I guess so, its what white people get for being so apologetic these days. It's not like THEY were slavers is it? although the generation who was alive and racist during the Martin Luther King days are still around, so maybe it'll become a little more balanced when the REAL guilty ones die off.
Should "Cracker" be a racial slur?
- Thread starter Hucket
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Racism, and political correctness, are both stupid things.
what I hate is all these black people-mind you, I'm not racist-who are allowed to use the N-word freely to talk to each other, and many Asians are allowed to say it. I hate this whole, "It's only racist if a white guy said it", thing.
what I hate is all these black people-mind you, I'm not racist-who are allowed to use the N-word freely to talk to each other, and many Asians are allowed to say it. I hate this whole, "It's only racist if a white guy said it", thing.
It is a racial slur, just because white people pretty much aren't allowed to be offended due to the whole "white guilt" thing, doesn't mean it isn't derogatory to a race.
Well it won't be, because these days 'racism' is thrown about randomly just so people who aren't white can make white people who, you know, don't care about what race you are feel guilty about doing so as well as get some sympathy.
No, it shouldn't, because quite frankly, it's just funny. As a black guy, I've never met any white person who finds that offensive. Most of them just laugh at the use of it.
It is a racial slur, or at least it can be and I've heard it used as a racial slur.
But seriously, why would anyone argue for the inclusion of more racial slurs into the language? Are we so divided and hate filled nowadays that there aren't enough ways to insult each other, we have to start finding new ones?
Racism is one of the worst hang ups humanity is ever had, and the only way out is education and possibly nuking the Deep South of America (if you can't tell that that was a joke get your head out of your arse). Not some petty childish 'you called me a bad name so I'm going to find a bad name to call you back.'
Tell them both to fuck off and stop adding to the problem.
But seriously, why would anyone argue for the inclusion of more racial slurs into the language? Are we so divided and hate filled nowadays that there aren't enough ways to insult each other, we have to start finding new ones?
Racism is one of the worst hang ups humanity is ever had, and the only way out is education and possibly nuking the Deep South of America (if you can't tell that that was a joke get your head out of your arse). Not some petty childish 'you called me a bad name so I'm going to find a bad name to call you back.'
Tell them both to fuck off and stop adding to the problem.
No. Under no circumstances should "cracker" become a racial slur. Namely because it already identifies a group of people.
See the Hollywood "hackers" who break into computers? Those are crackers.
Real hackers are just tinkerers. They like to change things.
I had never even heard of this "racist" alternate meaning actually. Reading this thread, it's supposed to apply to white people? Well I don't give a rat's hat what anyone calls me.
See the Hollywood "hackers" who break into computers? Those are crackers.
Real hackers are just tinkerers. They like to change things.
I had never even heard of this "racist" alternate meaning actually. Reading this thread, it's supposed to apply to white people? Well I don't give a rat's hat what anyone calls me.
I always thought it was just an insult, desribing a person that is either psychically weak or has deterimination that crumbles at the first sign of trouble and runs away
I'm not the biggest Daniel Tosh fan, but I think he nailed this one:
"Oh no, someone called me a cracker. That reminds me of when my people had power and land! Well that just ruined my day."
"Oh no, someone called me a cracker. That reminds me of when my people had power and land! Well that just ruined my day."
And they had a long history of oppressing anyone who was white. What exactly is your point? That racisim is okay so long as it's directed at people who are white, seeing only the color of their skin, ignoring their ethnicity and their socioeconomic background? White indentured servants (practically slaves) worked the plantations before the taking of African slaves became popular, and was still a common practice in the north even after that. The Irish and the Scottish were oppressed by the British long before Africa was ever discovered.Maphysto said:
White culture is not the only culture with a history of oppression, slavery was a common practice amongst many African tribes, and we don't need to look further than the Japanese to see that persecution is not a trait restricted to one single race. Their treatment of the Koreans and the Chinese long before WWII is indicative of that. Look at Libya or is it Liberia? A colony created by abolitionists and former slave owners, given in reparation to freed African slaves. Returned to their homeland after generations of oppression, only to turn around and inflict the same kind of oppression on those Africans already living on that land. We could say that they learned it from "the whities" but that would be taking too much credit.
People practice oppression, prejudice, and hate. It doesn't matter what race they are, it doesn't make it okay. People should be judged as individuals and their treatment of other human beings. There's a great deal of resentment that is born simply from statements like that. No one likes to be accused of something, especially something that they had no control over. We can say, "Well, your ancestors persecuted them, now it's their turn to persecute you and you can't say anything about it. HA!" But it only becomes a driving force for people too turn back to those ways. Look at the Germans. There's a rising movement there right now that's calling for a return to Nazism. It's small but it's there. Why? Because they are tired of being treated like they are the root of all evil. Because they are tired of being called to account for and be guilty for something they could not control. They are tired of not being allowed to have any national pride. Especially when they look around and see that no other culture is any better than they are.
*gets off soap box.
I don't find it offensive, but it was developed to be used for Europeans as a racial slur, so it is a racial slur.
Since you say the other side of your argument was an African American, I'll mention that n***** was not initially a racial slur. It just means the same thing as negro and colored, dark skinned, and while neither of those are seen in good light either, they don't quite ruin your life if you say them.
Even today, it is only counted as derogatory if said by a European, and while it is wrong to judge someone because of their race, and some Europeans do use the word in this sense, I could say someone on the street is "the friendliest African American I have ever met,"
and mean it to be more offensive than "What's up n*****" (as demonstrated by the fact that it is often ok when both the speaker and subject are African American).
Cracker however, when referring to European Americans, has always been intended to be derogatory (specifically towards southerners). While Europeans may not find it offensive, that doesn't mean the nature of the word is any less offensive.
Just to clarify, both Cracker and N***** are racial slurs, but I find it disturbing that I have been desensitized to one while I am offended to even type the other.
Since you say the other side of your argument was an African American, I'll mention that n***** was not initially a racial slur. It just means the same thing as negro and colored, dark skinned, and while neither of those are seen in good light either, they don't quite ruin your life if you say them.
Even today, it is only counted as derogatory if said by a European, and while it is wrong to judge someone because of their race, and some Europeans do use the word in this sense, I could say someone on the street is "the friendliest African American I have ever met,"
and mean it to be more offensive than "What's up n*****" (as demonstrated by the fact that it is often ok when both the speaker and subject are African American).
Cracker however, when referring to European Americans, has always been intended to be derogatory (specifically towards southerners). While Europeans may not find it offensive, that doesn't mean the nature of the word is any less offensive.
Just to clarify, both Cracker and N***** are racial slurs, but I find it disturbing that I have been desensitized to one while I am offended to even type the other.
Whenever it's used as one, then yes it certainly should.
And the exact same condemnation should befall any who use it against Caucasians as befall those who use other racial slurs about Blacks, Asians etc.
Of course, if it's used jokingly and without malice, then - like with any others words which are nominally derogatory - it shouldn't warrant much in way of offence. While both "Cracker" and "******" are as a point of departure derogatory and discriminatory when used to describe a group or person (Though, like "Voldemort", they're hardly problematic to utter when it's clear they are viewed negatively; If you can't even name the beast, then how will you slay it?[footnote]I actually often wonder if Americans deliberately make the very mentions of such words taboo in order to avoid facing the underlying problems they're symptomatic of. The majority safely locked in their pleasantville cocoon, kindly killing off any prospect of actual progression and grabbing at the roots of the problem, be it consciously or not.[/footnote]), that doesn't mean this is the sole meaning they can have in all contexts and uses.
Don't really see why anyone would be troubled by either anyway though; they obviously say more about the user than the target.
And the exact same condemnation should befall any who use it against Caucasians as befall those who use other racial slurs about Blacks, Asians etc.
Of course, if it's used jokingly and without malice, then - like with any others words which are nominally derogatory - it shouldn't warrant much in way of offence. While both "Cracker" and "******" are as a point of departure derogatory and discriminatory when used to describe a group or person (Though, like "Voldemort", they're hardly problematic to utter when it's clear they are viewed negatively; If you can't even name the beast, then how will you slay it?[footnote]I actually often wonder if Americans deliberately make the very mentions of such words taboo in order to avoid facing the underlying problems they're symptomatic of. The majority safely locked in their pleasantville cocoon, kindly killing off any prospect of actual progression and grabbing at the roots of the problem, be it consciously or not.[/footnote]), that doesn't mean this is the sole meaning they can have in all contexts and uses.
Don't really see why anyone would be troubled by either anyway though; they obviously say more about the user than the target.
If someone said it (or any other racial slur) to insult me, I wouldn't be offended, but it'd indicate that they have a problem with white people and it would suggest they're mostly only angry with me for being white. It would upset me because they're prejudice and that's an upsetting thing, but I couldn't take it personally.
But that's the thing about prejudice, you can't take it personally because the point is it's not an attack on YOU, but on a group you fit the description of.
On the most part, however, (in my multi-cultural, multi-gender, multi-sexuality friendship groups anyway) people just use words like that to joke around. Which is why it does black people no good to say "****** is OUR word", 'cause that just means you've segregated yourself in some way and now other people feel like they have to tip-toe around you because even if they're not trying to be offensive they now feel you might be offended.
If everyone everywhere suddenly agreed that there were no offensive words at all, then all slurs would lose their power and no one would ever be upset by them again.
EDIT: By the way, you have no idea how much this thread has made me want some Ritz cheese crackers...
But that's the thing about prejudice, you can't take it personally because the point is it's not an attack on YOU, but on a group you fit the description of.
On the most part, however, (in my multi-cultural, multi-gender, multi-sexuality friendship groups anyway) people just use words like that to joke around. Which is why it does black people no good to say "****** is OUR word", 'cause that just means you've segregated yourself in some way and now other people feel like they have to tip-toe around you because even if they're not trying to be offensive they now feel you might be offended.
If everyone everywhere suddenly agreed that there were no offensive words at all, then all slurs would lose their power and no one would ever be upset by them again.
EDIT: By the way, you have no idea how much this thread has made me want some Ritz cheese crackers...
Hucket said:
Well, in the US we have a dual standard when it comes to minorities. "Cracker" is okay because it's used against the white majority. On the other hand the "N word" (
) and calling someone a "fag" both refer to relatively small minority groups. In general one of the reasons why I have little respect for left wingers on social issues is that they maintain a serious dual standard. If they're going to violate free speech protections and crack down on so called "hate speech" at least have the decency to do it accross the board, as opposed to just focusing on what issues they think earns them "good boy points" for protecting minorities.
That said, "Cracker" is a racial slur, but at the same time I don't think it, or any other form of "hate speech" should be banned. You have the right to hate and to express it, unless your sitting there in front of a crowd of people trying to actively incite them to on-the-spot violence, then there shouldn't be an issue.
The issue with Kobe is actually a little more complicated than what he said, and what happened as a result. Simply put the actual GOVERMENT can't do anything about it, nor should they be able to, but the NBA which is a private organization is leveling a fine, backed by the threat of denying him services (ie being unable to play and practice his trade) if he doesn't comply. I have an issue with the idea of private organizations holding more power than the goverment in cases like this. For all defenses of being able to "control what happens in your own house" I think that when the goverment was selectively limited, the way the mass media, and busines would develop was not forseen. I think that private citizens and groups should have no abillity to regulate the speech of others on anything that is publically accessible (or viewable in the case of the internet).
The sole exception to "free speech" IMO is national security.
So basically, "Cracker" is a racial slur and hate speech, but it shouldn't be banned or surpressed any more than any other term.