Dr. Laura's N-Word Rant: Radio Host Apologizes

[NothingSacred]

As the dominant group you cannot use a term invented to demean black people even if that isnt the context in which it is being used. It brings up a long history of dehumanization. Some black people use it in an attempt to change the meaning (which I find misguided) but the original meaning still stands. As comedian Chris Rock put it " Do you want to have shit or be able to say shit?". If you think its not fair that blacks are allowed to say it and not whites feel free to trade in your pigmentation and all of the benefits that come along with it in exchange for a life long ability to use it.That is unless it comes up in a rap song you like... then you may get a pass(this is the only time my husband needs a pass)  

[youtube:2oa3a9yq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVIs0D2acgw[/youtube:2oa3a9yq]

[youtube:2oa3a9yq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iau-e6HfOg0[/youtube:2oa3a9yq]

[Sophus]

Just when I thought I couldn't possibly lose any more respect for Sarah Palin, she defends Dr. Laura and says...

Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!

...and...

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

I'm sorry... how did Dr. Laura lose her First Amendment rights? And how does being opposed to a racist slur make me a Constitutional obstructionist? No one is suggesting Dr. Laura should be stripped of her right to regurgitate her nonsense, we're just exercising our right to speak out against her nonsense. All the while, Palin doesn't think Family Guy has the right to make a fictional character say, "My mother is the governor of Alaska," or that muslims can build a community center to replace a Burlington Coat Factory in NYC. Who is the Constitutional obstructionist?  

[Tank]

Black people want exclusive use of a word, white people want exclusive use of a beach, both positions smell of racism to me, sorry.

[philosoraptor]

As far as Dr. Laura is concerned, good riddance to bad rubbish.

[NothingSacred]

Black people want exclusive use of a word, white people want exclusive use of a beach, both positions smell of racism to me, sorry.

This is apples to oranges considering the history of the word. If the beach were a place where black people got together to demean white people and make them feel inferior and white people wanted to use the beach for an alternate purpose to wash away the stigma of the previous use of the beach I'd say fine.

[Tank]

Black people want exclusive use of a word, white people want exclusive use of a beach, both positions smell of racism to me, sorry.

This is apples to oranges considering the history of the word. If the beach were a place where black people got together to demean white people and make them feel inferior and white people wanted to use the beach for an alternate purpose to wash away the stigma of the previous use of the beach I'd say fine.

I think I follow your argument but could you have another go please as I most definitely do not want to misunderstand what you are getting at on such a potentially emotive subject. Thanks.

[NothingSacred]

Black people want exclusive use of a word, white people want exclusive use of a beach, both positions smell of racism to me, sorry.

This is apples to oranges considering the history of the word. If the beach were a place where black people got together to demean white people and make them feel inferior and white people wanted to use the beach for an alternate purpose to wash away the stigma of the previous use of the beach I'd say fine.

I think I follow your argument but could you have another go please as I most definitely do not want to misunderstand what you are getting at on such a potentially emotive subject. Thanks.

I should probably start by saying that I don't use the word. It can sound ignorant in daily conversation and the word still carries a sting( it may get a pass for comedic or artistic value). I do however understand blacks who us the word now use it in a different context in an attempt to change the meaning of the word and take away it's power when used as a racial slur. The reason why whites cannot use the word is because historically that word was a tool whites used to demean black people. That history is not going to go away. It MIGHT be different if the usage of the word nigger by racists ended but it is too sticky and confusing to determine which white people are using it as a term of indearment and which are using it to dehumanize and humiliate. I don't understand why an anti racist white person would want to use the term nigger if they understand the history and sting of it. As for your mentioning of the beach or any other thing of that sort a beach is harmless so denying a particular race access to it would be nothing more than bigotry. After reading this perhaps my wording was unclear white people feel free to use the word but that doesnt mean you can use it without criticism or backlash.

[karadan]

I guess I'm lucky. I've never had to deal with full-on racism before. There've obviously been instances in the past where I've seen or heard racist slurs but they are few and far between. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the issue, it just means I'm lucky I've lived in the areas I have, and had the upbringing I have.

There was a girl in my school (boarding school in the UK) who was expelled for using that particular word. Quite right too.
I said earlier that it is a non-issue where I live. I say that because there isn't an issue to talk about. I live in such a multicultural town that there just doesn't seem to be any focus on it at all. That's why using the word is essentially social suicide for whoever utters it - in jest or otherwise.

I'm not informed or qualified enough to actually debate this issue. I can only say how it makes me and my friends feel when the word is used.

As an aside, my boss is South African. He emigrated to the UK simply because he didn't want his children growing up and (possibly) adopting the still very raw and unnecessary views of many of the white people who live there - where racism is still very strong on both sides. Crime was also a factor but that's for another thread I guess.

That's all I have to say about that.

[Tank]

Black people want exclusive use of a word, white people want exclusive use of a beach, both positions smell of racism to me, sorry.

This is apples to oranges considering the history of the word. If the beach were a place where black people got together to demean white people and make them feel inferior and white people wanted to use the beach for an alternate purpose to wash away the stigma of the previous use of the beach I'd say fine.

I think I follow your argument but could you have another go please as I most definitely do not want to misunderstand what you are getting at on such a potentially emotive subject. Thanks.

I should probably start by saying that I don't use the word. It can sound ignorant in daily conversation and the word still carries a sting( it may get a pass for comedic or artistic value). I do however understand blacks who us the word now use it in a different context in an attempt to change the meaning of the word and take away it's power when used as a racial slur. The reason why whites cannot use the word is because historically that word was a tool whites used to demean black people. That history is not going to go away. It MIGHT be different if the usage of the word nigger by racists ended but it is too sticky and confusing to determine which white people are using it as a term of indearment and which are using it to dehumanize and humiliate. I don't understand why an anti racist white person would want to use the term nigger if they understand the history and sting of it. As for your mentioning of the beach or any other thing of that sort a beach is harmless so denying a particular race access to it would be nothing more than bigotry. After reading this perhaps my wording was unclear white people feel free to use the word but that doesnt mean you can use it without criticism or backlash.

I think I have a firmer grip on what you are getting at. I shall think about my reply for a while but I will come back and present my thoughts in due course.

[humblesmurph]

ooooh, race stuff.  In the USA, when I'm around black folks, everything is about race.  When I'm around whites, race is a non issue.  I think the truth lies in between.  

Full disclosure, I use the word "nigga" regularly.  "Nigger" seems to only be used when talking about the use of the word.  I respect that people hate the word(s).  I use "nigga" around people who accept my use of the word.  Some of these people are street hustlers, blue collar workers, and Phd's.  We do use it as a term of endearment.  "My nigga" so and so. We also use it as a general term for black people.  We use it to determine gender "niggas" are men "bitches" are women.  We use it to describe ignorant blacks who mess things up as in "can't give niggas shit" or "niggas always got to fuck something up".  Again, all walks of life use this word in this fashion.

  It's a word that I grew up using, in part because I listened to a lot of rap music.  If a white kid used the word back then (never actually witnessed that as a kid) we were obliged to beat him up.  We were wrong

Now, apparently, white people are using the word more and more.  Well, they do buy most of the rap music.  Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle likely had more white fans than black.  If a white person wants to use the word, cool.  I probably wouldn't befriend that person because it would be embarrassing in public, but that is my shortcoming, not his.  

When a person has to fight for her job because of the mere utterance of the word, it is a first amendment rights issue.  Dave Chappelle can say it on the same network that likely wouldn't allow Jon Stewart to say it.  Censorship is censorship.  This seems no different than the whole drawing of Muhammed thing, well except Muslims don't have a double standard--they don't draw him either.

[Thumpalumpacus]

When a person has to fight for her job because of the mere utterance of the word, it is a first amendment rights issue.  Dave Chappelle can say it on the same network that likely wouldn't allow Jon Stewart to say it.  Censorship is censorship.  This seems no different than the whole drawing of Muhammed thing, well except Muslims don't have a double standard--they don't draw him either.

No one fired her.  She quit.  If this is "censorship" at all, it is self-censorship.  

Also, because there is no organ of government involved, this isn't a First Amendment issue, at all.  The Constitution only applies to governmental bodies, and not to private entities.  

Finally, it isn't the same as the Muhammed cartoons, because "nigger" has a history of maleficence behind it when used by whites, at least until rap hit it big.  

Personally, I regard anyone who uses the word conversationally as pretty ignorant.  Schlesinger didn't do so -- the context was a discussion about the word -- and I do think people are overreacting to her rant, but if I were her employer, I'd have fired her for being so damned stupid she didn't see the ruckus this would raise.  The way she said it was apparently an effort to deride people who are offended by it, to judge from her tone and repetition; she succeeded all too well.  I fail to see why they shouldn't have the right to talk back.

[humblesmurph]

Thump,

She did quit.  So did David Howard.  If you don't know, he was an aide to the mayor of dc in the 90's.  He used the word "niggardly" in reference to a budget I believe.  There was an uproar because people thought he was using a form of the racial slur.  He wouldn't have tendered his resignation (i believe) if there wasn't pressure on him to do so.  He was later offered his job back.  People quit all the time.  It doesn't mean they weren't forced to do it.  I've quit jobs because I felt an unprovable racial bias.  I'm not saying that she was necessarily forced out, point is that the mere fact that she quit doesn't mean that she wasn't.

We obviously disagree about people using a particular word being ignorant.  I use it, so do most of my friends and family.  Gays have words for themselves that I don't feel comfortable using regular conversation.   I don't know If I'm not allowed to call somebody a "fairy" a "queen" or a "fruit" but I just don't do it.  I don't think they are "ignorant" for using a particular word.  I'd need a lot more evidence than that to call somebody ignorant.  

I'm sure this lady has said lots of things that people have disagreed with.  She is quitting after this "nigger" thing though.  Sure people have the right to fight back, however it seems when it comes to this word, there isn't an even playing field.   If she was black, she would certainly be treated differently.  Again, she didn't call anybody a nigger.  Her point about the use of the word has been made countless times by blacks and nobody says peep.  

This is as much a first amendment issue as the NYC community center is.  No government agency has prohibited it.  It's the people who object, not the government.   The point with the mosque is the same here. Using nigger may be in poor taste, just as building a monument to Islam in lower Manhattan may be, but one has the right to do it if they please.  If a church was going to be built, there would be less objection to it, just like if this woman was black there would be less objection to her words.  

White people shouldn't have to fear losing their jobs for saying "nigger" when "n-word" is thrown around in regular conversation all the time.  The two terms are equivalent in my view.  People who use "n-word" but shudder at the use of "nigger" are being ostensibly censored in my view.  If Jon Stewart said "nigger" on TV he'd be censored, Dave Chappelle isn't.  It is not fair to censor people based on race, no matter who is offended.

[Davin]

I don't have a problem with any words in themselves. I don't think a person should ever get offended by a word alone. I personally see getting offended by the word "nigger" as not much different than a person getting offended when I say the word "shit." No one should reasonably be offended just by a word. However if I told someone, "you're a stupid piece of shit." I think there is reason for them to be upset, not because I said "shit" but because I obviously think lowly of the person. Likewise if I heard someone say to me, "you're a stupid nigger," I'd be offended by the sentence, not because of the word (actually, I wouldn't be offended at all, but it's more reasonable to be offended by the sentence than a word).

Whenever I hear people say something like, "When I hear people using word X it just makes them sound ignorant." I'm reminded of extremely snobbish French assholes in pre-Renaissance Europe calling those who used the word "beef" ignorant. Fuck 'em, I think it's far more ignorant for one to limit ones vernacular based on some ever changing list of "unacceptable" words. I can fucking see how using a fucking word too fucking much in fucking sentences can make a fucker look like a stupid fuck, but just choosing to use a word doesn't make a person ignorant. It's not the word choice that makes a person look ignorant, it's how they choose to use the words.

The FCC issues fines for using certain words at certain times in certain contexts... but no clear guidelines on what those are. So while a straight man can't say "fag" in the U.S. before 10pm on a cable show (without being fined), a gay man can use the word all they want. This isn't just the network doing it because they're practicing their own judgment, it's because a government agency will punish them if they don't follow some vague (and vacuous) guidelines. That is government censorship and abridging the freedom of speech. Sure they can still say it without being bleeped, but it's not really freedom when someone comes by and fines them for practicing their freedom of speech.

Usually this leads into how much should a government censor, so I'll just post my opinions on that right now: Preventing people from yelling "fire" in a crowded indoor area, I can understand. It will likely cause a stampede that will injure and even kill people. It's reasonable to fear fire in a place like a theatre, because fire can be very painful and even kill you and it's not unreasonable to think that a fire may have started. Now if a white person runs up to a crowd of black people and yells "NIGGERS" he/she is likely going to be the only person to get hurt if anyone gets hurt. Now I don't think it's right to beat down a cracker just because he/she's a racist asshole, I'm not going to protect someone from doing something to obviously invoke anger and likely an ass whooping on themselves.

Ultimately: If you have to check the color of the persons skin before you decide whether you should be offended or not, you shouldn't be offended. If you have to check the color of the persons skin to determine whether a person is allowed to say something or not, they should be allowed to say it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is as much a first amendment issue as the NYC community center is.  No government agency has prohibited it.  It's the people who object, not the government.   The point with the mosque is the same here. Using nigger may be in poor taste, just as building a monument to Islam in lower Manhattan may be, but one has the right to do it if they please.  If a church was going to be built, there would be less objection to it, just like if this woman was black there would be less objection to her words.  

Indeed.  Why is it okay for New Yorkers to voice their objection to Muslim "discourtesy", and apparently, by your lights, inappropriate for others -- say, those whose families and friends have been the subject of such slurs -- to voice their objections about ole Laura here?  All they're doing is speaking out, just like she did.

No one from the government denied her her rights.  That qualifier, "from the government", is the key.  She still has the right to say "nigger nigger nigger" all she wants.  She just ain't gonna get paid for it.  Even had she been fired, it still would not be a First Amendment issue, because the Constitution only applies to governmental agencies.  

White people shouldn't have to fear losing their jobs for saying "nigger" when "n-word" is thrown around in regular conversation all the time.  The two terms are equivalent in my view.  People who use "n-word" but shudder at the use of "nigger" are being ostensibly censored in my view.  If Jon Stewart said "nigger" on TV he'd be censored, Dave Chappelle isn't.  It is not fair to censor people based on race, no matter who is offended.

Actually, if one of my employees used a racial slur in the workplace, I'd fire them, with no hesitation, because in my line of work I have customers to please.  Her syndicator would have been squarely within its rights to fire her, as she is a paid representative of the company and what she says on her program reflects on them to the customers.

While I agree that it can be bothersome and unfair that a word can be off-limits to some folk simply because of their skin color, that fact only reflects the history of slavery in this country, and cannot be changed.

[humblesmurph]

This is as much a first amendment issue as the NYC community center is.  No government agency has prohibited it.  It's the people who object, not the government.   The point with the mosque is the same here. Using nigger may be in poor taste, just as building a monument to Islam in lower Manhattan may be, but one has the right to do it if they please.  If a church was going to be built, there would be less objection to it, just like if this woman was black there would be less objection to her words.  

Indeed.  Why is it okay for New Yorkers to voice their objection to Muslim "discourtesy", and apparently, by your lights, inappropriate for others -- say, those whose families and friends have been the subject of such slurs -- to voice their objections about ole Laura here?  All they're doing is speaking out, just like she did.

No one from the government denied her her rights.  That qualifier, "from the government", is the key.  She still has the right to say "nigger nigger nigger" all she wants.  She just ain't gonna get paid for it.  Even had she been fired, it still would not be a First Amendment issue, because the Constitution only applies to governmental agencies.  

White people shouldn't have to fear losing their jobs for saying "nigger" when "n-word" is thrown around in regular conversation all the time.  The two terms are equivalent in my view.  People who use "n-word" but shudder at the use of "nigger" are being ostensibly censored in my view.  If Jon Stewart said "nigger" on TV he'd be censored, Dave Chappelle isn't.  It is not fair to censor people based on race, no matter who is offended.

Actually, if one of my employees used a racial slur in the workplace, I'd fire them, with no hesitation, because in my line of work I have customers to please.  Her syndicator would have been squarely within its rights to fire her, as she is a paid representative of the company and what she says on her program reflects on them to the customers.

While I agree that it can be bothersome and unfair that a word can be off-limits to some folk simply because of their skin color, that fact only reflects the history of slavery in this country, and cannot be changed.

I never once said people can't voice their opinion.  You were the one who brought up the First Amendment with regards to the community center.  My point was that if it applies there, it applies here.  As per your definition, the first amendment only applies to government agencies.  No government agency has denied her anything, just as no government agency has denied Imam Rauf anything.  If the First Amendment is a non issue with Dr. Laura, then it is a non issue with Rauf as well.  You can't have it both ways.

I have no problem with you firing somebody for using nigger, as long as you treat all races equally.  If the word is off limits for whites at your place of business, it should be off limits to blacks as well.  If not you'd be guilty of racism in my opinion.

Dr. dipshit aside,  I just don't like our treatment of the word nigger.  It gives white people too much power. How long are we supposed to use the slave/master dynamic in dealing with race issues in America?  I've never been a slave, so I don't expect any special treatment due to slavery.  Likewise, I don't know any whites who have owned slaves so I don't expect any special concessions or apologies on their part.  We are all just people.  One hateful word is no worse or better than another. This tip toeing around nigger just cements our position of inferiority.  We will truly be equal when "cracker" or "white devil" is looked upon with the same scorn that "nigger" is.