Heartland

I thought this was going to be about norks...

wanders off

Thought that began with a "k", Unkle Ja-mes?

I'm bi-lingual

boudicca wrote:Thought that began with a "k", Unkle Ja-mes?

You're thinking of "Knockers"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=norks

"At Helene's party, during which her sensational norks are practically on the table among the sweetmeats...." Clive James, The Observer, 22 Oct 1972.

robertzombie wrote:Not that it matters but do we have any non-Caucasian members?

Personally I've never been anywhere near the Caucasus

Given that the term's association with "white" people is largely the result of work done by 19th century craniologists (and what a group of enlightened people they tended to be), perhaps we should stop using it, given that it's stablemates with terms such as negroid and mongoloid and has been used to justify slavery and the superiority of the "white race".

"Race" in terms of humans is a pretty meaningless distinction biologically speaking. There's more genetic differences within any given traditionally defined "race" than there are between them.

What's wrong with nuct?

On a serious note, if funny that in English language, black can be more acceptable than [whoops, i did a racism]. In here, preto (black) in slang has a worse connotation than negro, as we say "raça negra" as English say black race.
But in here negro can be used as "a very dar shade of black", or with an exquisite connotation. It's not that much of a racial word when out of context.

Now for [whoops, i did a racism] coming from negro, I'd say it might be derived more from Portuguese than Spanish, as we were unfortunately responsible for most of the African slave market during the Discoveries/colonization, and the spread of related words like "comércio negreiro" which might translated as [whoops, i did a racism] commerce, instead of a more literal "black commerce".

On a side note, I'm not a racist but I find in no way offensive to use black as a way to describe someone if it's uncommon among peers, simply to provide more information to distinguish when referring to him.

The word just isn't in my vocabulary - the origins of the term make its use deeply offensive to me. I don't use it cos I associate it with slave trading, lynching or going round wearing a pointy white sheet. And if I were black, I still wouldn't use it to describe myself or anyone else. While I can understand why persecuted groups of people choose to take back a term of abuse for self-empowerment, I still don't like it. Whether used as a tool of repression or a means of re-inforcing identity, both uses just serve to set groups of people further apart from each other.

I'm always intrigued by the ever changing use and acceptability of terms to describe non-white people (and the never changing use of the term "white"). Up till the 70's there was "coloured", which was often used by white people as a more polite version of [whoops, i did a racism]. Then it was "black". Now, it is "of colour", which although similar to "coloured", to me carries a very different implication - that white people are somehow lacking something.

James Blast wrote:I'm bi-lingual

I'm cunnilingual.

On-topic joke below....

A redneck goes to see his lawyer

"I wants a dee-vorce" he says
"well ok sir what grounds will this divorce take" asks the lawyer
"uh huh?"
"well you need a reason sir, does she beat you maybe?"
"no she is a passive woman yesiree" he replies
"does she drink?"
"nope teetotal"
"do you argue a lot?"
"nope i gets home from work and the meatloaf is on the table ready"
"does she gamble money away?"
"nope she goes to church ev'ry sunday never even bet on the lottery"
"is she unable to bear children?"
"no there is six healthy babees come out o' her since we wed"
"is she a nagger?"
"nope she's a white girl but the last kid was and thats why i wants a dee-vorce"

Andrew S wrote:...white people are somehow lacking something.

We've had all the goodness bleached out of us according to minister Farrakhan.

Thanks for that Ghost.

I never understood why one cannot use the n-word, but STILL can use the term 'black man/people', although they mean the same. 'Niger' is derivated from the latin word for the color black.

And I am not so ignorant to not see the point why the n-word is so offensive, but for a word that is used up till the 60's without meaning offense, I think sometimes a lot of fuss is made about these expressions.

In China it is still commonly used to describe a particular shade of dark brown (n****r brown). Just to show how on one side of the globe a word is highly offensive and on the other side it is not.

IZ.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote: I never understood why one cannot use the n-word, but STILL can use the term 'black man/people', although they mean the same.

The "n-word" is explicitly derogatory and "black man" isn't. What's not to understand here? The word's etymology is negligible, it's how it's being used.

nowayjose wrote:

Izzy HaveMercy wrote: I never understood why one cannot use the n-word, but STILL can use the term 'black man/people', although they mean the same.

The "n-word" is explicitly derogatory and "black man" isn't. What's not to understand here? The word's etymology is negligible, it's how it's being used.

You are completely right, my point is that the n-word is only derogatory for less than 50 years or so, and as Andrew pointed out, one always comes up with other terms to describe people of a different color or race, just to be on the safe side of 'being a proper human being with a clean conscience'.

I don't like to use words like that at all, in fact I'd rather call EVERYONE on the planet a 'human being', or just call him by his given name.

I just don't see the point in finding this or that term more derogatory.

The n-word, coloured people, black people, one of the negroïde race (THE expression of choice among us Dutch or so it seems)... I have problems with them all.

Just call them African or Afro-American. We don't say a 'yellow' either. We call them Chinese or when we're not sure we call them Asians.

Much simpler.

IZ.

nowayjose wrote:

Izzy HaveMercy wrote: I never understood why one cannot use the n-word, but STILL can use the term 'black man/people', although they mean the same.

The "n-word" is explicitly derogatory and "black man" isn't. What's not to understand here? The word's etymology is negligible, it's how it's being used.

But as I told in my post, it's kind of ironic. As we called slaves "negros", in the same way an English would call them black in a non derogatory way (if you can take it as that). Somehow [whoops, i did a racism] adapted from negro, end up refering to a black slave condition which negro didn't meant in the first place.

To me saying coloured, of colour, is much more racist than saying plain black. In here it's a term generally used by older, more conservative people while trying to please and disguise their racist nature. These things depend on culture a lot.

nowayjose wrote:The "n-word" is explicitly derogatory and "black man" isn't. What's not to understand here? The word's etymology is negligible, it's how it's being used.

Ok, fair enough - the word is derogatory. I'll accept that, and I would no sooner call someone who's "culturally diverse" (which apparently means the same as "black" when describing cities like Atlanta) a [word] than I would call a woman a "cnut" or someone in a wheelchair "spastic".
On the other hand, if it's derogatory then no-one should use it, surely? But it seems that when one black guy calls another a [word], it's ok, while when a black guy refers to New York as "Hymietown" then it's not. From this can we surmise that when a derogatory word is used between persons against whom the derogation is aimed, then it's ok, but when used between others it's not? What if two white guys called each other [word]? Or a black guy and a white guy called each other "kike" or "yid"?

Well, the weather is fine so me and my gringo honky friends are going to enjoy the sunshine. We might call in on the peckerwoods and see if some crackers would like to come out as well. Who knows, there could be a whole pack of gweilos and haoles congregating in the park. Any gaijins want to join us?

In related news....Binmen cause outrage in Reading.

Not sure what to think anymore.....

Hom_Corleone wrote:In related news....Binmen cause outrage in Reading.

Not sure what to think anymore.....

I really need to stop myself from reading comments on the Mail website. Unbearable repetitive bulls**t but horribly addictive

Perki wrote:

Hom_Corleone wrote:In related news....Binmen cause outrage in Reading.

Not sure what to think anymore.....

I really need to stop myself from reading comments on the Mail website. Unbearable repetitive bulls**t but horribly addictive

I was unable to find it anywhere else from googling. I heard it on a Radio 5 phone in last night. Honest.

I wonder what would happen if I posted a comment like "These comments are typical "neo-Right" pondscum rantings by people with no respect for each other, signed - A Liberal Leftie. Dance, my puppets."

I left a comment (that I fully expect not to get through the moderation):

"Hey, who cares, it's only a Darkie. You people make me sick."

Hom_Corleone wrote:In related news....Binmen cause outrage in Reading.

Not sure what to think anymore.....

I find it quite amusing, although I suppose that should depend on why it was stuck there in the first place. Again, it's the terminology I have a problem with. As far as I know, it originated as a golly - the wog presumeably being added later. According to the makers of Robinson's Jam, Robinson made a trip to a South Pacific island, where he saw the children there playing with 'gollies' (dollies) which were made from their mothers' old black skirts and white blouses. He though it would make a good mascot for the company and its popularity took off. Mind you, I read that in 1981, so who knows what Robinson actually called them at the time!

I have a large golly (not golliwog), which I'm rather attached to. Although with the stripey trousers and tails, I admit it probably looks more like Al Jolson than the dolls the island children used to play with

It's not a word I would ever choose to use and, like Andrew S, I'm not convinced that groups taking back abusive terms for self-empowerment really works. If they do choose to do so, though, I think it's critical that everyone needs to be able to use said word, not just the persecuted group. Otherwise, all they're doing is calling themselves by the same abusive term. It doesn't take any power away from those who would continue to use it abusively. However, if the word falls into common usage in a non-derogatory way then it becomes hard for people to continue to use it in an abusive manner. For instance, it's very unusual now for the word "gay" to have any offensive power, but only because it's used universally rather than exclusively by the gay community.

stufarq wrote:I'm not convinced that groups taking back abusive terms for self-empowerment really works.

I don't know, it seems to be having some success with "queer".

And I know one guy who calls himself "a big fat poof"

markfiend wrote:"Race" in terms of humans is a pretty meaningless distinction biologically speaking. There's more genetic differences within any given traditionally defined "race" than there are between them.

There's more genetic difference amongst a random bunch of chimpanzees than within the entire human race. So it's really quite silly to try to distinguish people that way indeed...

Either way, all these terms, might well be, but personally I just get so irritated by the fact we have to make up new words for whoever every week as people can't handle the others. The worst bit being it's usually someone from outside those groups who thinks to decide those people shouldn't be called like that anymore.

(but of course, sometimes they're not wrong, it's just the sheer number of name changes...)