I've seen a post on twitter to the effect of "We don't care about whether an episode of some 40 year old TV show gets taken off whichever streaming platform. We care about getting shot by the police and not being paid the same as white people."
I guess we can do both things, but black folk seem to be saying some stuff is more important than the other stuff.
Upthread, someone suggested that the words were homophones - they are not. The n word finishes with the indeterminate e; the second syllable of niggard is pronounced with an ah as well as ending with a d. Only a person looking for offence would call them homophonic.
Upthread, someone suggested that the words were homophones - they are not. The n word finishes with the indeterminate e; the second syllable of niggard is pronounced with an ah as well as ending with a d. Only a person looking for offence would call them homophonic.
That is idiotic. It ignores how the human brain works, as well as ignoring the subsequent posts between LC and me.
Upthread, someone suggested that the words were homophones - they are not. The n word finishes with the indeterminate e; the second syllable of niggard is pronounced with an ah as well as ending with a d. Only a person looking for offence would call them homophonic.
The only difference in how the two words are pronounced here is that one ends with a “d” sound and one doesn’t. Otherwise, the pronunciation of the two words here is identical.
Not in all parts of the U.K. In ‘Standard Pronunciation’ (aka RP) a final ‘r’ is usually silent. So ‘saw’ and ‘sore’ rhyme, and ‘paw’ and ‘poor’ quite often do (though sometimes the vowel sound differs), and ‘Pa’ and ‘par’, and ‘bar’ and ‘baa’.
The pronunciation of words in different parts of the anglophone world can lead to real difficulties, particularly with the letter 'r'.
When an English person says 'law' it often sounds to a Scottish person as the word 'lore' - that is in the way a Scottish person might pronounce it.
At other times ,for a Scottish person, it appears that the 'r' is dropped as in 'formerly' Even English people will sometimes rite that word as 'formally'.
For most English people there is little or no difference between 'w' and 'wh'
where were you ? in Scottish sounds quite different in pronunciation of most Scots from that of most English. (Wales and whales sound the same in most pronunciations in England,but not in Scotland)
I don't say that any one form is right or wrong, just that we should be aware of these differences.
Not in all parts of the U.K. In ‘Standard Pronunciation’ (aka RP) a final ‘r’ is usually silent. So ‘saw’ and ‘sore’ rhyme, and ‘paw’ and ‘poor’ quite often do (though sometimes the vowel sound differs), and ‘Pa’ and ‘par’, and ‘bar’ and ‘baa’.
Not in all parts of the U.K. In ‘Standard Pronunciation’ (aka RP) a final ‘r’ is usually silent. So ‘saw’ and ‘sore’ rhyme, and ‘paw’ and ‘poor’ quite often do (though sometimes the vowel sound differs), and ‘Pa’ and ‘par’, and ‘bar’ and ‘baa’.
In the word in question?
I've only heard an r in 'here' in traditionally rhotic dialects.
The pronunciation of words in different parts of the anglophone world can lead to real difficulties, particularly with the letter 'r'.
When an English person says 'law' it often sounds to a Scottish person as the word 'lore' - that is in the way a Scottish person might pronounce it.
At other times ,for a Scottish person, it appears that the 'r' is dropped as in 'formerly' Even English people will sometimes rite that word as 'formally'.
For most English people there is little or no difference between 'w' and 'wh'
where were you ? in Scottish sounds quite different in pronunciation of most Scots from that of most English. (Wales and whales sound the same in most pronunciations in England,but not in Scotland)
I don't say that any one form is right or wrong, just that we should be aware of these differences.
don't you mean that when an English person says 'lore' it sounds like 'law' because we omit the 'r'?
We think on these boards that we are using the English language and for the most part it is the same, regionally acceptable words apart, over all the anglophone world.
To each English speaker the words 'saw' and 'sore' probably sound different to each person, but we may hear in the voice of another person a sound which is different to our own. Obviously even within one jurisdiction, say England ,there is more than one pronunciation of almost any word.
The way that some English people pronounce 'saw' would sound like the word 'sore' to certain Scottish people , but they would understand that within the context of speech the word means what is understood by the written word 'saw'.
Usually I understand what Americans are saying but it takes me aback sometimes if I hear them say the word 'pasta' - a word of Italian origin but used, I'm sure ,in everyday English.
It seems to me that Americans are saying 'pawsta' Each person is entitled to say words the way that they feel most people around them will understand. It adds richness to a language,but we should always be aware that when we say something another person may understand it in a different way.
I have a question of a different sort now about the use of words.
Is it considered offensive nowadays to use the word 'negro' ?
Recently I watched a TV programme about the American author, James Baldwin, who was both black and homosexual and who suffered double discrimination at that period approximately 50 years ago.
Martin Luther King featured also in this programme and both of the men used the word 'negro' to describe the black community.
I don't think that they were using it in the same way as the word n......r might have then been used, but one never hears the word nowadays and I don't know what its status and acceptability might be.
I have a question of a different sort now about the use of words.
Is it considered offensive nowadays to use the word 'negro' ?
Recently I watched a TV programme about the American author, James Baldwin, who was both black and homosexual and who suffered double discrimination at that period approximately 50 years ago.
Martin Luther King featured also in this programme and both of the men used the word 'negro' to describe the black community.
I don't think that they were using it in the same way as the word n......r might have then been used, but one never hears the word nowadays and I don't know what its status and acceptability might be.
I wouldn't use it. The only modern usage of it I've seen is in The Wire and, well, the language used throughout the series is doubtless authentic but there's a heck of a lot I wouldn't use in public or in private.
One possible reason for the confusion over how this word is pronounced, is that I can't remember when I last heard it said out loud. I notice I'm not the only poster who is avoiding typing it also
I think that that acceptable usage vanished, perhaps around the early 90s but Nick Tamen could clarify that. IIRC, Martin Luther King and James Baldwin (along with most other writers of that period) used in it preference to "black".
I'd definitely pronounce the "r" in "lore" and "sore", but only the latter has any common usage here now. "Lore" seems to me to be reserved for the purpose of making the speaker sound educated.
I only really come come across it in terms of the phrase "negro spiritual" to refer to a particular musical tradition, and when people are talking about physical variations in reconstructing human remains in mysteries or documentaties. As in, this skull has caucasion, mongoloid or negroid features - obviously there is a specific purpose there to be able to accurately reconstruct the appearance of the deceased for the detection of crime, or understand a historical site.
That said, I still think that intent and underlying attitude matter: David Starkey talking about "those damn Blacks" seems far more offensive than someone using the term negro - because they are unsure about the appropriate term. The underlying malice in his interview was quite something to behold.
In recent times I have only heard the word used in the expression 'Negro Spirituals'
I didn't realise that there was any confusion over the pronunciation of the word.
I would pronounce it as I pronounce the word 'knee' followed by 'grow' but then 'grow' is pronounced in different ways by English speakers in different parts of the anglophone world.
If I were speaking Spanish then the word for 'black' is 'negro' pronounced in a slightly different way.
Not in all parts of the U.K. In ‘Standard Pronunciation’ (aka RP) a final ‘r’ is usually silent. So ‘saw’ and ‘sore’ rhyme, and ‘paw’ and ‘poor’ quite often do (though sometimes the vowel sound differs), and ‘Pa’ and ‘par’, and ‘bar’ and ‘baa’.
In the word in question?
Yes. I’m used to hearing both the noun and related words with an indeterminate vowel sound in the ‘gard’ syllable and the ‘r’ not audible.
I think that that acceptable usage vanished, perhaps around the early 90s but Nick Tamen could clarify that. IIRC, Martin Luther King and James Baldwin (along with most other writers of that period) used in it preference to "black".
I don’t how much I can clarify. I can say that in my experience, use of “Negro” was waning here by the end of the 1960s/early 1970s, and even then it was considered an “older” usage, if that makes sense. “Black” had become the preferred term, and that’s what I mostly heard, at least at home. I’d mainly hear “Negro” in historical contexts or from older people.
Now I never hear it, except in historical contexts or established terms like the United Negro College Fund. (Compare the NAACP—the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.) And these days I hear, and say, African America spiritual, not Negro Spiritual.
I can distinctly remember conversations in the 1960s with my parents about terms that I might hear—including “Negro,” “colored” and, of course, the n-word—and why we didn’t use those terms in our house. My parents’ approach was one of using the term the people you were talking about preferred, so they said “black.” (It was also made clear to me that use of the n-word would result in significant punishment.)
I recall Black Africa being used, but it was not common. More usually Southern Africa, which is now interchangeable with Sub-Saharan.
Tangent/
Not as far as I know @GeeD, and not in my corner of the world. When I use the term southern Africa not Southern Africa, it is a widely used geo-linguistic term that roughly applies to Nguni-speaking former colonial states below central Africa, including South Africa.
The term ‘sub-Saharan Africa’ is contested. It excludes the five predominantly Arab states of north Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt) and the Sudan, a north-central African country. Even though its territory is mostly located south of the Sahara desert, the Sudan is excluded from the ‘sub-Saharan Africa’ definition because the regime in power in Khartoum describes the country as ‘Arab’ despite its majority African population. Also excluded are countries in central Africa (the Congos, Rwanda, Burundi).
end Tangent/
I should have added that I was primarily talking of usage here, but which was also used in such journals as The Economist at the time.
Another problem with sub-Saharan is that it does not deal with Ethiopia and the other countries of the Horn of Africa, nor such countries as Kenya and Tanzania.
The usual result of Europeans drawing arbitrary lines across the continent of Africa that don't respect the ways that the people who live there view the land.
I'm bumping this thread rather than starting a new one, do try and get clarity on an issue regarding race, racism ethnicity and prejudice in general. This comes from reading a recent article and I would value knowing if there is a consensus on the ship.
I believe, but am not sure, that "racism" as a term is often reserved to mean "oppression of one race by another", so that it doesn't simply mean hatred of the group, or even a strong desire to oppress or even annihilate the group, if the power is not there to put this into effect.
If this is the accepted usage, one could still accuse people of race hatred even when they have not got the power to express their hatred in action, but only if they succeed as the dominant group, in oppressing another group, can they be called racists.
I had a friend many many years ago (v. left) who held to this view. I'd like to know if there is a consensus view today, at least on this ship. Or does the ship converge on a different definition. FWIW I would prefer to use the term for the desire to oppress, but I can live with any definition so long as it is used consistently.
As the Ship has no official dictionary as far as I am aware, that might be a problem.
Racism is the assignment of attributes based on race. Some will add the condition of oppression as inherent to the definition. I think this has occurred in part because a group with no power has no substantive effect on the group with power.
Your preferred definition is problematic because "desire" need not be present for racism to be oppressive.
I believe, but am not sure, that "racism" as a term is often reserved to mean "oppression of one race by another", so that it doesn't simply mean hatred of the group, or even a strong desire to oppress or even annihilate the group, if the power is not there to put this into effect.
My understanding is that "racism" is simply prejudice on the grounds of race, so a person is racist if they apply real or imagined stereotypical characteristics to other people purely because of their racial / ethnic background. (Positive stereotypes are also racist.)
Although I've heard your definition before, and it's caused a lot of circular arguments about whether, for example, black people can be racist, which is really just a semantic argument.
Because it's obvious that people of any racial background can be (and sometimes are) prejudiced against people of any other racial background, for all kinds of reasons. It is the case that discrimination on racial grounds is generally illegal in employment (for example), regardless of the race of the discriminator and the victim. And as far as the Ship is concerned, I understand that any form of racism is a C1 violation, not just racism by members of powerful groups.
It is also the case that the racial divides in our societies mean that some kinds of racism have much stronger effects than others. Imagine a racist black employer who refuses to promote a talented white employee. On an individual level, that's the same action as a racist white employer refusing to promote a talented black employee, but the cumulative effect is very different, because there aren't many black employers who are prejudiced against white people, and there are plenty of white employers who are prejudiced against black people. As @lilbuddha says, racist black people in the UK / US don't generally have the power to have a widespread effect.
I don't see any good reason to restrict racism to attitudes of the dominant group as long as one bears in mind that complaints from the dominant group about racism are generally an attempt to minimise the seriousness of the problem.
One occasionally sees attempts to define racism so that it doesn't cover prejudices that the speaker wishes to defend. Usually the argument goes that the standard definition is too baggy as if there's something wrong with combining negative beliefs, negative affect, and negative actions under one term. This ignores how language works; language ordinarily groups together things that are sufficiently similar even if they're disjunct. It also ignores the practical reality that usually any one item in the set is accompanied by at the very least undue tolerance for the other items.
I don't see any good reason to restrict racism to attitudes of the dominant group as long as one bears in mind that complaints from the dominant group about racism are generally an attempt to minimise the seriousness of the problem.
This is generally the problem. That any person from any group can racist is not relevant to the dynamics of the problem of racism.
In other words, it is difficult to have a nuanced discussion about racism because it almost inevitably obscures the practical, real life issues.
A book I read on racism from a sociological point of view looks at it this way (paraphrase):
Prejudice: believing that all members of some group are in some way (the same way) inferior to your group.
Discrimination: acting on/acting out your prejudice
Racism: acting on/acting out your prejudice from a position of power over your victims
It's entirely understandable that a sociologist would wish to make a distinction in language between
- society-wide discrimination against a certain group as part of the culture of that society
- individual acts of discrimination against the same group, driven by personal experience rather than culture.
Fair enough to say that a society in which women don't drive heavy machinery because it's considered unfeminine is not the same phenomenon as an individual employer of truck drivers who doesn't like women (or whose personal experience is of women employees with health problems) and is therefore resistant to hiring them.
If we want to make that distinction in our language, then we need two separate terms. In that example you might perhaps say that the first is sexism and the second is misogyny.
What usage do you (or the writer you're summarising for us) suggest with regard to race ? Or are they only interested in societal characteristics and therefore don't see any need to talk about individuals at all ?
(I would of course reject the notion that an individual is "in a position of power" just because others share their outlook. Individual Conservative voters have no more or less power than individual Labour voters, regardless of the size of the government majority at any particular point in time.)
Prejudice: believing that all members of some group are in some way (the same way) inferior to your group.
I don't think it has to be negative. "All Asians are smart" is racial prejudice, even though it might look on the surface to be positive about a particular racial group.
Prejudice: believing that all members of some group are in some way (the same way) inferior to your group.
I don't think it has to be negative. "All Asians are smart" is racial prejudice, even though it might look on the surface to be positive about a particular racial group.
Actually that was begun as an attack on black and other brown immigrants.
The Asians are smarter tropes has negative effects within the Asian community itself.
I think a more accurate way to present that as not all prejudice is transparently negative.
The Asians are smarter tropes has negative effects within the Asian community itself.
I think a more accurate way to present that as not all prejudice is transparently negative.
It is entirely possible for a group that is racially oppressed itself, to have members who (in a smaller environment) themselves racially oppress others. In my 30 years of interracial marriage, we have developed a list of places we don't go for dinner and people we don't interact with if we can avoid it (e.g. the local city permits guy). Some of those places and people are white. Some are black. The experience of getting shit from them for our interracial family is... remarkably similar.
Comments
I guess we can do both things, but black folk seem to be saying some stuff is more important than the other stuff.
As do I.
Upthread, someone suggested that the words were homophones - they are not. The n word finishes with the indeterminate e; the second syllable of niggard is pronounced with an ah as well as ending with a d. Only a person looking for offence would call them homophonic.
Is that "r" pronounced?
Thanks Nick Tamen for that, a difference I was not aware of.
Yes.
Thank you - here the last syllable would come out as something like "uh".
Not in most of England it wouldn't be. Or Wales, for that matter.
The pronunciation of words in different parts of the anglophone world can lead to real difficulties, particularly with the letter 'r'.
When an English person says 'law' it often sounds to a Scottish person as the word 'lore' - that is in the way a Scottish person might pronounce it.
At other times ,for a Scottish person, it appears that the 'r' is dropped as in 'formerly' Even English people will sometimes rite that word as 'formally'.
For most English people there is little or no difference between 'w' and 'wh'
where were you ? in Scottish sounds quite different in pronunciation of most Scots from that of most English. (Wales and whales sound the same in most pronunciations in England,but not in Scotland)
I don't say that any one form is right or wrong, just that we should be aware of these differences.
In the word in question?
I've only heard an r in 'here' in traditionally rhotic dialects.
don't you mean that when an English person says 'lore' it sounds like 'law' because we omit the 'r'?
To each English speaker the words 'saw' and 'sore' probably sound different to each person, but we may hear in the voice of another person a sound which is different to our own. Obviously even within one jurisdiction, say England ,there is more than one pronunciation of almost any word.
The way that some English people pronounce 'saw' would sound like the word 'sore' to certain Scottish people , but they would understand that within the context of speech the word means what is understood by the written word 'saw'.
Usually I understand what Americans are saying but it takes me aback sometimes if I hear them say the word 'pasta' - a word of Italian origin but used, I'm sure ,in everyday English.
It seems to me that Americans are saying 'pawsta' Each person is entitled to say words the way that they feel most people around them will understand. It adds richness to a language,but we should always be aware that when we say something another person may understand it in a different way.
Is it considered offensive nowadays to use the word 'negro' ?
Recently I watched a TV programme about the American author, James Baldwin, who was both black and homosexual and who suffered double discrimination at that period approximately 50 years ago.
Martin Luther King featured also in this programme and both of the men used the word 'negro' to describe the black community.
I don't think that they were using it in the same way as the word n......r might have then been used, but one never hears the word nowadays and I don't know what its status and acceptability might be.
I wouldn't use it. The only modern usage of it I've seen is in The Wire and, well, the language used throughout the series is doubtless authentic but there's a heck of a lot I wouldn't use in public or in private.
I'd definitely pronounce the "r" in "lore" and "sore", but only the latter has any common usage here now. "Lore" seems to me to be reserved for the purpose of making the speaker sound educated.
That said, I still think that intent and underlying attitude matter: David Starkey talking about "those damn Blacks" seems far more offensive than someone using the term negro - because they are unsure about the appropriate term. The underlying malice in his interview was quite something to behold.
I didn't realise that there was any confusion over the pronunciation of the word.
I would pronounce it as I pronounce the word 'knee' followed by 'grow' but then 'grow' is pronounced in different ways by English speakers in different parts of the anglophone world.
If I were speaking Spanish then the word for 'black' is 'negro' pronounced in a slightly different way.
Yes. I’m used to hearing both the noun and related words with an indeterminate vowel sound in the ‘gard’ syllable and the ‘r’ not audible.
Now I never hear it, except in historical contexts or established terms like the United Negro College Fund. (Compare the NAACP—the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.) And these days I hear, and say, African America spiritual, not Negro Spiritual.
I can distinctly remember conversations in the 1960s with my parents about terms that I might hear—including “Negro,” “colored” and, of course, the n-word—and why we didn’t use those terms in our house. My parents’ approach was one of using the term the people you were talking about preferred, so they said “black.” (It was also made clear to me that use of the n-word would result in significant punishment.)
It is interesting,and hopefully not offensive to anyone, to discuss how the use of words evolve.
Not so long ago the African continent south of the Sahara desert was often called 'Black Africa' to distinguish it from Morocco,Tunisia etc.
Nowadays I think we use 'Subsaharan Africa'
I recall Black Africa being used, but it was not common. More usually Southern Africa, which is now interchangeable with Sub-Saharan.
Tangent/
Not as far as I know @GeeD, and not in my corner of the world. When I use the term southern Africa not Southern Africa, it is a widely used geo-linguistic term that roughly applies to Nguni-speaking former colonial states below central Africa, including South Africa.
The term ‘sub-Saharan Africa’ is contested. It excludes the five predominantly Arab states of north Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt) and the Sudan, a north-central African country. Even though its territory is mostly located south of the Sahara desert, the Sudan is excluded from the ‘sub-Saharan Africa’ definition because the regime in power in Khartoum describes the country as ‘Arab’ despite its majority African population. Also excluded are countries in central Africa (the Congos, Rwanda, Burundi).
end Tangent/
Another problem with sub-Saharan is that it does not deal with Ethiopia and the other countries of the Horn of Africa, nor such countries as Kenya and Tanzania.
I believe, but am not sure, that "racism" as a term is often reserved to mean "oppression of one race by another", so that it doesn't simply mean hatred of the group, or even a strong desire to oppress or even annihilate the group, if the power is not there to put this into effect.
If this is the accepted usage, one could still accuse people of race hatred even when they have not got the power to express their hatred in action, but only if they succeed as the dominant group, in oppressing another group, can they be called racists.
I had a friend many many years ago (v. left) who held to this view. I'd like to know if there is a consensus view today, at least on this ship. Or does the ship converge on a different definition. FWIW I would prefer to use the term for the desire to oppress, but I can live with any definition so long as it is used consistently.
Racism is the assignment of attributes based on race. Some will add the condition of oppression as inherent to the definition. I think this has occurred in part because a group with no power has no substantive effect on the group with power.
Your preferred definition is problematic because "desire" need not be present for racism to be oppressive.
My understanding is that "racism" is simply prejudice on the grounds of race, so a person is racist if they apply real or imagined stereotypical characteristics to other people purely because of their racial / ethnic background. (Positive stereotypes are also racist.)
Although I've heard your definition before, and it's caused a lot of circular arguments about whether, for example, black people can be racist, which is really just a semantic argument.
Because it's obvious that people of any racial background can be (and sometimes are) prejudiced against people of any other racial background, for all kinds of reasons. It is the case that discrimination on racial grounds is generally illegal in employment (for example), regardless of the race of the discriminator and the victim. And as far as the Ship is concerned, I understand that any form of racism is a C1 violation, not just racism by members of powerful groups.
It is also the case that the racial divides in our societies mean that some kinds of racism have much stronger effects than others. Imagine a racist black employer who refuses to promote a talented white employee. On an individual level, that's the same action as a racist white employer refusing to promote a talented black employee, but the cumulative effect is very different, because there aren't many black employers who are prejudiced against white people, and there are plenty of white employers who are prejudiced against black people. As @lilbuddha says, racist black people in the UK / US don't generally have the power to have a widespread effect.
One occasionally sees attempts to define racism so that it doesn't cover prejudices that the speaker wishes to defend. Usually the argument goes that the standard definition is too baggy as if there's something wrong with combining negative beliefs, negative affect, and negative actions under one term. This ignores how language works; language ordinarily groups together things that are sufficiently similar even if they're disjunct. It also ignores the practical reality that usually any one item in the set is accompanied by at the very least undue tolerance for the other items.
In other words, it is difficult to have a nuanced discussion about racism because it almost inevitably obscures the practical, real life issues.
Prejudice: believing that all members of some group are in some way (the same way) inferior to your group.
Discrimination: acting on/acting out your prejudice
Racism: acting on/acting out your prejudice from a position of power over your victims
It's entirely understandable that a sociologist would wish to make a distinction in language between
- society-wide discrimination against a certain group as part of the culture of that society
- individual acts of discrimination against the same group, driven by personal experience rather than culture.
Fair enough to say that a society in which women don't drive heavy machinery because it's considered unfeminine is not the same phenomenon as an individual employer of truck drivers who doesn't like women (or whose personal experience is of women employees with health problems) and is therefore resistant to hiring them.
If we want to make that distinction in our language, then we need two separate terms. In that example you might perhaps say that the first is sexism and the second is misogyny.
What usage do you (or the writer you're summarising for us) suggest with regard to race ? Or are they only interested in societal characteristics and therefore don't see any need to talk about individuals at all ?
(I would of course reject the notion that an individual is "in a position of power" just because others share their outlook. Individual Conservative voters have no more or less power than individual Labour voters, regardless of the size of the government majority at any particular point in time.)
I don't think it has to be negative. "All Asians are smart" is racial prejudice, even though it might look on the surface to be positive about a particular racial group.
The Asians are smarter tropes has negative effects within the Asian community itself.
I think a more accurate way to present that as not all prejudice is transparently negative.
Agreed.