05-12-2019, 03:57 AM
(05-12-2019, 02:52 AM)taramarie Wrote:(05-12-2019, 02:27 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:(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.
No but I would be interested in the why of why blacks use it towards each other often as I feel it is far more of an interesting conversation starter regarding intent of why it is used. I feel intent is far more important than doing the fur fly as anyone can be offended by anything. It has a horrendous past yes, but what about now, when it is used? What about the value of intent? We have heard from kinser why he uses it. Not the nicest way to use it for sure, but it is to be expected none the less from him....we know he has a chip on his shoulder no doubt from a past that has caused him to be the way he is and I have mentioned elsewhere I believe where I stated its far more valuable to look within ourselves and see where these acts come from towards other human beings, and it does start from ourselves. For me, I do not use that word for a reason. That is all I will say on that. I have suggested to our mod that he continue to follow the three rules and allow for our offended nomad to have his thread back the way he wishes it to be and staying on topic. I have followed the rules, and it is now up to Rags to follow through with it if he wishes to.
Kinser obviously has a huge chip on his shoulder, a common feature of an extremist of any kind. I'm not going to speculate on the causes as there are many possible causes including his encounters with racism. Some people deal gracefully with those; some sell out to the perpetrators; some participate in the divide-and-conquer techniques (a/k/a salami tactics) that those consolidating power use. Unless one is black or at least involved intimately with blacks in America one cannot fully understand American racism. I cannot understand how he feels and why he feels what he does.
There is no clear divide between good blacks and bad blacks (or any other identifiable group of people) -- and when white people have tried to make such a divide, such has often been between submissive compliance with subordinate status or resistance to such. With kinser I see someone selling out part of his race for acceptance among white people. I see him terribly wrong in doing so. Should America ever have a fascistic regime (something that I could not imagine before Trump) entrenching itself, then I expect it to start culling the American populace by starting with the most pariahs and then raising the demands for compliance and identity for avoiding the dangerous status of pariah under a ruthless and brutal regime. We defend the most unpopular people or we set ourselves up for our own disenfranchisement, dispossession, and even murder. We must also see the demonization of people as the first step to genocide. So it was with kulaks in the Soviet Union, with Jews in Nazi Germany, and with Tutsis in Rwanda. Even if genocide does not ensue, then lesser, but still inexcusable degradation of life ensue.
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.