Simply put, you have to put the act in context to make a judgment call, which definitely includes who's saying it. I'll keep the discussion neutral here by refering to Wilkepedia. If you read here, you'll see it says, "Historically, African Americans, and others of African descent have appropriated the slur [nigger or nigga], subverted it to a self-referential term that is often suggestive of familiarity, endearment, or kinship. Many, however, always have rejected the term as racist and dehumanizing. Generally, "nigger" is considered a highly offensive racial epithet, especially when used by non-blacks."

So for someone black to use the term is still controversial but accepted as a subversive tactic (and rap is always going for subversive) to neutralize the negativity of slurs. Gays do it too with words like "queer," "homo" and "dyke." Women do it with "bitch" or "ho." It's a common tactic for minority groups.

But for someone who isn't a member of that group, it is not cool. It is cultural appropriation. "But when a dominant or favored group copies and begins to assimilate certain cultural aspects of another group while marginalizing, rejecting, oppressing or otherwise devaluing the people whose culture they covet, there is frequently resentment and sometimes open hostility."

See the difference now? It matters who you are when you do/say something and whether that's appropriate. It's all about context.

[Link]

At the end of the day, you can't legislate what a person thinks. Since Ms. Rain's influence over anybody else is highly questionable, whatever words come out of her mouth really aren't worth all this fuss.

[Link]

So is what we have here a woman who is one member of an oppressed group insulting another oppressed group and thinking that it is tacitly OK because so many porn boxcovers and so much dialogue insults and abuses the same way?

That cannot explain all of it. But it certainly may reinforce it...

[Link]

My point stands: Context matters and who it is that says it matters, and there are levels of appropriateness in what's said, by who, and with what intent. It mattered to you earlier in this thread that people knew you weren't white. Why? Because you believe the weight of your opinion with other people is influenced by their perception of your race in a discussion of racially-charged words.

Btw, perjoratives don't always stick around as perjoratives. Queer, for example, use to be seen as highly offensive. Now it's seen as almost neutral. Self-defeating tactic? Not in this case.

[Link]

Rappers used the path of least resistance to make money. They decided perpetuation of the thug stereotype was worth mining for money. Arguements can be made that entertainment companies force this by who they sign to contracts, but each act decided that money was more important.
So the context is 'money is more important than integrity'.
Looks like fair game to me.

Often in rap, or conversation, these appropriated terms are not 'terms of familiarity, endearment, shared kinship'. Depending on use and delivery, they are still pejoratives.

Or maybe I'm wrong and when the male dominated rap industry seems to be misogynistic, the suggestions that all women are bitches who need to be slapped around, pimped, and used only for sex are meant for endearment. That the shared struggle for equality and independance draws them closer together.

I don't know how I missed that.

Queer is no longer a pejorative? Watch uptight straight men. Or kids.

[Link]

In Latin we had to learn the Nigger derivation by rote , which meant some giggling to begin with followed by eventual boredom and trying to look up Monica's skirt . I'd bet the same sort of thing happens out in the real world .

[Link]

I don't see how any of your arguments about rap show that because some blacks use nigger in a positive context, that means they gave the green light for everyone else to use it or that it's as acceptable for someone who isn't black to use the word nigger. You can disagree with subversion as a tactic, fine. But don't imply because some people choose to do it, that *they* are making it acceptable for other people who aren't part of the group to use the term. Go back to this definition on cultural appropriation. Read the part about, "theft of something considered precious or proprietary to the subject group without a respect on the part of the external culture for, or an understanding of, either the subject culture or the people who practice it."

To your last point: queer can be used perjoratively. So can gay. But as words they've been gone from only perjorative in use to mainstreamed as neutral. You can use it positively, neutrally or negatively. Now it becomes about context...who's saying it and why they're saying it.

[Link]

Perpetuating or eliminating a word doesn't change the thinking of bigots, true. But it can sway those on the borderline. Keep referring to yourselves as niggers and maybe somebody comes to the not unreasonable conclusion that that is what you are.

[Link]

if you're unfriendly about it, i think you could start a fight with about 50% of straight men by walking up to him somewhere public where pride is at stake and calling him a faggot a few times.

honestly, i've never heard someone around my age and sexuality say queer/gay/fag with an intended meaning anywhere close to nuetral. they're almost the swiss-army knife of expressing distaste at a situation or behavior. if someone realized they gave him the drive-thru order for the car behind him a mile away, "that's fucking gay". when they complain about it to their friend later and go overboard, "it's just fast food, get over it you faggot". always negative, doesn't need to have anything to do with sexuality.

the new frontier is recycling the stuff bible-thumping guys with battleship hats in the rear window of their improbably large american sedans used back in the day when everyone kept a bunch of firebombs around the house as means to comment critically on the behavior of others. like the guy always mad about beavis and butthead "whacking it like spider monkeys in my toolshed". lots of stuff about being agents of the devil, commie spies, subhuman abominations. i think they're genuinely spooked by you sodomites, make sure you throw in lots of stuff about the blood orgies and how many jews show up, with christian children to ritually-sacrifice being the considerate guests they are. next grumpy male memeber of the golden generation i see in cvs buying stuff for their messy pooping i'm running up to and saying "so you've got a blown-out bunghole from seeing how many black 14" dildos would fit too? what do you reccomend, you sly old anal-queen you, want to go to the men's room and show me what's in those soiled daipers?there are already a few guys having anonymous sex and sacrificing the kids left alone in carts for a few minutes" you guys should use the horrible rumors and stereotypes found amongst retirees in some hidden-camera show, i guess the liability of people saying something about demons then dying is the reason they had to go with the sexuality-based decorating shows that are just beating the odd-couple concept to death.

[Link]

Hm, if I can offer a suggestion, you might want to upgrade your contrarian references to the last decade or so. You know, more Queer Eye for the Straight Guy than YMCA.

[Link]

when i get time, i've got the best wikipedia story from this morning. be careful there, i got inspired by the iraqi defense minister a year ago and got pretty good at sabatoging entries after it was too much of a pain to deal with changing stuff i didn't like. in may, most of the stuff i'd cooked up to make people look stupid quoting stuff only less-absurd than hindus are forbidden from boarding a hovercraft until their first year of puberty was still standing. i figure it's usually about 90% accurate on anything slashdotty, liberal IT drones in their mid-20's would be familiar with. the stuff from today was fucking outrageous but i've gotta figure out how to protect some identities. anyhow, the jamesn collection of misinformation has to still have 200 anonymous masterpeices, it's a big, trusting audience for about 5 minutes of hit and run comedy, i think after today's events it's time to have some fun at the expense of the people(you're in the clear) who you can pretty much trace whatever they're claiming knowledge of to whatever the wikipedia article said. it's a fucking plague, and sometimes it's worse than tons of monkeys typing stuff randomly like it sometimes is, the real danger is the kind of troll it attracts. not to mention duff mckagan has like three pages while the best and brightest who've ever lived usually get a paragraph.

[Link]

edited for formatting

Edited by - picman on 3/15/2006 7:48:25 AM

[Link]