JC Callender
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 6,477
- Reaction score
- 3,270
- Location
- Metro Detroit
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What is the point of your including a "popcorn" emoticon?...PC seems to be so out of hand in some instances that people are losing careers because of simple mistakes, like the weather guy who misspoke and said "Martin Luther Coon King....", so he misspoke, ... What's worse, a man making a mistake on live t.v., or the person wanting to take away his career and brand him a racist for it?
But even those that do negative (but still legal) things seemingly unmistakenly, do they always have evil intent in their hearts? Some folks get really angry, frustrated, flustered, and say stupid and horrible things without meaning them...haven't we all? It's hard to tell unless someone has a pattern. ...
What are your thoughts?opcorn2:
What is the point of your including a "popcorn" emoticon?
Red:
The words folks utter are reflections of their thoughts. I don't know what exactly that meteorologist was thinking about when he called MLK "Martin Luther Coon," but I know that epithet is not new or uncommon among Southern racists.
We all misspeak. I do it plenty, and without exception it happens because (1) something was on my mind (subconsciously or consciously) other than what I intended to discuss/say, or (2) I spoke (or wrote) a word that's somewhat apropos to the idea I aimed to express but that is less apt than a different word/phrase I know, could have and should have used instead. Seen in that context, neither provides an exculpatory path for exchanging "King" for "Coon."
For each of us there are thoughts that are so odious that simply don't cross our minds. For that weatherman, that cannot be said of calling MKL "Martin Luther Coon." Sure, he had the sense to know he shouldn't have said that -- it's not as though he's the only racist/bigoted of some stripe who knows it's impolitic to say such things -- but that clearly wasn't enough to prevent him from thinking it.
Blue:
Well, therein lies the quandary. It's a dilemma borne, IMO, of misapplications and excesses of relativism, moral or otherwise.
Prior to about the 1970s or so, proportionately few folks would have looked askance at the panoply of racist remarks and actions one may have taken. In some instances, and for some individuals, that insouciance included the most heinous of acts right up to and including rape and homicide. It's not that such thoughts and the utterances and behaviors borne of them were morally/ethically right; it's that a huge share of the population, the white majority that held legal, social and political sway, (1) ascribed to racist notions, (2) allowed apathy to overcome their will to reject racist notions, and/or (3) selfishly acquiesced to applied racism (discrimination), and for some folks it was a mix of the three.
In the decades since the '70s, it became increasingly unacceptable socially to be seen in public as an overt racist, but "behind closed doors," the same forms of forbearance as before persisted. Thus evolved the period of "smiling faces," a time in which it become difficult to know who harbors racist/bigoted sentiments and, in turn, subtly acts on them. But that one isn't an overt racist/bigot as people used to be doesn't mean one isn't a racist on the "DL."
When minorities encounter white folks, they can and routinely do give the white guy the benefit of the doubt....until/unless that white person does or say something that shows s/he holds some sort of racist notions in his/her head. At that moment, one, minorities in particular, must ask themselves "was that white person just putting on o a show so as not to seem racist/bigoted because seeming so can cause them more bother than they want to face?" Obtaining an existentially accurate answer to that question is nigh impossible, especially if the person's full "story" hasn't been exposed. The person whom one just offended doesn't know one well enough to have that much info on one, and there's no way for them to obtain it; they know one just offended them.
There's also the matter of white folks deigning to tell minorities what is and isn't racist, what is/isn't racially offensive. Really? What 400+-year-long legacy of systemic, institutionalized racism, from overt or otherwise, have whites, individually and as a segment of society, been subjected to whereby they are well placed to know? In a word, none. Simply, one cannot hear literally millions of people say "X is a racial affront to us," respond to them by telling them they are mistaken, and proceed to keep doing/saying "X," thinking that "X" is okay to do or say, and in so doing expect also to be taken seriously when one claims to be not a racist.
It's an old American pastime to enjoy popcorn while being entertained. I often find the opinions of others entertaining.
To your "Red" point, have you ever mispronounced a word? If he said "Martin Lither King" what would that tell you? Could that have happened? If so, then it's not at all guaranteed that the weatherman meant it.
To your "Blue" point, society was different and harder in many ways back then. People are living longer, more comfortable lives than ever because we're evolving. You seem to think that past problems were due to white people letting them happen, but hundreds of thousands of northerners died in the Civil War, so which white people are you talking about? Aren't you old enough to remember when it wasn't just white neighborhoods but Italian, Polish, Mexican, etc..., and they they often were prejudiced towards each other?
Let me ask you this, are white people inherently more evil than any other race?
Red:
No, not a simple one-syllable word like "king," and certainly not to the extent of transforming, "mispronouncing," as you put it, "king" into "coon."
So, no, transforming "king" to "coon" could not have, as a matter of mere mispronunciation, happened to the Purdue U. degreed meteorologist who said "Martin Luther Coon" instead of "Martin Luther King."
- King --> Kang; that's mispronunciation
- King --> Keen; that's mispronunciation
- King --> Coon; that's not mispronunciation
Frankly, your positing enunciation errors as extant in the man's diction tells me you, more effectively than I, channel Taylor Coleridge.
Blue:
Past socio-political, legal and cultural "problems" are the fault of (a) the people who made and enforced (or didn't) public policy and laws and (b) who defined cultural mores. In the US, those people were none other than white people....the powerful ones who held formal power and their enablers who voted for them and/or hewed to, aided and abetted the perpetuation of racism and race-based discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the access to or purchase of services.
Tan:
What? Rather than ask about my age, please assert directly whatever be your point.
Come on man, you really think Kang and Keen are obvious mispronounciations but there's no way Koon is, esp.after Luther (Loother). :roll:
And blaming those in power for certain things they were responsible for is fine, blaming white people isn't, because all white people weren't responsible for those things. As I've pointed out, hundreds of thousands of white Union soldiers died to end slavery.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?