Has politically correctness gone overboard?


IMO, I think it's a dumb thing.

Entertainment is one thing, but some books, cartoons & movies in the past should be looked as historical documents instead of being swept under the rug like if they never exist. Thankfully Disney released "Disney Treasures On The Front Lines", a collection of WWII cartoon shorts, but "tweaked" with "Fantasia". I think there's should be a special version for film & animation historians & fans that like material in their proper historical context. For better or worse.


A dumb example: "The Proud Family"...

Though I also find it offensive myself, but it's not that racist compared to "All This & Rabbit Stew", a long banned Bugs Bunny cartoon where he hecles an unfortunate African American stereotype that is far more insulting than Oscar Proud, the  henpecked husband from the mentioned  Disney cartoon.


A few years ago, Cartoon Network banned Speedy Gonzales cartoons because they feared that it'll offend Latinos. Then in 2002, many Latinos, including myself, try to bring it back. Which now occaisonally air on the Looney Tunes block at Boomerang. (BTW, Cartoon Network nolonger airs Looney Tunes)

Not to mention Speedy is a positive character who's fast, smart, and isn't lazy, unlike the hurtful stereotypes.

I don't think Political Correctness has gone truly overboard. I grew up as the racist cartoons were still shown. Yes, it bothered me then as it would now. As historical as they are in the treatment of people, they should remain in past history, not present or future history. Some things are embraceable, while others should be put away.

What is it about the Proud Family that bothers you? Do you have any specific stereotypes of which you see?

Tanya

What is it about the Proud Family that bothers you? Do you have any specific stereotypes of which you see?

Tanya


LaCienga, the rude hispanic girl, and Felix Boulevardez, her father who's portrayed as a dumb slob.

Not to mention the three Asian kids drawn with buck teeth and Dijonay, the uneducated African American  stereotype.

Unlike "Jackie Chan Adventures", a current cartoon, the Asian kids are portrayed as math geeks with a boken vocabulary. (The rest can be read at the IMDB board) One episode featured one of their fathers acting like Kahn from "King of the Hill" and another  episode had Penny going to a  Karate class  with a teacher named Seefood. Which is offensive enough.


The only thing that bothers me is that "The Proud Family" was aimed towards children, which reminds me of my youth in the mid 1990's  with onslaughts of "Rico Suave"/taco jokes at my middle school, which was mostly white. (Though I had friends who were white, black, etc. Not to sound offensive.) Not to mention rude insults for me living in the "inner city".

And I'm sick of tired of seeing Hispanic girls acting trashy (Like that J. Lo caricature on a "South Park" episode) and geeky Asians on childrens programming.

Thankfully, I recently saw "Maya & Miguel", a multi-cultural cartoon that doesn't have hurtful stereotypes. Maya is basically a Hispanic version of Penny Proud & has an Asian friend who's drawn like a human being and isn't a geek.  8)

The same with music videos from current teen pop acts & rappers that degrade women, which unfortunately gives my & today's generation a bad name.

I don't think Political Correctness has gone truly overboard. I grew up as the racist cartoons were still shown. Yes, it bothered me then as it would now. As historical as they are in the treatment of people, they should remain in past history, not present or future history. Some things are embraceable, while others should be put away.

Tanya


Yeah I remember up until even the late 80s they still showed a lot of those old racist cartoons from the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.  There tons of them around still in the 80s where African bushmen would be running around as savages chasing Bugs Bunny, or some old black woman that seemed to be a surly "mammie" would shout down something with every intention of looking like a loud mouthed ignorant. 

I used to be shocked as a kid back in the 80s that stuff like that was still shown, but I guess the networks airing that garbage were just oblivious to how outdated and harmful they could be. 

Yeah I remember up until even the late 80s they still showed a lot of those old racist cartoons from the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.  There tons of them around still in the 80s where African bushmen would be running around as savages chasing Bugs Bunny, or some old black woman that seemed to be a surly "mammie" would shout down something with every intention of looking like a loud mouthed ignorant. 

I used to be shocked as a kid back in the 80s that stuff like that was still shown, but I guess the networks airing that garbage were just oblivious to how outdated and harmful they could be. 


And not forget the early Tom & Jerry cartoons. Yes, I remember some of these cartoons on tv in the '80's. And those gags when a bomb explodes that turns the character into "black face" or haaving a trash can lid (or something) that made them look Chinese.

I wasn't shocked since I wasn't old enough to think about racism. And also didn't think it was funny either.

I think political correctness is an illusion. Political correctness is about how we appear to people not how we are/feel towards people.

There was an incident which I found totally stupid regarding political correctness. It was when the movie "Mr. Magoo" came out. I must say that I didn't see the movie because it just looked too stupid for me (even though Leslie Neilson does make me laugh). However, the National Federation of the Blind was crying about the movie because they thought that it portrayed blind people as being stupid. They just didn't get that it was just this ONE person who was stupid-but it actually make the entire NFB look stupid.


(So, how many times can I use the word "stupid" in one paragraph?  ;))



Cat

you didn't see the movie... pardon the pun  :D

I was told at a disability awareness forum that the word disability was no longer PC... the irony makes me smile.

I can no longer brain-storm at work; I have to mind shower as not to offend people with brain injuries that has to be the height of all madness.....

you didn't see the movie... pardon the pun  :D

I was told at a disability awareness forum that the word disability was no longer PC... the irony makes me smile.

I can no longer brain-storm at work; I have to mind shower as not to offend people with brain injuries that has to be the height of all madness.....



Welcome Back, Cheeky. Good to see ya (no pun intended here  ;))


Cat

Well, ok.  What about the movie "Shallow Hal"  and all other tv shows/movies that portray large (or should I say horizontally challenged) people as lazy, ugly and ignorant?  Just because someone isn't a size 0 doesn't mean we are lazy, ugly or stupid. 

Someone told me today that "horizontally challenged" people have less chance of being kidnapped.... that train of thought made me smile.

We can't have a whiteboard or a blackboard in schools.  We have pen and chalk boards!!!  I think PC is actually causing a bigger divide now it is being enforced than before because kids have to ask why they cant write on a blackboard!

Black-listed is also the topic in my office as it indicates that black people are bad payers!!!! 

AAARRGGHHH.. i'm off for a black coffee, sorry, coffee with no milk  >:(

I never call Carlos old, I call him "cronoligically challenged"  :D




Cat

is that like saying you aren't mad you are lunarlly challenged?

I never call Carlos old, I call him "cronoligically challenged"  :D




Cat


Sorry, but its young people who are cHronologically challanged.  They lack the wisdom experiance brings.

There are times when I think people who rail against PC are really ranting because they do not see
the difference between pc, not pc, and just plain rude.

Things like PC are good, but like most good things, it becomes not so good when taken to extremes.

Not being allowed to call plain coffee black is ridiculous. It's a colour! Furthermore, coffee has no racial connotations.

I have been wondering why little people (midgets) want to be called little people.... that sounds kind of demeaning to me. Like I'm talking about the fairies instead of short people. Someone want to clear that up?

I think political correctness is an illusion. Political correctness is about how we appear to people not how we are/feel towards people.

Political Correctness reached its zenith in the early '90s.  The only people who speak of it in the media now are rich white men who need feel oppressed by something.  "Identity politics" is a more acurate term for the kind of ethnic and racial divisiveness still cherished by certain factions on college campuses.  PC is over.  I would say anyone talking about PC is using it as diversion from the real forces of oppression.  In America, those forces come from the corporate bosses, the politicians who work for the corporate bosses, and from the zeal of the Christian Right, who either are, or influence, the politicians who work for the corporate bosses.

Political Corectness to me is a crime.

Here is a good example.  In 1947, a male African-American won an Academy Award for the first time ever.  But because of "PC", this movie will never be seen again.

The movie I am talking about is "Song Of The South".  James Baskett won an Oscar for his portrayal of Uncle Remus.

Of course, most people do not bother to understand what "Uncle Remus" was actually all about.  First published as "Uncle Remus: Legends of the Old Plantation" by Joel Chandler Harris in 1881, it was a collection of folk tales from the South.  In fact, it was the authors intent to collect and save the stories that the former slaves used to tell, before they vanished into time.

In fact, a great many of the stories were satires, which were designed to make fun of the "Masters", in a way that they would not understand.  The clever Fox was not as clever as he thought he was.  Even though he thought he ruled the forest, Brer Rabbit always had the last word (and the last laugh).

But because of "PC", this movie has not been shown since 1970.  Disney has flat out stated that it will never be seen again, on video, on DVD, on the movie screen, or on TV.  They have refused all requests for special screenings by groups and individuals.

I am glad that I am old enough to have faint memories of this movie.  I was lucky enough to have seen it once, during it's last release in 1970.  But nobody since has been able to see it.

And oddly enough, it is available overseas.  Song Of The South is sold in England and in Germany.  If I can ever find a PAL converter, I will gladly buy this movie, and convert it.  In fact, I will probably make it available on the Internet, piracy laws be darned.  It is a crime to have a culturally historic movie like this, and never let it be seen.

I am sure that James Baskett is in heaven, heartbroken because he is no longer remembered.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/remus/contents.html

I'm sleep challenged. I'm sleepy, yet I refuse to keep that from owning my spot in this world!

;D

He is remembered. But, on the flip side, the tales also included stories of how good it was to be subversive and not get riled up.

Tanya

Speaking of "Song of the South"...


There's a parody of "Snow White & The Seven Dwarves" that many animation historians & fans  consider one of the greatest cartoon ever made. Which can only be seen on bootleg tapes & animation festivals that show this & other political incorrect films in it's proper context. It's been praised for having actual African American proving the voices & having a "great" soundtrack.


http://www.toontracker.com/coalblack/sowhite.gif (The only unoffensive pic I can find)

Warning: The title is also offensive itself...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035743/

IMO, it's not that great (Like the Disney version, ironically might also be offensive), but I think these films should be shown in it's proper historical context on special DVDs aimed towards collecters, animation fans, historians, etc.

(Probably the reason why Warner Bros. has separate DVDs for Looney Tunes..."The Spotlight Collection" & "The Golden Collection"...)

Woops, you mention this 'sebben dwarves' thing and call it offensive. I refuse to call it offensive but ignorant. The 60s (when the film was made) was a different world when racist 'reactions' or stereotypes were rarely questioned. I am sure that in time, the world will become different again when the stereotypes we use everyday and take for granted (goths, punks, jocks - maybe even the stereotype of homosexuality/lesbianism . . .) will become offensive to other people.

We have to be careful of what we are criticizing. I have heard the Tom and Jerry cartoons have been criticized because the owner of the house is this big black lady with a southern American accent. That is no racist slur, it was probably just simply a fact at the time. I don't condone racism but we have to remember the context in which things were used. Even if the black lady was the servant of the house (which I don't believe she was), would that still be a racist slur, being a fact of life at the time?

We are far more positively aware/reactive to racism these days but to criticize old films because of their nature is a bit null and void. If you find the idea offensive, don't make people aware of it (I would never have known this film had come out if it hadn't just been mentioned) - just don't publicise or watch it.  :)

Political Correctness reached its zenith in the early '90s.  The only people who speak of it in the media now are rich white men who need feel oppressed by something.  "Identity politics" is a more acurate term for the kind of ethnic and racial divisiveness still cherished by certain factions on college campuses.  PC is over.  I would say anyone talking about PC is using it as diversion from the real forces of oppression.  In America, those forces come from the corporate bosses, the politicians who work for the corporate bosses, and from the zeal of the Christian Right, who either are, or influence, the politicians who work for the corporate bosses.


Feeling a certain sensitivity towards people is essential but we have to be careful that this sensitivity turns into squeamish fastidiousness (which appears to be what has happened). This is an example:

I have welsh ancestory and the welsh are famous for their affiliation with sheep (to put it politely). If I hear a welsh joke, am I going to get uptight and start yelling 'racist' because of some joke? Absolutely not.

One thing that I find kind of absurd that people think that lawn jockeys are offensive when it was a stop on the underground railroad.


http://www.horseinfo.com/info/misc/jockeyinfo.html




Cat

Political Corectness to me is a crime.

Here is a good example.  In 1947, a male African-American won an Academy Award for the first time ever.  But because of "PC", this movie will never be seen again.

The movie I am talking about is "Song Of The South".  James Baskett won an Oscar for his portrayal of Uncle Remus.

Of course, most people do not bother to understand what "Uncle Remus" was actually all about.  First published as "Uncle Remus: Legends of the Old Plantation" by Joel Chandler Harris in 1881, it was a collection of folk tales from the South.  In fact, it was the authors intent to collect and save the stories that the former slaves used to tell, before they vanished into time.


I'm sorry, I gotta part ways with you there!  "Uncle Remus" really does prmote a stereotype destructive to African-Americans.  I don't blame Disney for consigning it to the vaults.  On the other hand, I believe gangsta rap also promotes destructive stereotypes of African Americans, and there many of my liberal friends part ways with me!

I'm sorry, I gotta part ways with you there!  "Uncle Remus" really does prmote a stereotype destructive to African-Americans.  I don't blame Disney for consigning it to the vaults.  On the other hand, I believe gangsta rap also promotes destructive stereotypes of African Americans, and there many of my liberal friends part ways with me!


I don't understand, Max. Why is Uncle Remus of all things a 'stereotype destructive to African-Americans'? He just seemed to be a black man telling the story of Brer Rabbit.  ???

Woops, you mention this 'sebben dwarves' thing and call it offensive. I refuse to call it offensive but ignorant. The 60s (when the film was made) was a different world when racist 'reactions' or stereotypes were rarely questioned. I am sure that in time, the world will become different again when the stereotypes we use everyday and take for granted (goths, punks, jocks - maybe even the stereotype of homosexuality/lesbianism . . .) will become offensive to other people.

We have to be careful of what we are criticizing. I have heard the Tom and Jerry cartoons have been criticized because the owner of the house is this big black lady with a southern American accent. That is no racist slur, it was probably just simply a fact at the time. I don't condone racism but we have to remember the context in which things were used. Even if the black lady was the servant of the house (which I don't believe she was), would that still be a racist slur, being a fact of life at the time?

We are far more positively aware/reactive to racism these days but to criticize old films because of their nature is a bit null and void. If you find the idea offensive, don't make people aware of it (I would never have known this film had come out if it hadn't just been mentioned) - just don't publicise or watch it.  :)


Correct. BTW, "...The Sebben  Dwarves" was made during WWII. And personally, I only like The Bros. Grimm version which not many people know about. Only the  Disney vesion which  ruined the story to make it "OK" for children.

Atleast in "De Sebben Dwarves", Dopey kissed 'So White' instead of the prince. Which the seven dwarfes  helped her instead of Prince Charming. Though "Dwarfes" also may be demeaning towards a certain group as well.

BTW, I know a a person who like the term "Little Person" instead of 'midget'.

Again, there's comidians like Jeff Foxworthy, Chris Rock, & Margaret Cho that uses their ethnicity as a part of their materal to make money.








I have been wondering why little people (midgets) want to be called little people.... that sounds kind of demeaning to me. Like I'm talking about the fairies instead of short people. Someone want to clear that up?

...and movies & TV Shows like "Scary Movie",  "South Park" & "Mad TV" that do it for shock vaulue. Usually well written.

Or very unfunny & done in bad taste like "Bubble Boy" & "Kid Notorious".

Correct. BTW, "...The Sebben  Dwarves" was made during WWII. And personally, I only like The Bros. Grimm version which not many people know about. Only the  Disney vesion which  ruined the story to make it "OK" for children.

Sorry about that. I have no idea why I thought it was from the 60s. Regardless, this only emphasises what I am saying. The Brothers Grimm version was more sinister than the Disney version - so this proves that the period of time could show restraint if it so wished.

At least in "De Sebben Dwarves", Dopey kissed 'So White' instead of the prince. Which the seven dwarfes  helped her instead of Prince Charming.

I just didn't understand your stance on this film, Woops. I just don't believe in getting sensationalistic over things we can avoid if we wish to.

Though "Dwarfes" also may be demeaning towards a certain group as well. BTW, I know a a person who like the term "Little Person" instead of 'midget'.


Was the person who liked the term 'little person' a midget?  I think these euphemisms could just be as bad because they sound patronising. I am not a midget, but if I was, I certainly wouldn't appreciate being called 'little person' - not that it would come up in regular conversation anyway I wouldn't have thought. A black person told me that he preferred to be called 'black' rather than 'coloured' because that was his identity. To call someone 'coloured' is an undefined term (albeit perhaps a more accurate one) that detracts from that person's identity.

Again, there's comidians like Jeff Foxworthy, Chris Rock, & Margaret Cho that uses their ethnicity as a part of their materal to make money.


Don't forget Carlos Mencia, Woops. Have a listen to him if you can. He's a revelation on these ethnic issues.

One thing that I find kind of absurd that people think that lawn jockeys are offensive when it was a stop on the underground railroad.


http://www.horseinfo.com/info/misc/jockeyinfo.html




Cat


It was used in that way to distract other whites from bothering that site; however, it was used in reference to the term "Porch Monkey" used to describe some Blacks. It is very derogatory.

Tanya

There was an incident which I found totally stupid regarding political correctness. It was when the movie "Mr. Magoo" came out. I must say that I didn't see the movie because it just looked too stupid for me (even though Leslie Neilson does make me laugh). However, the National Federation of the Blind was crying about the movie because they thought that it portrayed blind people as being stupid. They just didn't get that it was just this ONE person who was stupid-but it actually make the entire NFB look stupid.


(So, how many times can I use the word "stupid" in one paragraph? ;))



Cat


You didn't miss much.  I, too, love Leslie Nielsen so I tried...I made it 10 minutes in and had to shut it off.  Baaaaaad movie.


I think political correctness got out of hand when they started changing things that didn't offend.  I am a female and never saw the term mailman, chairman, etc as offensive.  My friends feel the same way, too. 

One thing that I find kind of absurd that people think that lawn jockeys are offensive when it was a stop on the underground railroad.


I was actually going to post that in my message earlier, but forgot.  It is amazing how people will only look at the appearance of something and condem it, and not look at the history behind it.

And as far as I know, it was never used as a "porch monkey" form.  In fact, could you picture a racist spending money to have a statue of a black person erected on their property?  That was one of the reasons they worked so well for the Underground Railroad.  Most of the "Aristocrats" who owned slaves tended to use horses as hitching posts.  Erecting a faux slave to hold horses simply would not work for a real slave owner.

I don't understand, Max. Why is Uncle Remus of all things a 'stereotype destructive to African-Americans'? He just seemed to be a black man telling the story of Brer Rabbit.  ???

There are two nefarious stereotypes whites have traditionally employed against black men in America. One is a sub-human beast, paranoid, predatory, violent, sexually potent, and lying in wait to defile virtuous white women.  The other is dead opposite--a benign child-man who loves to sing, dance, tell stories, and supplicate to his white superiors with canine loyalty.
The latter stereotype is best exemplified by Harriet Beecher Stow's title character from her abolitionist novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin.*  In fact, "Uncle Tom" is a longstanding term of disparagement for a passive and servile Black man.  
Uncle Remus is your quintessential "Uncle Tom."  You are right, Bobby, Uncle Remus seems sweet and wholesome, and he is historically acurate--there were many thousands of Uncle Remuses (and Uncle Toms) throughout the era of slavery and then Jim Crow.
The problem is, kindly old Black gents were forged in the foundry of bondage, oppression, torture, humiliation, and finally, dehumanization.  Uncle Remus is ultimately not benign by his own volition, he is benign by force of instituted racism.  That is why African-Americans object to the Uncle Remus character.
What is more insidious is the self-serving fantasy American whites long held that Blacks were happier under slavery and that slavery was a benign institution.  Uncle Remus is a product of that fantasy.  Furthermore, white America throughout the Jim Crow era held up Uncle Remus as the role model they wished African-Americans would follow.
Thus, Uncle Remus is a symbol rich in the vile history of racial oppression in America.

*The stereotype is rather unfair to Beecher Stow's character in the novel.  Uncle Tom was a man of deep religious virtue who saw the futility of rage and rebellion.  He was, in fact, a very strong character.  In the end, Uncle Tom is beaten to death by master Simon Legree's goons because Tom refuses to become another goon who will whip other slaves for Legree.

I can understand what you are saying Max with all honesty but it seems that a black person can only escape stereotype by being in between savage and nice.  ???

In respect of 'Song of the South', if there really was a man called Uncle Remus that created these tales, then 'Song of the South' is merely a product of the time and not a stinging attack on black people surely? Many people of all races are forced into being nice for all different types of reasons ('have a nice day!') but that doesn't mean if you see someone doing that on television it is harmful.

How do people view the film 'Driving Miss Daisy'?

You didn't miss much.  I, too, love Leslie Nielsen so I tried...I made it 10 minutes in and had to shut it off.  Baaaaaad movie.

I figured it was, that is why I didn't bother.


I think political correctness got out of hand when they started changing things that didn't offend.  I am a female and never saw the term mailman, chairman, etc as offensive.  My friends feel the same way, too. 



I have to admit that sometimes I will use the terms letter carrier (since ours is a female) or chairperson, etc. I guess it really depends on who it is. In our state we have a congressman (yes, only one) but if we had a woman in congress, I would probably say congresswoman or repersentitive. But, I don't find the term mailman, chairman etc, offensive.



Cat

I'm not sure why people complain about 'political correctness' -- it just comes down to taking responsibility for 1.) your own prejudices and 2.) the way others will interpret your words and actions.

Disney doesn't make 'Song of the South' available because they feel that to offend the number of people they would by making it available is too great a PR/$ sacrifice.  It's a bottom-line business decision.  

So really, what's the complaint?  That blacks shouldn't be offended that many viewers delight in interpreting those images in a negative way? That Disney shouldn't make a rational business decision and should just release the dang thing, certain customers (and stockholders) be damned?

Notwithstanding the historical significance of dark-skinned grinning lawn jockeys and the noble tribute they could be to African American history (I haven't researched it so I don't know), the average joe on the street does not view them from this informed perspective.  It seems naive, if not irresponsible, to simply ignore the fact that the uninformed public at large views these items as reinforcement of a negative stereotype (to their own delight or chagrin, depending on their perspective).

I can understand what you are saying Max with all honesty but it seems that a black person can only escape stereotype by being in between savage and nice.  ???

In respect of 'Song of the South', if there really was a man called Uncle Remus that created these tales, then 'Song of the South' is merely a product of the time and not a stinging attack on black people surely? Many people of all races are forced into being nice for all different types of reasons ('have a nice day!') but that doesn't mean if you see someone doing that on television it is harmful.

How do people view the film 'Driving Miss Daisy'?

Oh no, Uncle Remus is not a "stinging attack" by any means.  He is a comforting stereotype, one that many Americans don't want their children exposed to because of the historical lies it involves.  Conscientious Americans don't want to tolerate any view of slavery that makes it look benign.  They may be touchy, but racism is an explosive issue.

There was an overwhelmingly positive consensus on "Driving Miss Daisy."  I recall a few people calling it racist, but most people saw Hoke as a positive character.  Hoke was strong and dignified as he did what he needed to do to get by in Jim Crow-era Georgia.  Hoke did stand up to Daisy when she was unreasonable and was not a servile stereotype.  

I think it's a great story even if you discount the racial issues.

BTW, I do recall the movie "Song of the South" was reissued in theaters in 1981.  However, I was only 12 and didn't notice if their was any controversy surrounding the film's re-release.

Was the person who liked the term 'little person' a midget?  I think these euphemisms could just be as bad because they sound patronising. I am not a midget, but if I was, I certainly wouldn't appreciate being called 'little person' - not that it would come up in regular conversation anyway I wouldn't have thought. A black person told me that he preferred to be called 'black' rather than 'coloured' because that was his identity. To call someone 'coloured' is an undefined term (albeit perhaps a more accurate one) that detracts from that person's identity.


Yes, he was a 'midget', but thought the term was used for "circus freaks"   & fairy tale characters (Like the mentioned 'Snow Whi.  Though I personally don't call anybody a certain name, but a person.  He used to joke around his friends, whom most I've seen were tall, about their height.

I grew up, and still live, in a multi-cultural neighborhood and I generally consider everybody as a person, but some terms are misleading since I had light skin as a teen and was mistaken as "white", but I'm actually Hispanic.

I'm sorry, I gotta part ways with you there!  "Uncle Remus" really does prmote a stereotype destructive to African-Americans.  I don't blame Disney for consigning it to the vaults.  On the other hand, I believe gangsta rap also promotes destructive stereotypes of African Americans, and there many of my liberal friends part ways with me!


Once again, to me the intent is vastly more important then how some people perceive to be.  And with Uncle Remus, the intent was to try and save an oral history tradition that was rapidly dissapearing.

There is a difference between a stereotype, and simply how things were.  The dialect used was the true dialect of the region.  The stories were stories told between slaves.  They were a combination of legends passed down from Africa, and stories made up to show defiance against the white overlords who ruled over them.

I learned a bit about "Uncle Remus" (or "Uncle Romulus" as he was sometimes recorded as), and the background is very interesting.  Most of the animals used can be traced back to the animalistic religions of their forefathers.  And the "underdogs" like Brer Frog and Brer Rabbit, were the heroes, even though they were among the lowest of the low.  They used intelligence and wit to win where brute force was not enough.

In fact, in many ways Disney worked to change the "backstory".  In the original stories, Uncle Remus was a slave.  In the movie, it was made very clear that it is set in the post Civil War South.  And the blacks in the movie were not "subserviant".  They are very much equals.

I think that people object to the movie because it makes them uncomfortable.  But it is reality.  Joel Chandler Harris was a newspaper publisher, and published them in the Atlanta Constitution starting in 1876, both to amuse his readers, and to save a dialect that was dissapearing.  And because he grew up with the stories, he wanted them saved for posterity.

I do not see Uncle Remus as a stereotype, no more then I see "Chicken George" from Roots as a stereotype.  It was an accurate portrayal of a historical person (or in the case of Uncle Remus, a collection of several people).  Pretending that it is not true actually robs African-Americans of part of their heritage.

As far as I know, the Uncle Remus stories are the only surviving collection of stories created and told during the time of slavery.  I hardly considering culture as "racist".  In fact, not saving the cultural history of the time and sharing it with future generations is little short of cultural genocide.

Pretending that slavery did not happen is wrong.  Even more so, pretending that the slaves themselves did not create songs, stories, and oral traditions is even more wrong.  But because some people are "uncomfortable" with that past, it is a crime.

I place the culture history and legacy of Uncle Remus much higher then that of Tuppac, Calvin Broadus, or 50 Cent.  I am sure that in 100 years, nobody will even remember who they are, but Uncle Remus will still be known.

I see the point, but I still think that it's valid to consider how certain images -- intentionally or unintentionally -- inform negative stereotypes. 

There are certain images that some blacks would feel perfectly comfortable with when viewed by people able to interpret them in their proper context. Those same blacks, however, might be understandably less eager to see those same images made available to those who would interpret them in a way that reinforces their bigotries or negative stereotypes.

And surely black Americans need not rely upon Disney as their cultural archive.

There are two nefarious stereotypes whites have traditionally employed against black men in America.

The problem with "Uncle Remus" is that he is not a "Stereotype".  In reality, he is an "Archetype".

To really understand the "Uncle Remus" character, you have to realize who he "was".  Uncle Remus was smart, articulate, and clever.  He spoke about things that if the "Master" understood, would have gotten him into some serious trouble.  But he was so clever, he was never caught.

Uncle Remus was a revolutionary, he was somebody who could make fun of "Master", but "Master" never understood he was even being made fun of.  He could give comfort to his fellow slaves, letting them know that eventually, they would come out on top.

If you have ever read the stories (or seen the movie), you would understand that Uncle Remus was NOBODIES fool.  Uncle Remus was one smart cookie, who understood things better then almost anybody else.

However, the setting makes people uncomfortable.  The original stories were set in Antibellum Georgia.  Disney changed the setting to post Civil War, but that is not enough for some people.

Of course, something else that bothers people about both the Uncle Remus of literature and of the Disney movie is the patois.

But the patois is correct.  It was written down by somebody who learned that form of talking as a child.  He wrote it accurately, and did it to save it.  I think that is what makes people most uncomfortable.

In much the same way, people blast "Adventures Of Huck Finn" for the same reason.  They do not look at it as it was written, but instead look at it over 100 years later.  While now "Huck Finn" is often seen as racist, at the time it was offensive in many areas because it protrayed a major character, who was black, in a very FAVORABLE way.

I am curious, how many here have actually read or seen either the stories of Uncle Remus, or the movie "Song Of The South"?  I myself am actually watching it as I write this.  For a movie made in 1948, it is amazing in it's protrayal.  Imagine a movie, set in post Civil War US, made in 1948, having in the opening scene 2 white adults, 1 white child, and a black woman riding in the passenger compartment of a coach?  And add to that, the black woman actually contradicts, and even chastizes the adult man?  But that actually happened in the opening sequence.

Racist?  Hardly!  I defy anybody who has actually seen it to claim it is racist.

Of course, there are people that claim "Little Boy Sambo" is a racist anti-black story.  Never mind that the story is of Indian origin!  And never mind that during the story, Sambo is the hero, who outwits the Tiger.

As I have said before, to me feelings and emotion do not matter anywhere near as much as reality and facts.  Facts did not matter to the people who caused the shutting down of a California Pancake house chain called "Sambos".  It was shut down becuase it was claimed that the owners were racist.

Never mind that the name came about because the names of the owners were "Sam" and "Bo".  Reality does not matter, only the perception of some people.

http://www.santabarbara.com/dining/a_stones_throw/sambos/default.asp

As I have said before, to me feelings and emotion do not matter anywhere near as much as reality and facts.  Facts did not matter to the people who caused the shutting down of a California Pancake house chain called "Sambos".  It was shut down becuase it was claimed that the owners were racist.



But neither do the facts matter to those who use Sambo as a negative stereotype, so...

If the average reasonably intelligent well-educated person heard someone referring to a black person by saying "hey, Sambo..." what do you think they would think about that?  Really.

But neither do the facts matter to those who use Sambo as a negative stereotype, so...

If the average reasonably intelligent well-educated person heard someone referring to a black person by saying "hey, Sambo..." what do you think they would think about that?  Really.


I guess it would matter if that was his name/nickname.

Back in high school, I used to go to some parties that occasionally got "carried away".  One of my best friends was from Compton, and he always brought the same thing to these parties.

He would take a large watermellon, cut out a slice, then pour into it just about every different type of alcohol he could get.  He would then let the watermellon sit in the fridge for about a week.  THAT is what he would bring to the parties, and we would all get drunk eating the thing.

Because of this, his nickname was "Watermellon Man".  It was a nickname he loved, and we would normally sing the song 4-5 times as we all got drunk eating his newest party favor.  :)

About 2 years later, I actually drove by him on the street, and pulled over and yelled out "Hey, Watermellon Man!"  His 2 buddies with him actually started to go after me, thinking that I was screaming out a racial slur.  He had to do some fast talking to explain that that really was his nickname, and how he got it.

I know that I never made any kind of racial connection to the nickname.  If I had done that, I probably would have ended up with the same nickname I am sure.  But because I am white, it would have been seen as nothing but a nickname.  Because he was black though, I am sure a lot of people would see it as a racist nickname.

Insanity.

Uncle Remus is your quintessential "Uncle Tom."  You are right, Bobby, Uncle Remus seems sweet and wholesome, and he is historically acurate--there were many thousands of Uncle Remuses (and Uncle Toms) throughout the era of slavery and then Jim Crow.
The problem is, kindly old Black gents were forged in the foundry of bondage, oppression, torture, humiliation, and finally, dehumanization.  Uncle Remus is ultimately not benign by his own volition, he is benign by force of instituted racism.  That is why African-Americans object to the Uncle Remus character.
What is more insidious is the self-serving fantasy American whites long held that Blacks were happier under slavery and that slavery was a benign institution.  Uncle Remus is a product of that fantasy.  Furthermore, white America throughout the Jim Crow era held up Uncle Remus as the role model they wished African-Americans would follow.
Thus, Uncle Remus is a symbol rich in the vile history of racial oppression in America.


And this obviously shows that you have never seen the movie.

Throughout the movie, Uncle Remus (and all the other black characters) talk to the whites as equals.  When the little boy tries to run away from home and is found by Uncle Remus, he tells the people looking for him to go home.  "You just run and tell Miss Sally that *I* have Johnny."

In fact, in several segments he tells the white grandmother what she should do about her family problems.  Over and over, it is obvious that there are no subserviant characters. 

Of course, I am sure that one of the thing that "offends" people is the patois used by Uncle Remus and the other characters.  However, it is accurate.  Almost every day, I meet blacks who actually have heavier accents and speech then any seen in the movie.

Of course, there is one great line from the movie, that applies quite well I think to this dispute:

"So 'scuse me for sayin' so, but dem who can't learn from a tale 'bout critters, just ain't got dey ears tuned for listenin'."

And this obviously shows that you have never seen the movie.

Throughout the movie, Uncle Remus (and all the other black characters) talk to the whites as equals.  When the little boy tries to run away from home and is found by Uncle Remus, he tells the people looking for him to go home.  "You just run and tell Miss Sally that *I* have Johnny."

In fact, in several segments he tells the white grandmother what she should do about her family problems.  Over and over, it is obvious that there are no subserviant characters. 

Of course, I am sure that one of the thing that "offends" people is the patois used by Uncle Remus and the other characters.  However, it is accurate.  Almost every day, I meet blacks who actually have heavier accents and speech then any seen in the movie.

Of course, there is one great line from the movie, that applies quite well I think to this dispute:

"So 'scuse me for sayin' so, but dem who can't learn from a tale 'bout critters, just ain't got dey ears tuned for listenin'."


I should have clarified, I wasn't discussing my personal opinion of Uncle Remus, which is closer to yours.  I was talking about the socio-political ramifications--right or wrong--of Uncle Remus in an attempt to explain why he's controversial and why Disney won't reissue the film.

Oh no, Uncle Remus is not a "stinging attack" by any means.  He is a comforting stereotype, one that many Americans don't want their children exposed to because of the historical lies it involves.  Conscientious Americans don't want to tolerate any view of slavery that makes it look benign.  They may be touchy, but racism is an explosive issue.

I see. So the issue was not with the character but just the issue surrounding him? Western movies have portrayed cowboys as heros for ages against the native indians - is that an issue in America as well, or is it less relevant?

There was an overwhelmingly positive consensus on "Driving Miss Daisy."  I recall a few people calling it racist, but most people saw Hoke as a positive character.  Hoke was strong and dignified as he did what he needed to do to get by in Jim Crow-era Georgia.  Hoke did stand up to Daisy when she was unreasonable and was not a servile stereotype.

I think it's a great story even if you discount the racial issues.

That's great. A film dealing with racial/ethical issues doesn't neccessarily mean it's racist/unethical.  :)

BTW, I do recall the movie "Song of the South" was reissued in theaters in 1981.  However, I was only 12 and didn't notice if their was any controversy surrounding the film's re-release.

The film has had a regular release in Britain for years without any ill effects. Maybe that's why I didn't understand the issue behind it. This is where you folks have to excuse my ignorance. ;)

I know that I never made any kind of racial connection to the nickname.  If I had done that, I probably would have ended up with the same nickname I am sure.  But because I am white, it would have been seen as nothing but a nickname.  Because he was black though, I am sure a lot of people would see it as a racist nickname.

Insanity.



So your complaint is that it was unreasonable for those buddies of your friend (black people, I imagine), who knew neither you nor the history of the nickname, to be angered that you would address him as watermelon man?  I think that's only because you aren't familiar with the negative connotations often associated with the term.

So now those friends of his are just another bunch of racist, hypersensitive black people?  What did your friend think of their reaction?  Was he similarly annoyed that it was so unreasonable, or did he understand their reaction?  Frankly, the arrogance of those who would simply dismiss as 'ridiculous' a black person's upset reaction to that term does not promote the cause of racial progress. 

Look, assault is assault, so if they were going to physically attack you as you stated, that's a whole separate issue. It sounds as though they might have been a couple of young hotheads.  But what's distressing is that you don't even understand the emotional reaction.

It's too bad that this country has the history that it does, and that certain terms and images have a history of negative associations, but I'm not sure what's to be gained by ignoring the reality of that.

My View on Political Correctness is a simple one... It's Wrong.

First of all people should have the right to say what they want when they want, we live in a world were for the most part freedom of speech is a given (yes not everywhere i know)

Now i don't agree with people wandering around coming out with racial slurs and obsceneties, but if that is the way they feel then so be it. If somebody has a problem with it then they can bring it up.

Then we have these double standards were in one single rap single an artist black or white can use the N word 300 times yet if i said it to one of my friends, even in the same context they use it, all of a sudden it would be taboo.

But the one that pisses me off the most, the most heinous of all the politically correct crimes.. Positive Discrimination. Now i will just say this from the UK point of view but here is a shocking example.
100 People are taking a test to become Police officers. There are 2 black candidates, even if they score the lowest score are the worst two to take the test, they will still pass because they are black. This isn't good, this isn't right, these people are looking after us, and yet the people who score lowest still get in, stop me if i make no sense but that isn't right.

I know that Racism needs stamping out, but to be frank, it's only idiots that go around hating every black man in sight (yes i know they hate more people than that) well let them hate everyone, and everyone will hate them. Most of the 'minority' (i don't like that word) friends i have agree with me. If everyone is supposed to be equal then treat everyone equally.
I can't stress that point enough, equally!!!

Then we have these double standards were in one single rap single an artist black or white can use the N word 300 times yet if i said it to one of my friends, even in the same context they use it, all of a sudden it would be taboo.

I have been saying this for ages, Alchoholica. If political correctness is such an issue, then responsibility on all sides is neccessary.

But the one that pisses me off the most, the most heinous of all the politically correct crimes.. Positive Discrimination. Now i will just say this from the UK point of view but here is a shocking example.
100 People are taking a test to become Police officers. There are 2 black candidates, even if they score the lowest score are the worst two to take the test, they will still pass because they are black. This isn't good, this isn't right, these people are looking after us, and yet the people who score lowest still get in, stop me if i make no sense but that isn't right.

Yes, this is quite a recent phenomenon. Some people can be unsuitable for the job, not in a discrimatory way, but in a common-sense way. If someone is not showing the right attributes needed for a job then they shouldn't be involved in it - especially in positions of responsibility.

I know that Racism needs stamping out, but to be frank, it's only idiots that go around hating every black man in sight (yes i know they hate more people than that) well let them hate everyone, and everyone will hate them. Most of the 'minority' (i don't like that word) friends i have agree with me. If everyone is supposed to be equal then treat everyone equally.
I can't stress that point enough, equally!!!

Exactly. Equality in negative and positive situations. I don't believe positive discrimination helps and serves only to patronise the people it is trying to help/appease.

My View on Political Correctness is a simple one... It's Wrong.

First of all people should have the right to say what they want when they want, we live in a world were for the most part freedom of speech is a given (yes not everywhere i know)

PC has nothing to do with restricting people's rights.  I have the right to call someone's mother a whore.  And I have to take responsibility that you may not take kindly to it.  But it's my 'right' -- legally.

Well im not sure how your law works, but here in England, if i was to use the N word  ::) I could be charged with any number of crimes.. Inciting Hatred, Public Disturbance Charges and all manner of others.

So basically i can say what i want and then be punished for saying it. ???

Well im not sure how your law works, but here in England, if i was to use the N word  ::) I could be charged with any number of crimes.. Inciting Hatred, Public Disturbance Charges and all manner of others.

So basically i can say what i want and then be punished for saying it. ???

I don't like the state stepping in and making the utterance of words a crime.  That makes me very nervous!

I don't like the state stepping in and making the utterance of words a crime. That makes me very nervous!


Exactamundo!

What people fail to realise is that in the U.K we are basically having our rights reduced. A Bill similar to the Patriot Act was passed in record time and now in the courts, although not on paper, in practice we are now Guilty before proven innocent. The hallowed rights of an Englishman mean nothing, and just for everyone in the U.S thinking that Bushie and his fun laws suck, we don't just have to answer to British Law (which is confusing enough considering we still don't have a codified constitution) but we also have to answer to European Law, which sometimes takes precedent over British Law.

Anyway i have got off subject, please feel free to ignore my ramblings..

I was actually going to post that in my message earlier, but forgot.  It is amazing how people will only look at the appearance of something and condem it, and not look at the history behind it.

And as far as I know, it was never used as a "porch monkey" form.  In fact, could you picture a racist spending money to have a statue of a black person erected on their property?  That was one of the reasons they worked so well for the Underground Railroad.  Most of the "Aristocrats" who owned slaves tended to use horses as hitching posts.  Erecting a faux slave to hold horses simply would not work for a real slave owner.



Of course, it is far as you know. But, then again, you don't represent the ones you know the many historical uses of such things, know do you? The key to understanding another's culture is not to denigrate them for what they feel may be negative feelings about something associated with their culture. If you are not in their shoes daily, it's wrong to suggest that nicknames as well as other things negatively associated with them can't possibly be wrong. It adds to negativity. As for the Song of the South, there are negativities in the movie. If you don't understand or see them as a member of the group associated with them, then you see them as non-existent.

Tanya

I can understand what you are saying Max with all honesty but it seems that a black person can only escape stereotype by being in between savage and nice.  ???

In respect of 'Song of the South', if there really was a man called Uncle Remus that created these tales, then 'Song of the South' is merely a product of the time and not a stinging attack on black people surely? Many people of all races are forced into being nice for all different types of reasons ('have a nice day!') but that doesn't mean if you see someone doing that on television it is harmful.

How do people view the film 'Driving Miss Daisy'?


So, basically, you can't win b/c regardless of how you are, people will always have a general view of you. I've never seen Driving Miss Daisy nor do I have an interest to.

Tanya

So, basically, you can't win b/c regardless of how you are, people will always have a general view of you. I've never seen Driving Miss Daisy nor do I have an interest to.


I wasn't really into the film either, Tanya. I was trying to get a reaction.  ;)

The worry is for people like me (who are not racist) is that they spend so much time appeasing and apologising to people when they shouldn't be. If a black person walked into my house while I happened to have 'Song of the South'* on? What am I supposed to do to regain my dignity?

* Note: This is a hyperthetical situation as I'm not bothered about 'South of the South' either.  ;D

I have not idea b/c the person could be like me (and shrug it off without thinking you are racist) or be the complete opposite. I have the slightest clue!  :-\\

Tanya

I have not idea b/c the person could be like me (and shrug it off without thinking you are racist) or be the complete opposite. I have the slightest clue!  :-\\


Tanya, thank you for being such an objective (and diplomatic) person to speak to.  :)

Exactamundo!

What people fail to realise is that in the U.K we are basically having our rights reduced. A Bill similar to the Patriot Act was passed in record time and now in the courts, although not on paper, in practice we are now Guilty before proven innocent. The hallowed rights of an Englishman mean nothing, and just for everyone in the U.S thinking that Bushie and his fun laws suck, we don't just have to answer to British Law (which is confusing enough considering we still don't have a codified constitution) but we also have to answer to European Law, which sometimes takes precedent over British Law.

Anyway i have got off subject, please feel free to ignore my ramblings..

Your not off-topic at all.  The attempt in some countries, such as the UK, to legislate bigotry out of existence is a product of political correctness.  It's totally oppressive and it doesn't work.    In most places in the U.S., using the N-word is not a crime itself, but the result can lead to charges.  I mean, if you stood out on the street and started yelling "Hey n----, hey n----!," you'd probably get written up for "disturbing the peace," and being a "disorderly person."

Your not off-topic at all.  The attempt in some countries, such as the UK, to legislate bigotry out of existence is a product of political correctness.  It's totally oppressive and it doesn't work.    In most places in the U.S., using the N-word is not a crime itself, but the result can lead to charges.  I mean, if you stood out on the street and started yelling "Hey n----, hey n----!," you'd probably get written up for "disturbing the peace," and being a "disorderly person."


I don't see a problem with that at all. If someone's yelling that, yes my rights as a citizen is being infringed and I'm being made uncomfortable. If you don't want to get locked up, don't say it. Just like if you don't want to get arrested for DUI, don't drink and drive intoxicated.

By the way, anytime, Bobby!

Tanya

Saying a specific word is just speech, doing something like drink driving is an act, the difference between them is vast and allows us to do some whilst not doing others.

Saying a specific word is just speech, doing something like drink driving is an act, the difference between them is vast and allows us to do some whilst not doing others.


I don't think you understand fully the history of the use of the "N" word.  There are people around
today, my age and younger, who were alive in a time when if a white person called a black person
a "N" the black person could not so much as lift up his/her eyes to look that person in the face
with out the threat of a legal beating by the person who used the word.  Picture yourself now
you are out with your family, wife, children, parents, friends, and any white person for any reason
could call you a "N"  and if you so much as looked them in the eye you could be sent to jail, and
don't say it wasn't quite like that, it was, and probably still is in some places. You could be somewhere
and they could refer the name to you aging grandmother, grandfather, son, daughter, wife, and if you
in any way protested you could find yourself in jail, or dead. A white person could "discipline" a "N" for any perceived "insolence", that would include you, your wife, son, daughter, parents, grandparents,
uncles, aunts, etc. Black people could only stand by if a white person decided for whatever reason, that your child "needed a beating" and beat they did, and if you raised your hand in defense then they could see to it that your child was taken away from you and sent to "reform school" or sent you to jail. They did not bother to learn your name or care to, they just called you Sambo, and all you could do is bow your head and wait for the time to pass when you were away from them. If someone called an Irishman a mick, or an Italian a wop, or an Englishman a limey a fight could ensue without the fear of losing your life, your family, your home, and all you hold dear. That is why the "N" word carries so much more baggage than any other racial slur. So if the repercussion from centuries of this treatment is for us to say to you "do not use that word" then I would say the request is more than reasonable.

A similar turn of events in South Africa with the word "Boy" - typically used by white men when talking (down) to black men (I use the word "men" intentionally- we are talking adults, here).  The post-apartheid government has tried to ban the use of the word "boy" completely, because of its demeaning history and implications... trouble for them is that "boy" has a lot of other uses, too.  I don't know whether trying to ban the word only when used as a mode of address was considered, or considered workable.

Saying a specific word is just speech, doing something like drink driving is an act, the difference between them is vast and allows us to do some whilst not doing others.


  "Political Correctness", much like cultural relativism, is often problematic.  But PC isn't PC to some people; it's just an evolution of speech. Kind of like not calling a person stupid for believing in God. Sure, it may be true, but all humans are stupid in some way or another and it's left to the individual to decide how relevant or important that stupidity is. "Political Correctness", like cultural relativism, isn't a term I use often because I don't have occasion to single it out for examination. Every once in a while, something twists my conscience in a nasty way, but I often think of it more in terms of moral, and not PC.

Edit: Redundant comma...

A similar turn of events in South Africa with the word "Boy" - typically used by white men when talking (down) to black men (I use the word "men" intentionally- we are talking adults, here).  The post-apartheid government has tried to ban the use of the word "boy" completely, because of its demeaning history and implications... trouble for them is that "boy" has a lot of other uses, too.  I don't know whether trying to ban the word only when used as a mode of address was considered, or considered workable.


The same thing here.  I was on a job 2 years ago when a white supervisor(southern) referred
to one of the workers  a good ten years older than him as "boy".  We were all absolutely stunned.
I don't know what was in his mind, there were only a few African Americans on the job, but
everyone, black and white,  stopped working, the perpertrator was made to apologize, and I
believe he was quite surprised by the reaction.

I believe he was quite surprised by the reaction.

He probably was... it's fairly easy to grow up not realizing the prejudices of the group when everyone in the group shares the prejudice.  But it can show up pretty quickly once you leave the group.

He probably was... it's fairly easy to grow up not realizing the prejudices of the group when everyone in the group shares the prejudice.  But it can show up pretty quickly once you leave the group.


No, I don't buy it.  The super in question was in about 50 years old.  He is old enough and has
been around enough to know better.  He knew what he was saying and he thought he could
get away with it, he found out different, lost the respect of the people he was working with, and
wasn't on the job too much longer.  He probably has not changed his views, but I'm sure he has
learned to keep his mouth shut.

Just reminded me that on another forum, a guy got all uppity at being called a redneck, saying it was a racist slur...

I was wondering, just because only whites can literally be called "rednecks", does this actually make it a racist insult?  Especially if it's other white folks using the word...

Here we have two kinds of people, "Woodchucks"(native born) and "Flatlanders" (everyone else). There are some people who find these words offensive but many use them in a joking manner.



Cat

Sorry if offended anybody by the way, but i stand by what i said.

I can understand that in times that i wasn't part of, things were different, Blacks were, we'll one step up from slaves and were treated accordingly.

I don't condone this sort of behaviour all i am saying is that everybody should have the right to say whatever they want when they want. If that offends people then it offends people, of course, if a guy was on the street corner shouting the n word, im sure there would be a big long line of people wanting to knock his block off (rightly so) but thats his right to say it, and it is those peoples right to object to him saying it. If you go to the extremes of stopping people saying specific words then surley they can't have different politcal opinions, that could offend people. They can't support a different football team, that would offend people...

Here we have two kinds of people, "Woodchucks"(native born) and "Flatlanders" (everyone else). There are some people who find these words offensive but many use them in a joking manner.



Cat

Are you talking about Vermont?  I've never heard of Woodchucks and Flatlanders, but I've never lived in Vermont myself.

Are you talking about Vermont?  I've never heard of Woodchucks and Flatlanders, but I've never lived in Vermont myself.



Oh yeah. Sometimes it can be quite humorous and other times, people take it too seriously. As for me (and Carlos) I fall into the "flatlander" catagory even though I have been living here for over 10 (and in Carlos' case almost 20) years.



Cat

On the flip side of the "n" word, I went to college with a girl who grew up in a predominately black neighborhood, was one of only a handful of whites in her high school and basically grew up with other blacks calling each other the "n" word.  At a party, she referred to someone as it and honestly couldn't understand the almost riot that ensued because of it.  She had grown up using it, and none of her black friends ever said anything to her about it so she honestly didn't know how offensive it was to some people.


There is a marked difference between a black calling another black a "N". If I called an Italian a w*p
I would expect a very negative reaction, but I do know Italians who call each other w*p.  As for redneck
The term is not as explosive be cause there aren't to many cases of a black person calling a white person
a redneck and the white person knowing to look down, not argue, fight back for fear of legalized
retribution.

Insert Quote
Sorry if offended anybody by the way, but i stand by what i said.

I can understand that in times that i wasn't part of, things were different, Blacks were, we'll one step up from slaves and were treated accordingly.

  Say what  ???

Redneck signifies region, not entirely race. Not all whites would be called rednecks. Besides, whites use this term as well. It's an universal (as far as the U.S. goes) term. Just like a southerner calling someone from the North a Yankee.

Members of groups tend to use negative words to try to take back ownership of the word. Hello, some women call each other a "b&ch"; however, if a male called a woman the same thing, an adverse reaction would occur. The same goes for homosexuals, Blacks, ethnically-diverse whites, etc. The excuse that you were raised near the group does not mean you can use the word. Common sense would dictate that.

Tanya

Using an obvious ethnic slur or playing on an obviously outdated stereotype is bad, on one hand.  On the other, when I can't use ordinary terms for a person or thing because they might offend people--then political correctness has indeed gone too far.  (Should I have avoided the "on one hand" phrase to appease some amputee who might read this, for example?)  I'm not "visually challenged and differently abled", for Pete's sake:  I wear glasses and use a wheelchair, and would prefer a neutral-but-accurate description of my problems.

Using an obvious ethnic slur or playing on an obviously outdated stereotype is bad, on one hand.  On the other, when I can't use ordinary terms for a person or thing because they might offend people--then political correctness has indeed gone too far.  (Should I have avoided the "on one hand" phrase to appease some amputee who might read this, for example?)  I'm not "visually challenged and differently abled", for Pete's sake:  I wear glasses and use a wheelchair, and would prefer a neutral-but-accurate description of my problems.


It seems that complaints voiced on this thread can be put into two (at least ) distinct categories:

On one hand is what you're expressing: annoyance at other people's being over-cautious/over-sensitive in their language and actions.  While I can understand your feeling patronized and/or condescended to, I think this world will be vastly improved when we can all say that our worst complaint is that other people are always going TOO far trying to treat us with respect and sensitivity.

On the other hand is the idea that WE individually feel restricted in what we can say or do without affecting others. To which I say: Barring the rule of law, we are all perfectly free to say and do what we please.  We can try to be sensitive to and understanding of others... or not.  As others have said, it's just a matter of common sense. 

Sometimes, people will get annoyed at or angered by what you have to say. That's life.  If I refer to my good friend as '******', his friends are likely to feel insulted and be pissed off.  If I try to be 'sensitive' and refer my other friend as 'African American' instead of 'black', he may feel patronized and be pissed off.   

People are all different -- they're activated by different things.  What can you do?

Sorry if offended anybody by the way, but i stand by what i said.

I can understand that in times that i wasn't part of, things were different, Blacks were, we'll one step up from slaves and were treated accordingly.



Have to revisit this.  I don't know if what you have written is what you meant..  What is appears to say is
that the treatment Blacks recieved was ok because, since they had been slaves, to treat them that way
was ok.  It was never ok.  I also want to point out that slavery ended "legally" at the end of the Civil War.
One hundred years later the same treatment was being accorded.  This kind of behaviour was given
a blank check right up into the 1970's so.  I would say that that  is many steps beyond slavery. This is
not ancient history, it is living history.

Ok i have been misinterpreted there.. Yes slavery was very much wrong, kind of made a mockery of the constitution.

My point, and i will try tom clarify this as well as i can, is that nowadays everybody should have the right to say what they want where they want to whom they want. Even if it may be offensive, i don't advocate racial hatred, i don't advicate any sort of hatefull speech (except against Cubs & Forest fans  ;) ) but people should be allowed to say what they want when they want. Government shouldnt intervene and put restrictions on people right to free speech.

If the language results in actions harmful to individuals, yes, I believe governments have the right to step in. A man can use the word "b!ch' continously in his daily vocabulary; however, should he become desensitized to this word and rape and/or assault a woman (or even a young female child), something has to be done. Furthermore, language can also be used as violence against an individual or group. Why would we want to advocate a world where one can be verbally violent with another and look away. That's a step backwards in social advancement. You can say what you want, but you better muffle it, say it to yourself, or deal with the consequences.

Tanya

The best thing I do is if I met someone of a different race/sex/disability and have said something/done something ignorant in front of them, I apologise sincerely and don't say/do it in front of them again.  :)

But this girl was white.  It's just that she grew up in a predominately black neighborhood and went to a predominately black school.  She just didn't realize that although she and her friends called each other the "n" word, it was not acceptable outside of her circle of friends.


I went to a predominately black/hispanic (Though I'm hispanic) highschool, and know that the "n" word is taboo. Even if most of my Afirican American friends have said it.

But I don't know why rappers use that word a lot. Does anybody know?

I hope you don't mean the Chicago Cubs :o ;)


LMAO Cubs Suck A Tradition Since 1908!

Ok i have been misinterpreted there.. Yes slavery was very much wrong, kind of made a mockery of the constitution.

My point, and i will try tom clarify this as well as i can, is that nowadays everybody should have the right to say what they want where they want to whom they want. Even if it may be offensive, i don't advocate racial hatred, i don't advicate any sort of hatefull speech (except against Cubs & Forest fans  ;) ) but people should be allowed to say what they want when they want. Government shouldnt intervene and put restrictions on people right to free speech.



Have you read "The Social Contract" by John Locke?  Brilliant. What Tanya wrote is basically what
he wrote in the social contract.  When people live in a society there always are rules of behaviour
that are used to create a civil society. 

Yeah being a major Cardinals fan i just had to try it, so i wanderd up the Hancock building with my Pujols Jersey on and then took a stroll around the big ships.. i was amazed, nobody botherd me, seriously you are all so lucky that your sports haven't been ruined.

Here in England at every football game there is at least some kind of altercation, it is rare for there to be no trouble. Of course you have heard about the deaths at grounds, that dosent really happen anymore, but i went to an away game against my teams arch rivals Nottingam *spit on the...* Forest and after the match we had to be led away through a tunnel contructed of basically cops in riot gear with there shields above us. During the match, Rocket, Bottles and coins were all thrown from the away area in to the home area and back. (Our fans were as bad, which is shamefull) but it is awful.

Whereas i was able to walk around Chiacgo in a Cardinals jersey have no trouble whatsoever, and unbelievably, The Cards have whommped the Cubs about a week before i went. Seriously count yourselfs all very lucky.

Oh and one more thing, i know football, hockey, basketball are all v. exepensive now (well pro games) but again count yourselfs lucky, whilst in St.Louis i went to about 20 baseball games, often if i went down an hour before it started i could go in for $5 and even in the half decent seats i never paid more than $20.

Last night i paid the equivilant of around $64 for two mediocre seats to an un-important football match (i say un-important because there wasn't much riding on it)

So there we go, get back on topic now!!!

Here in England at every football game there is at least some kind of altercation, it is rare for there to be no trouble. Of course you have heard about the deaths at grounds, that dosent really happen anymore, but i went to an away game against my teams arch rivals Nottingam *spit on the...* Forest and after the match we had to be led away through a tunnel contructed of basically cops in riot gear with there shields above us. During the match, Rocket, Bottles and coins were all thrown from the away area in to the home area and back. (Our fans were as bad, which is shamefull) but it is awful.


You will be glad to know that Nottingham Forest aren't doing that well at the moment (second from bottom?).

Watch yourself, mister...them's fightin words around these parts ;) ;D





Let's get him, Cheer. ;)

2 Chicago Women, Me.. and a Baseball bat... with my reputation  ::)

I'm gonna say - No Comment -

For fear of Legal action

The same thing here.  I was on a job 2 years ago when a white supervisor(southern) referred to one of the workers  a good ten years older than him as "boy".  We were all absolutely stunned.

I don't know what was in his mind, there were only a few African Americans on the job, but everyone, black and white,  stopped working, the perpertrator was made to apologize, and I believe he was quite surprised by the reaction.


Part of that is simply the Southern way of speaking.

Down here, hearing somebody refered to as "Boy" is not to unusual.  And it is not a racial thing either.  A few times, my boss (who was born in New York, and is 62) has refered to me as "Boy".  Did I take offense to it?  Of course not.  Because I know that it is simply a way of speach down here, when refering to somebody younger.

I have often used the word "son" when talking to a child.  It is nothing derogatory, it is simply a convenient pronoun, nothing else.  And the funny thing is, I will try hard to *NOT* call a black child "son", because of the worry of it being taken "the wrong way".

A lot of people do not really understand "Southern Dialect", and how it is used.  I think that some look so hard to find something objectionable in it, that they see it where it does not exist.  Down here, it is a curious mixture of almost extreme formality, and at the same time extreme familiarity.  The manager of the resteraunt I normally eat at routinely calls me "Honey" or "Sugar".  But for her, this is simply how she talks.

And I for one, do not want to see that change.

For the most part, "Boy" in Southern speach is simply used when an elder talks to/about somebody younger then them.  It is also often used when a manager/supervisor talks to somebody who works under them.  It is just part of the dialect.

Now if I can just figure out why "The N Word" is bad for me to say, while others can call each other the same word with a smile and a laugh.  Heck, some even make millions of dollars singing while saying the word constantly.

On the flip side of the "n" word, I went to college with a girl who grew up in a predominately black neighborhood, was one of only a handful of whites in her high school and basically grew up with other blacks calling each other the "n" word.  At a party, she referred to someone as it and honestly couldn't understand the almost riot that ensued because of it.  She had grown up using it, and none of her black friends ever said anything to her about it so she honestly didn't know how offensive it was to some people.


It was not that it was used, more like that a WHITE person used it.  I am sure that if your friend was black, not a word would have been said about it.

Just reminded me that on another forum, a guy got all uppity at being called a redneck, saying it was a racist slur...

I was wondering, just because only whites can literally be called "rednecks", does this actually make it a racist insult?  Especially if it's other white folks using the word...


"Redneck" is not a racial word.  In fact, I know a great many people (both black and white) who refer to themselves as "rednecks".  And most of them claim it with pride.

But because of stereotypes, most people think of rednecks as poor white trash, who have 4 30+ year old cars on the lawn (maybe 1 of them actually works), are married to their cousin, and go to Klan rallys on the weekend.

I guess just like the "N word", it is ok for a redneck to call another one, but not for outsiders.  But I know several black rednecks, so there is nothing racial about that, unless you have never met a REAL redneck, and only go by stereotypes.

BTW: I have yet to be offended by a generic racial term for whites.  To this day, I still laugh when I watch the old shows from the 70's where the term "Honky" was used.  If there was ever a silly racist word, that is the one.  :D

"Redneck" is not a racial word.  In fact, I know a great many people (both black and white) who refer to themselves as "rednecks".  And most of them claim it with pride.

But because of stereotypes, most people think of rednecks as poor white trash, who have 4 30+ year old cars on the lawn (maybe 1 of them actually works), are married to their cousin, and go to Klan rallys on the weekend.

I guess just like the "N word", it is ok for a redneck to call another one, but not for outsiders.  But I know several black rednecks, so there is nothing racial about that, unless you have never met a REAL redneck, and only go by stereotypes.

BTW: I have yet to be offended by a generic racial term for whites.  To this day, I still laugh when I watch the old shows from the 70's where the term "Honky" was used.  If there was ever a silly racist word, that is the one.  :D

White men never got lynched because they got accused of whistling at Black women.  Little differences like that make racial slurs against whites somewhat less potent!
::)

I'm sorry, Mushroom, but once again, we are living in two entirely different universes!  ??? . The word, boy, is used to denigrate any grown Black male as a means to signify some unworthiness of recognized as an adult. Yes, I know and understand Southern dialect. I'm an African-American woman with family entrenched in the South from Louisiana to North Carolina. I have seen it used in the most negative fashion. To say that I don't understand the use of the word in one fashion is to completely and arrogantly deny the experiences of those who had the disrespect either thrown at them or those they love or know.

Once again, I must reiterate, if you have never experienced it, you can not say that such experiences or use of language does not exist.

Peace and blessings,
Tanya

White men never got lynched because they got accused of whistling at Black women.  Little differences like that make racial slurs against whites somewhat less potent!
::)


Exactly right Max.  It just doesn't seem to sink in that all black males were referred to as "boy", They were almost never addressed as Mr.  Any twelve year old white child could refer to any grown man as boy, and if the black man were to tell him he had to address him as Mr. he (the black man) could have been taken out for insolence.  That is the reality of "boy".

I guess I just don't see things the way that others do.  For one, that is because I do not go out of my way to find things negative.

One good example I can think of is a common word that is used in the Marines.  And that word is "you".

"You" is a very common pronoun to Marines.  Most of the time, it is simply used to get the attention of somebody who's name you do not know, or to get the attention of several people at once.  Good examples are "Hey you, get that for me, will ya?"  Or "Hey you guys, come over here."

However, as any Marine can tell you from boot camp, Drill instructors say it in a totally different way.  In boot camp, "you" is used almost as a way to dehumanize the recruit.  The Drill Instructor knows the name of the person in question, but uses it in a tone that basically says "you are just another thing to me".  "Come here YOU!" is often heard.  But it is impossible to capture the difference in how it is said in writing.  But if you heard the two different ways it was said, you would instantly recognize it.

I guess you are all right.  I am just another ignorant ass, who can't tell the difference between simply useing a word, and how it was once used to humiliate people.  Maybe I should just crawl right back under my rock, since I obviously do not have a clue.

Have fun under the rock, if you feel you must live there, instead of learning from others. Maybe that's the easiest thing to do for you. But, I would prefer that you stay from underneath the rock and converse. That's the easiest thing to do.

Furthermore, I personally do not go searching for the negative. However, I am not so arrogant that I refuse to listen or found out actualities in the experiences of others, rather than rely solely on my own direct experiences. Also, as the daughter of a Marine, I understand the use of the word "you" just fine. I've heard it for all of my life. Yet, that word doesn't demean me as a woman nor as an adult b/c of the ramifications of it.

Tanya

Have fun under the rock, if you feel you must live there, instead of learning from others. Maybe that's the easiest thing to do for you. But, I would prefer that you stay from underneath the rock and converse. That's the easiest thing to do.

Furthermore, I personally do not go searching for the negative. However, I am not so arrogant that I refuse to listen or found out actualities in the experiences of others, rather than rely solely on my own direct experiences. Also, as the daughter of a Marine, I understand the use of the word "you" just fine. I've heard it for all of my life. Yet, that word doesn't demean me as a woman nor as an adult b/c of the ramifications of it.

Tanya


I think 'shroom was saying that he had an epiphany and realized that he now understands why the
word "boy" carries such heat in the African American community.  His understanding came about when he equated it to his treatment in the Marines with the use of the word you. He is admitting it, as many will not. 

I think 'shroom was saying that he had an epiphany and realized that he now understands why the
word "boy" carries such heat in the African American community.  His understanding came about when he equated it to his treatment in the Marines with the use of the word you. He is admitting it, as many will not. 


Actually, it is an epiphany of another type.  But it is not an original one.  I have had this one in here before.

It is more along the lines of how some people are so totally enclosed in their own belief, they will not even look at another point of view.  On how they are so sure that they are right, and that everybody else in the world who does not agree with them is totally wrong.

To me, things are not "black and white".  In fact, most of the world is in various shades of gray.  But I also believe in basic human goodness, and that the majority of people are good.  And that when they say things that others may find objectionable, most people do not mean the things that other people read into what is said.

But here, a lot of the people only see things as black and white.  You are good or bad, right or wrong, Republican or Democrat, intelligent or stupid, enlightened or ignorant.  There is no middle.  If somebody does not agree with the world view of some in here, they are ignorant savages.

My point with the "you" comment was that it is not the WORD that is bad, as much as how it is used.  This is part of the dichotomy that this country faces.

If some words are bad and evil, then why do so many people accept and even embrace some useage, then condemn other usages of the same word?  Or even worse, some people will even lash out and attack when they incorrectly think that a certain word was used.

How would you feel if I said somebody was niggardly?

I see what you are saying Mushroom. There are a lot of gray areas when dealing with so many issues. I definitely agree that there is middle ground to many areas, and that some many take it to the extreme. I also agree that people are basically good and the intention to hurt may not necessarily exist. Yet, I do not agree that if one disagrees with another, they are ignorant savages. I believe they have experiences that may not necessarily mirror mine.

However, a word can carry so many definitions, known/unknown and popular/unpopular, that one must be smart enough to understand the context and audience in which the word is used. With that said, knowledge is so much more important. Know the context and audience before you say it.

As for the word, niggardly, I know the word describes a stingy or miserly person and was used before the 20th century. So, if I'm conversing with another individual that knows the definition of the word and applies it accordingly, I wouldn't be so bothered (especially given that it's an archaic word, I wouldn't quite expect the usage anyway). However, being that many people do not know the entire English language as they think, someone may apply the word via their own hateful definition of "acting like a ******" (trust me, I've heard it done). The second example explains the additional definitions of word usage, which creates the grey area. At that point, you have to look at the context, audience, and person when you look at political correctness or incorrectness.

Another example is the use of the word b@!ch, some people use it as a means of saying "that's my girlfriend - don't touch her" or "she's gets what she wants" (when describing a desirable trait). But, others use it as a means of putting down a woman or subjecting her to emotional/physical/spiritual violence.

That's the grey area that makes words so iffy. Just take in experience and go from there, I guess. Didn't mean to get so long-winded about it, but as an English major, I've had to subject myself to the murder of the language of which I love.

Peace and Blessings,
Tanya

If some words are bad and evil, then why do so many people accept and even embrace some useage, then condemn other usages of the same word?  Or even worse, some people will even lash out and attack when they incorrectly think that a certain word was used.

How would you feel if I said somebody was niggardly?


I, being educated beyond my station, would not feel anything at the term niggardly, but I do know many
who do not know the term.  Now, how would you feel if any child at all were able to refer to you, or anyone in you family as "boy" or *n* and tell you what to do and you had to refer to that child as "sir" or "miss* and do what they told you to do.  If you didn't you or/and your family could legally be slapped, beaten, put in jail(the law was not on your side), or in the extreme lynched by thugs who never feared retribution for the act because they were just protecting the "truth liberty and the American way".  You must remember too, that at the time this was common(in my lifetime) the definition of a "real American" was "free, white, and 21"

As for the word, niggardly, I know the word describes a stingy or miserly person and was used before the 20th century. So, if I'm conversing with another individual that knows the definition of the word and applies it accordingly, I wouldn't be so bothered (especially given that it's an archaic word, I wouldn't quite expect the usage anyway). However, being that many people do not know the entire English language as they think, someone may apply the word via their own hateful definition of "acting like a ******" (trust me, I've heard it done). The second example explains the additional definitions of word usage, which creates the grey area. At that point, you have to look at the context, audience, and person when you look at political correctness or incorrectness.

Another example is the use of the word b@!ch, some people use it as a means of saying "that's my girlfriend - don't touch her" or "she's gets what she wants" (when describing a desirable trait). But, others use it as a means of putting down a woman or subjecting her to emotional/physical/spiritual violence.


Well, the first written references to the word date to the 13th century.  That means it was more then likely in use for a while before that.  It is a conjunction of 2 Middle English words, "Nig" and "Ignon".  And it does mean miserly.  An even earlier version of the wrod exists, "hnøgger", which is Old Norse for "stingy".

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nig1.htm

And it is not all that archaic.  I remember my grandparents useing the word many times, and I often hear it from others of their generation.  So it is largely in the last generation that it has fallen out of common use.  But one person who did like it was J. R. R. Tolkein.  He used it many times in his "Lord Of The Rings" books.  Chaucer also used it in his writings ("So parfite joye may no negarde have." — Troylus and Cryseyde.).

However, that has not prevented a lot of people from getting in trouble for useing it correctly.  In 1999, David Howard (a staff member of Washington DC Mayor Anthony Williams) was forced to resign after he said it in a staff meeting.  After his resignation, he stated that in the future, he will use the word "parsimonious".  (I wonder if that word will offend Anglican clergy)  :P

http://www.adversity.net/special/niggardly.htm
http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/27/word.flap/

And in 2000, the Australian on-line web site "PC Powerplay" got in trouble because they said
"In a bid to bolster sales, Intel is bundling the Pentium 4 with a niggardly 64Mb of PC-800 RDRAM."  This once again shows that with the exception of the US, the word has fallen out of common useage.  But it is not dead everywhere.
Again in 2002, a teacher in North Carolina was reprimanded for the word.  She was discussing literary characters.  Now there can be no doubt that Ebinezer Scrooge acted niggardly.  But apparently you can't say that anymore.

http://www.adversity.net/special/niggardly_again.htm

In fact, the word is still often used in England.  In June 1995, an issue of "The Economist" got into heat on this side of the Atlantic with the following statement:

"During the 1980s, when service industries consumed about 85% of the $1 trillion invested in I.T. in the United States, productivity growth averaged a niggardly 0.8% a year."

They got in trouble also for an unfortunate hyphen in another issue.  In an article about second-generation Hispanic-Americans, they said "spicing their language with a little Spanish is the easiest way of being cool."  Unfortunately, the word "spicing" was hyphenated for a line break, leaving the word "spic".  While this was the correct place to hyphenate, it caused problems with some American readers.  In fact, after the incidents, the Editor responded "Why do we get such letters only from America?"

As the goes, "We are seperated by a common language".  Over there, "******" and "Fag" are commonly used to refer to cigarettes.  And instead of Dams, they have Dikes.  Heaven help anybody that uses those words over here.

Of course, they are also growing more wise as to how there are words that can no longer be used.  When originally published in 1939, one of Agatha Christie's great thrillers was called "Ten Little ******s".  It was even published as a play in England under that same title as recently as 1962.  But when it was first published in the US in 1940, it was given the title "And Then There Were None".  Although the story still takes place on "****** Island".

And until the mid 1960's, "******" was a common name for black dogs in England.  In fact, the 1954 Brittish movie "The Dam Busters" featured a dog with that name.  That movie is almost forgotten now, but anybody who has seen "Pink Floyd: The Wall" has seen clips of it, and also of the (in)famous dog.  In fact, the last line of the movie is "******'s dead."

And then there is also the word "S******ing". 

So where is  this ^ free association diatribe supposed to be going?

So where is  this ^ free association diatribe supposed to be going?


I'm wondering the same thing as well  ???  ::)

I'm wondering the same thing as well  ???  ::)




He seems to be saying he finds the term "n" reprehensible and he would never call anyone
a "n" but Agathe Christie used the term "n" and there are a couple of words that sound like
"n" and "n"..."n"..."n".  Seems like alot of "n" going on for someone who never uses that word.

I think racism is a social issue not a technical issue.

I think racism is a social issue not a technical issue.


He'll be gettin' a bit mardy, feel we're gangin' up. :)

I wasn't ganging up on him. I was just sharing my thoughts that's all (and yes, they can be quite strong  ;) ). But, I hope he returns. I like a great debate.

Tanya

I wasn't ganging up on him. I was just sharing my thoughts that's all (and yes, they can be quite strong  ;) ). But, I hope he returns. I like a great debate.

Tanya


Wasn't being serious.  I actually don't think we are being tough enough, he just doesn't seem to get
it, and I can't figure out why.  I work in a profession dominated by white males, we sometimes have
spirited conversations, but there are somethings they all get, the use of the "n" word is one.  Ty Cobb
once jumped into the stands at a baseball game and beat up a man in a wheel chair.  When he went
into court his action was deemed understandable because the man in the wheel chair called him a
"n".  The judge let him off because he believed Cobb, never shy about using the word himself, had
the right to beat up anyone, even a man in a wheel chair, for calling him that.  Cobb knew the power
of the word, the man in the wheelchair did, and the judge did.  Justifyable in a court of law for a white
man to beat up a man in a wheel chair, but a black could be lynched for the for insolence for looking a
white man in the eye for using the same word against him..Living history.

He seems to be saying he finds the term "n" reprehensible and he would never call anyone a "n" but Agathe Christie used the term "n" and there are a couple of words that sound like "n" and "n"..."n"..."n".   Seems like alot of "n" going on for someone who never uses that word.


There is a big difference between the way Agatha Christie uses it, and the way others use it.  For one, it is the name of a very famous book.  And in this book, it is the name of a fictional place.  Believe me when I say that if it was a PERSON, I would not have used it.

And once again, in reference to "The Dam Busters", it was once again, it was a name.  And at the time being portrayed in the movie, it was a common one.

Myself, I am glad that the name of the book (and movies) have been changed to "And Then There Were None".  But on it's original issue in England, it maintained the original title.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037515/combined

Thanks, Mushroom. I'll check it out!

Tanya

Growing up in the UK, we had a lot of exposure to an author of children's books called Enid Blyton. Some of her tales were Brer Rabbit-derived, some were about Noddy, some about the Famous Five, others were about Golliwogs. Two of our junior school teachers would not read these books to us, for reasons that were never really explained properly. I was just wondering whether anyone out there has read any of these books recently, and if they noticed racist overtones in any of the books? I know they had to PC Noddy to some extent before televising it.

I still own many of these books, albeit in storage at the other end of the country. I can't imagine the more 'racially sensitive' of these books are still on sale (anything referring to Golliwogs has been virtually eradicated in the UK some time ago), and even though they are out-dated and possibly offensive to some parties, I would not like to see them re-published in a PC form. Whilst I approve of using language not likely to offend others, I strongly disapprove of re-writing history, just because things are different now. I have seen Song of the South, my daughter loved it, she's too young to appreciate racial prejudice; I can't imagine a PC version would hold the attention nearly as well.

The main thing that bothers me about PC is that the exponents don't seem to query whether the potentially aggrieved party is actually offended by what's being said; an example is areas in the UK where dark-coloured refuse sacks are banned from being called 'black bags' by the council- an Afro-Carribean friend of mine who works for the council in one of these areas thinks this is ridiculous, and says he doesn't understand why people of a similar ethnic descent to himself would be offended by this. I won't stand for this sort of messing with my language; if a bag is black in colour, I will call it black. It is noticeable, as in an earlier thread, that PC seems to be biased towards not offending non-whites- our councils are quite happy to deem that it's unacceptable to use the word 'black' in reference to black-coloured items, yet they still use the term 'white' for white-coloured items. I'm for non-offensive equality, not PC or Positive Discrimination! Rant over...

During the match, Rocket, Bottles and coins were all thrown from the away area in to the home area and back.
Off message, I know, but...Hey, you must have dead posh football fans there. Throwing Rocket? The most exotic veg I've seen thrown at soccer matches is the occasional rotten lettuce, do your lot all shop at Waitrose or something??  ;D

Golliwog is such a cute sounding word. I would never have guessed it's definition would be something so terrible.

A golliwog is like a black doll.. and of course they are banned now because of two reasons.. firstly because they are black and secondly the word 'wog' this is ridiculous.. and im sure there is some better reason for them being banned but this seems to be the general consensus.



Off message, I know, but...Hey, you must have dead posh football fans there. Throwing Rocket? The most exotic veg I've seen thrown at soccer matches is the occasional rotten lettuce, do your lot all shop at Waitrose or something?? ;D


Ok add an S to Rocket and you will see why i was a bit Tickamafied off

There is a big difference between the way Agatha Christie uses it, and the way others use it.  For one, it is the name of a very famous book.  And in this book, it is the name of a fictional place.  Believe me when I say that if it was a PERSON, I would not have used it.

And once again, in reference to "The Dam Busters", it was once again, it was a name.  And at the time being portrayed in the movie, it was a common one.

Myself, I am glad that the name of the book (and movies) have been changed to "And Then There Were None".  But on it's original issue in England, it maintained the original title.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037515/combined


Yes, the word was used without thought all the time.  I knew about the Agatha Christie book.  My father
told me about it when it was on tv here as "Ten Little Indians"  Just because it was used as the title of
a book and was accepted by the white population as meaningless did not mean it was considered the same
in the black community.  It was on a par with "Birth of a Nation".  In the thirties the term was common and accepted by the white community, as were the accompanying stereotypes, apartheid and lynchings.

Growing up in the UK, we had a lot of exposure to an author of children's books called Enid Blyton. Some of her tales were Brer Rabbit-derived, some were about Noddy, some about the Famous Five, others were about Golliwogs. Two of our junior school teachers would not read these books to us, for reasons that were never really explained properly. I was just wondering whether anyone out there has read any of these books recently, and if they noticed racist overtones in any of the books? I know they had to PC Noddy to some extent before televising it.

I still own many of these books, albeit in storage at the other end of the country. I can't imagine the more 'racially sensitive' of these books are still on sale (anything referring to Golliwogs has been virtually eradicated in the UK some time ago), and even though they are out-dated and possibly offensive to some parties, I would not like to see them re-published in a PC form. Whilst I approve of using language not likely to offend others, I strongly disapprove of re-writing history, just because things are different now. I have seen Song of the South, my daughter loved it, she's too young to appreciate racial prejudice; I can't imagine a PC version would hold the attention nearly as well.



My husband has quite a few Noddy books from when he was a child.  We have read them to our children. The first few books in the series have the golliwog characters in them and then they are replaced.  Mr Golly sells his garage to Mr Sparks in one of the books and they just do not appear in any crowd scenes, the train no longer goes through Golliwog town as it does in the first book.

Interestingly (ish) we have two version of Noddy and Father Christmas.  In one there are Golliwogs and in the other these are replaced with Teddy Bears.  The usual reason given is that the golliwogs were always naughty toys but this really isn't the case.  In this particular book one is singing in the choir to Father Christmas and they are just in the party crowd at the tea table in another picture.

Then of course we have "Little Black Sambo" which is actually a nice story, my parents read
it to me as a child.  But the name Sambo was adulterated in its use by segments of the white
population to denigrate blacks.  A white friend insisted that it was not a racist term, though of
course he never felt the sting of it, then one day in a store I found a book called "Little Brave
Sambo"  which would have been nice except for some reason when Sambo became brave
he also became white. Can anyone tell me why "Little Brave Sambo" couldn't be black? ???

Then of course we have "Little Black Sambo" which is actually a nice story, my parents read
it to me as a child.  But the name Sambo was adulterated in its use by segments of the white
population to denigrate blacks.  A white friend insisted that it was not a racist term, though of
course he never felt the sting of it, then one day in a store I found a book called "Little Brave
Sambo"  which would have been nice except for some reason when Sambo became brave
he also became white. Can anyone tell me why "Little Brave Sambo" couldn't be black? ???


Because it would suggest that anyone besides whites would have strength.

Tanya