05-12-2019, 02:27 AM
(05-12-2019, 12:40 AM)taramarie Wrote: if someone could reply to my message, naturally he would see it and if he wishes to get what he wants, it may be his only reasonable option.
I think he will see mine.
The only excuse that anyone has for using that infamous word is reportage, and I go to great lengths to avoid using it, or perhaps the book title The Nigger of the Narcissus, a respected piece of literature. I accept the use of the word in some novels by Mark Twain that make clear that people who see the slave Jim as less than fully human are completely wrong about him. Of course I expect the word to appear frequently in the local Klavern (KKK meeting place) where low-life white people try to pretend that they are somehow superior just by being white. Anyone who sees his origins as cause for superiority likely has no other cause for self-pride.
Yes, I know that there are low-life types in every identifiable group of people by ethnicity and religion... and as a general rule, the good people in those ethnic groups dislike those low-life types. Is it acceptable to use a derogatory word once used against a whole group against those low-life types? I think not. I do not use the word "kraut" to describe John Dillinger, probably the most despised person of German ancestry in America. (I am about half German and Swiss in origin, so you can probably understand what concern I express). I use "gangster" or "criminal", either of which is more universal a smear -- and even more offensive in describing anyone.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.