It depends. Are they saying it in a broad definition encompassing all whites. Or are they directing it at me personally as a derogatory remark on my self. For that I would be offended due to it being personally directed.
Slurs generally only carry weight when applied by a majority against a minority. Or really, applied by any person or group in general power over the other group where a majority in numbers may also be equated to a power disparity. The N-word, for example, is still used in other countries but because it was used in America by a group that actually had size power over black culture it became a slur in this country. This is an interesting part of linguistics to study.SaneAmongInsane said:Been watching a lot of the George Zimmerman case. Last night I was flaberghasted when Erin Burnette of CNN referred to the word as a racial slur.
I'm sorry, but there is not a world where Cracka or Cracker could offend any white person. Right? I mean I'm pretty sure any of hear the word our minds do not jump to our skin colour but to delicious Saltine crackers. It's like calling someone Spaghetti.
Even honky... If I get called a honky the only thing my mind jumps is the old Jefferson's TV show.
Is there any white slur that has any bite at all? I mean I suppose "You impearalist swine whos anncestors kidnapped and enslaved my ancestors for years and then tried to pull that segration bullshit" but that'd be to hard to say in conversation.
The false pretense that we're currently equal aside, there is such a thing as context which does grant bodies unique rights to use words without offense. For example, I can make a crack about any one of my friend's mothers without repercussion. They can do the same about mine. We trash talk each others' families, beliefs, and even spouses where applicable. I wouldn't expect to be able to make a joke about your mother, or anyone else's here without repercussions, because I'm capable of understanding the difference. And I wouldn't want someone random attacking any member of my family, period. Even though I know they're all screwed up.SinisterGehe said:If you call me Craka, Cracker, Milk, Milk-face... etc... Then I am allowed to call you black, ******... ect...
We are all equal that means that you can not say that you have the unique right to some words, if it is so then we have that right also.
Maybe we should work on a few.Lightknight said:But yeah, none of the white slurs have really stuck.
I can simply second what Lilani said. When someone insults a person who has been in a historical position of power (men over women, white people in America over blacks, etc.), it's seen more as a joke, or jest (hence why jesters were able to mock the king to his face). Basically, when the insult goes uphill, it's not really perceived as a threat or insult in the first place (most times), but someone already with the advantage who then insults those in a lower station is seen as exercising their power in an abusive way.Lilani said:The difference between "******" and "cracker" in my mind is that "******" has actually been used to refer to people who are actually being subjugated and treated in the most vile ways. "Cracker" has no such historical background in blood and torture, or at least not in such a widespread manner, which is why it "probably means shit to white people as a whole."Magenera said:You didn't know that Cracker/cracka was a racial slur? Also my ancestors where enslaved and sold by group's of my own race, slavery then and still now is a business that prevails. As I said before in another thread the Defense might have done a reversal. But yeah it is a racial slur that probably means shit to white people as a whole.
I believe this is also why sexist/stereotypical images of men[footnote]The bumbling father who doesn't know how to clean house properly, the manchild who refuses to clean a house properly, etc.[/footnote] are still acceptable in media rather than sexist/stereotypical images of women[footnote]The subservient housewife, the woman who doesn't know a hammer from a screwdriver, the woman who can't drive, etc.[/footnote]. One of them has only been used in media to poke fun at a gender. The other represents opinions and notions actually held against the gender in the past, and still to a certain extent in the present. It is considered more offensive to say "Women can't drive" than "Men can't clean a house properly" because there was once a point in time where it was actually felt that women couldn't drive, and in many places laws were put in place to either prohibit or severely handicap women when driving. The idea's still got a bit of a sting to it.
I'm not saying this is right by any means, however I think it is perfectly logical that a term or idea which has no historical significance or potency in its use would be more acceptable. It's not a matter of "double standards" or "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism." It's simply the historical baggage that certain terms and ideas carry.