Skip to main content

View Diary: Liberal Racism? Charlie Rangel was Wrong to Call the Tea Party a Bunch of "White Crackers" (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He did when he said (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Lyon
    We anti-racists have argued for years that the decision about whether a term is offensive or not belongs to the party at whom the term is aimed.
    That equivalence right there. All races are judged equally regardless of how oppressed they are.

    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

    by AoT on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 01:23:16 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's right. All races are judged equally. (0+ / 0-)

      I said it and I meant it. How you get from there to putting different kinds of insults on a plane of equivalence, I don't see.

      But yes, all people should be judged according to the same moral standards.

      •  Because all races are not equal (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mikey, a2nite

        How can they be judged by the same standards?

        If I do something it has a completely different context and meaning than the same thing done by a black woman. Completely different.

        But yes, all people should be judged according to the same moral standards.
        But you said they shouldn't be. You said that the insult was less and thus less immoral than white racism already. The same action by someone of a different action has a different moral value. We agree on that, right? Depending on the action, obviously.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 01:54:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The same moral standards, yes. (0+ / 0-)

          Calling someone a cracker is a less hurtful thing than calling someone n-word, for obvious reasons (history, violence, etc.)

          Both are wrong, because it is wrong to use a slur, no matter who one is.  

          •  When someone oppresses other people (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

            calling them an oppressor is no moral failing, regardless of how impolite the language you use may be.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 02:04:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Calling them oppressors would have been just fine. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catesby

              No problem at all.

              That's why I told Chauncey that calling those white racists "white racists" would have been a far better choice than calling them "crackers," a term that is generally seen as a derogatory term for poor, Southern whites.

              •  I don't see that as such (0+ / 0-)

                I've heard it applied plenty of times to people who weren't poor. If you think he's calling them poor then you should make the argument that it's classist and thus wrong because the Tea Party was never very poor in it's demographics.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 02:48:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You don't live in Florida (0+ / 0-)

                  where the term originated.

                  It is an insult applied to poor white people.

                  Specifically to natives - that is people born in Florida as opposed to being liberal transplants from NY.

                  So whatever you heard, is wrong.

              •  No it's not. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                I live in Minnesota, and "cracker" has no class or regional connotation here. It either carries a simple racial connotation (white folks, particularly Ward-and-June culture white folks), or an oppressor connotation (i.e. to describe racist white folks).

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 03:11:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think that a slur (0+ / 0-)

            is a moral wrong. If you called me a jerk that would be a slur, but hardly a moral transgression.

            •  A racial or ethnic slur, is what I meant. (0+ / 0-)

              I don't define jerk as a slur, just a personal insult.

              Racial and ethnic slurs only make it harder to defeat racial prejudice. That's why it's not "right" (to reference Chauncey's post from yesterday) to use one.

              •  I agaree. I think your objection is precise and (0+ / 0-)

                true.  Racial and ethnic slurs make it harder to defeat racial prejudice. This applies to weaker slurs, like "cracker," and it's important to acknowledge (as you have) that there are much, much more powerful and harmful racial slurs, mostly directed against black people.  But they all get in the way, in different ways.  Clarity around racial issues is hard to come by, with the fog rising from the right,from FOX, from the wealthy class that benefits so much from divide-and-conquer, and from the unawareness of many white people where their own racism is concerned.  Slurs play into racial division without bringing any clarity, as more pointed and appropriate charges might.

                So, the point is not necessarily to avoid hurting white people's feelings, but to use appropriate insults and challenges when doing so.  Since changing those white people who are open to change should be an important goal of white activists, white people on DKos should care about avoiding racial slurs, even against white people. OF course, here at DKos, it's primarily white people who use slurs against whites, particularly Southern whites (crackers, rednecks, white trash).   It's not black people throwing that stuff around.

                --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

                by Fiona West on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 07:04:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Depends on what county you come from (0+ / 0-)

            you cannot say this as a universal rule.

      •  Here again you appear (0+ / 0-)

        to be making morality a universal standard.

    •  aYou do understand that gyspies (0+ / 0-)

      Jews and Irish are all considered white, don't you?

      You do understand that they have experienced greater discrimination than AA's throughout history, right?

      So maybe you might understand this is a universal issue, although one of skin color in the US.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site