to every right-minded liberal in the country. The year 2000 census documentation would become a quaint example of our racist past when we used horrible slurs like "African-American" to describe our own citizens.
Everybody really knows in the back of their minds that when we say African-American, we really mean "black person" (and so on). I once knew an African-American. He was born in South Africa, as were his parents and grandparents. He personally immigrated to the US directly from Africa. He spoke with an almost British accent. And he was as white as the Queen of England. Now, hypothetically, he could write "African-American" in the race area on his census form, but he would probably be criticized for it if anybody knew. He could probably apply for scholarships intended for African-Americans, but he probably wouldn't win. Some people might even be offended if he applied. The same people would not be offended if a dark-skinned American ten generations (200 years) removed from the African continent applied and won. So, why don't we just say "black"?
How does the cycle stop? We ignore race altogether and recognize it as the pre-genetic analysis artifact it really is. We discard all organizations, laws, and support groups that help or augment a particular race and no other. We don't cry foul when a white man is selected for a job over a black man, or vice versa. We don't analyze racial statistics at colleges and universities to make sure we're accepting enough minorities. Affirmative action goes out the window. When a person does make a racial slur, we don't identify with it because we don't have a race. The entire concept of a race is reduced to the realm of 19th century plantation owners and their children who refuse to give up the past.
Unfortunately, this is impossible. Children mentally identify themselves according to their skin color as young as five. The human brain uses the simplest descriptor possible to categorize and then identify an entity. In many cases, "different skin color than mine" or "African hair structure" is sufficient to select a list of candidates. It would take us 10 seconds to recognize every person we saw if we used micro-characteristics like nose shape and distance between the eyes to characterize their appearance. Walking into a room with ten people would require minutes of orientation.
So it goes on. Somebody uses a word offensively, another person gets offended, and the media panics. Anybody who hadn't heard "coon" used as a racial slur, or had forgotten about it, certainly knows about it now. In the future, when they hear the word "coon", they aren't going to think of a lovable forest creature - they're going to think about racists and racism! In the back of their mind, hearing that word, like hearing the notorious "N-word", will always produce imagery reinforcing the differences between races.
Children who had heard it used before aren't likely to start using it because of some random radio host - they're likely to use it because their peers or parents already use it! Furthermore, the speech patterns of children aren't necessarily important. When I was 13 years old, it was popular to say "that's Jewish" to indicate that something was stupid. I'm not aware of any of my classmates who still use that phrase for any reason.
If Dave Lenihan was a racist, then his views have now achieved notoriety - negative though it may be - across the world.
If you disagree with me, you're as stupid as those Hubgubbles.
Obviously, somebody's going to get offended reading this article. I would be shocked and amazed if somebody did not, since Americans are likely to be offended by everything from coffee to particle physics.
So here's a simple and blunt summary: I am not encouraging the use of racial slurs. They are stupid, archaic, and reaction-seeking. Like other reaction-seeking behaviors, the remedy is often to simply ignore them. In 20 years, those who use them with an intention to intimidate or harm another preson will spread their hate through nursing homes and senior living communities, and then die with their beliefs.
# posted by Dev @ 9:18 AM 
