If it’s possible w/o breaking board rules, can someone give me

[goldberry]

25 minutes ago, Reefgazer said:

I'm not Trump, and I am the one calling Olberman and Behar out.  And if you are pro-sacking of Rosanne, you should be calling the others out, too.

 

I don't care enough about entertainment media to "call for" the sacking of anyone, to be honest.  If I find something gross or offensive, I don't watch it, voting with my money I guess.  I don't watch the View, and I don't follow or watch Olbermann.  My opinion on the Roseanne sacking is that I'm glad they fired her.  If it had been a one time unfortunate comment that was followed with a sincere apology, then I would think differently.  We are on a slide of open racism being more and more accepted right now, and I'm glad this stood out as against that. 

 

[Happy2BaMom]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I would be fine if all of Hollywood and several music industries were fired, but that's a whole other topic.  The whole industry makes its money off of pro-violence, pro-sexual assault, pro-drugs, pro-misogyny, pro-racism, anti-morality, anti-religion and anti-parental guidance themes, and then pretends like it cares more than the rest of us.  How any of us take them seriously is beyond me.

 

Hollywood is hardly alone in making money or being sanctimonious by pretending to hold the moral high ground while tolerating or supporting all kinds of sexual assault, violence, misogyny, racism, etc. 

[goldberry]

Here's an example.  Samantha Bee is under fire for calling Ivanka Trump an obscene name.  This is gross, uncalled for, and something comedians have been doing since the beginning of time.  I wouldn't watch or listen to it.  But it's not racism.  People are acting like it's all the same.  It's not.

[goldberry]

5 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Ah; that might be the disconnect.  A lot of people, myself included, do not see racism as any sort of more evil or more pernicious form of hatred than any other that would involve denigrated, insulting, subjugating, or controlling another person.  

 

I think that looking at it that way denies the history of racism and its outcomes.  The reason we have certain "protected groups" is not because we just especially like those groups. Protected groups come about because of a previous history of systematic or widespread (not individual) violence and discrimination.  Racism has led to slavery and genocide, on a widespread scale.  We have already gone down that road and have the history to show where it ends.

Power and vulnerability absolutely play a role in how dangerous something is.  I don't disagree with the wrongness of it.  But yes, one is most certainly more dangerous than the other.  

I think that is why we are FINALLY seeing similar pushback to misogynistic comments, rape jokes, etc.  It is finally being realized how those comments have created a systematic culture of violence and discrimination towards women - again, on a widespread scale, not individual. It took long enough.

[goldberry]

Just now, Arctic Mama said:

I deny nothing of the evils of racism, that isn’t at all what I said.

 

What I *am* saying is that there are many evils in the hearts of men, and we see those on full display.  You said that people are acting like it is the same and you say it isn’t - but that’s just your opinion.  Obviously not everyone is seeing it as some other level of hatred and evil.  I explained to you why that is, and it isn’t because they ‘don’t see racism as evil’, but that it is evil right along with other similar speech and behavior relating to ascribed characteristics of a person.

 

I didn't say it wasn't as evil.  I said it wasn't as dangerous.  I didn't say you were denying the evil of racism, but that people who think it's "the same" are denying the *history* that shows it is not in fact, the same. 

[SKL]

I hate what was said.  But no, racist jokes are not the only dangerous ones nor even the most dangerous IMO.

Not that I feel we should be focused on what is the lowest of the low anyway.  We could call for higher standards across the board.

[goldberry]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I hate what was said.  But no, racist jokes are not the only dangerous ones nor even the most dangerous IMO.

Not that I feel we should be focused on what is the lowest of the low anyway.  We could call for higher standards across the board.

 

Can you explain what other type of insult or commentary is as closely tied to systematic slavery, genocide, or widespread discrimination?  I did mention misogyny and rape jokes, which definitely could make an argument.  I'm not referring to "jokes" specifically, but racist comments of all types.

And I am totally in favor of "higher standards", but that sure as hell isn't happening when our leader is one of the worst offenders.  Are comedians and entertainers supposed to be held to higher standards than the president?  Good luck with that.  We're going backwards in that area, not forwards.

[SKL]

Well making it divisive is just another way of elevating oneself by putting others down.  I think everyone on the planet agrees the comment was atrocious.  So yay, a moment of agreement.  But we can't have that.

[goldberry]

16 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well making it divisive is just another way of elevating oneself by putting others down.  I think everyone on the planet agrees the comment was atrocious.  So yay, a moment of agreement.  But we can't have that.

 

Whaaa?

[Tanaqui]

Quote

This is the struggle I am having. They cancelled a show and 200 or so people lost their jobs over a single sentence. Plus, they knew exactly what they were getting into with her....she's always been a loose cannon. 

 

It's not like those people are tainted by any connection with her, or like ABC is just going to air the test signal for half an hour foreverafter. They'll put out a new sitcom, and 200 people will be hired for that sitcom. Problem solved.

Quote

 

I chose not to apologize or explain, because I didn't (and still don't) feel that I insulted anyone because there was not a hint of racial intent in what I said; the term monkey was used in the same context as I used with my kids.

 

 

A less loaded term for a child who likes to climb might be "squirrel", which is what I called my own biracial girls when they were up in trees or high scaffolding. (When they were clambering over rocks in Battery Park City, I called them little mountain goats.)

[NewIma]

I cannot believe how many people on this thread don't feel like what she said was that big a deal, or that the worst aspect of this is that people lost their jobs. I cannot believe that people are trying to explain it away with ambian or mental illness. That is naive white privilege.

 

When a person is racist they are dehumanizing all members of the group they are degrading. They are contributing to a prevasive culture of racism that is EVERYWHERE in America. Two super sweet and kind hearted fifth graders I know (at separate schools) were called the N word at school by white classmates in the last month. One girl was told she was too black to go to her school. Today I was at an educational program at a museum with a lot of audience participation. The presenters kept calling on the white kids and ignoring the black kids. White kids got called at least 3x as often as black kids (taking into account the percentages). When I hang out with my friends of color I see that they are dealing with both subtle and blatant racist treatment constantly. CONSTANTLY. If you aren't close friends with a person of color that you have no clue how prevasive and soul sucking our racist culture is. I was naive myself before I became friends with people of color. If you think racism is minor or mostly a thing of the past, you need to hear stories from people who are living with racism everyday.

[NewIma]

14 hours ago, SKL said:

I hate what was said.  But no, racist jokes are not the only dangerous ones nor even the most dangerous IMO.

That is something only a white person could say.  Everyone else who has suffered the effects of racism (lynchings, slavery, substandard educational opportunities, inability to vote, bulldozing of whole neighborhoods by city governments, lower wages, less likely to be hired than a white person with the same qualifications, longer prison sentences than white people who committed similar crimes, being followed in stores because it is  assumed you will steal, having the police be called on you for sitting in a coffee shop or having a family cook out, etc) knows differently.

[Ausmumof3]

17 hours ago, Quill said:

But note, I am not defending Roseanne for her words. I am referring to the poster who called the boy at gymnastics a little monkey. That is what I could surely do meaning nothing ill and it would not occur to me that it was a little black child. 

Personally, I think Twitter is a waste of data and think the world would be better off if nobody, certainly no celebrity or person of prominence, ever tweeted anything. Maybe, “my new book is available on Amazon now!” But no opinions about other celebrities, no jokes at the expense of other people, no political party schmearing. But I live in LaLa Land. 

I quite enjoy SWB tweets occasionally...

[Carrie12345]

15 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Ah; that might be the disconnect.  A lot of people, myself included, do not see racism as any sort of more evil or more pernicious form of hatred than any other that would involve denigrated, insulting, subjugating, or controlling another person.  It’s one in a long list of vile things humans do and say to one another to elevate themselves, and it is just as dehumanizing as any other derogation.  Because let’s not kid ourselves that sexually objectifying another or calling for their assault or murder isn’t also othering and dehumanizing and creates behaviors that cause actual physical harm to others.

 

Her comments were disgusting.  But they are not some other level of detestable that other humans don’t stoop to in their own preferred worldview.  For example, attacking a butcher as a murderer and inciting violence against him or his business because of animal rights is equally hateful and prejudiced and dangerous.  

 

All of it is unacceptable.  And arguably to the same degree. 

Harming one person, one family, one community is VERY bad, yes.  Unacceptable, yes.

Fueling the systematic hatred and harm of a group of people based on the color of their skin is NOT the same degree.  I've never heard of butcherists who, as a group, are determined to keep butchers down.  Or butcher kids, who have to learn how to protect themselves from a butcherist society.   Or worry about living in neighborhoods where butcher families aren't welcome, don't have access to a decent education, can't get a cab to pick them up, get followed by store employees, fear getting pulled over, have a more difficult time finding employment if their name sounds too butchery, gets told they speak too butchery or not butchery enough, and are expected to keep to their butcher circles because non-butchers are afraid of butchers and worry about eventually becoming less-than-butchers, themselves.

If you (general) can look at a little Black or Latino child and say, "Well, people make fun of Ivanka, too"... eh, I don't know what the "then" is to that if.  Other than hope being lost.

[Farrar]

I feel pretty uncomfortable with all the equivocation about calling people monkeys. The whole, what if she didn't know she was black, what if I called a kid a monkey, what about when someone called a white person a monkey... And the whole, I refuse to police my language attitude. I mean, we ALL police our language. Most of us aren't going around yelling the F word at anyone and everyone who makes us annoyed, or laying out to our kids all the things about them that tick us off, or snipping at our spouses whenever we feel like it... I mean, unless you have a condition, you're policing your language already. You just want to make sure that you don't additionally have to police your language for racism. Because you're sure your intent is good.

But it's beyond intent at this point. When you say a word that is laden with racist meaning and overtones, even if you don't mean to, you've brought racism into a conversation. And the only way to have any kind of fix for it is to apologize. You can't then say, well, sometimes it's okay to call people monkeys. You can't get defensive. Not if you want to make it right. 

One of my (white, like me) sons has long hair that he used to not take care of. When I'd eventually give in and detangle it, sometimes I had some choice words for how bad he'd let it get. But then when a good friend, who is black, was having a bad hair day and complaining about it herself, he brought in some of that language and I nearly died hearing it. Like, holy crap, no. You cannot say that stuff about a black girl's hair as a white kid. So insulting, and, honestly, racist. Was he meaning to be racist? No. He was trying to be mildly teasing after she'd already said how annoyed she was about her hair and having to get it ready for ballet. But it was, it totally was. Intent matters, but it's not a be all end all excuse. I stopped using that language about my own kid's hair, because I was like, let's just not bring it into the world. There are better ways.

[Annie G]

11 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I quite enjoy SWB tweets occasionally...

Me, too. SWB’s tweets are lovely. Hope she catches that flight she’s waiting for... My Twitter feed is under my control. I follow people who make me think, keep me informed, stretch my mind.  My feed would look very different if I followed the Kardashians or samantha Bee or Roseanne or any number of other people.   

[LucyStoner]

The original run of Roseanne wasn't especially political.  There were a few mentions of contemporary issues and politicians but it wasn't overtly political.  It was a brilliant show and was one of the only shows that genuinely portrayed working class people.  Its reboot may be the only reboot of a sitcom I would have had any interest in seeing.  But Roseanne's off the rail political commentary royally messed that up.  

I honestly hope they spin off a show named Jackie or Darlene, which I would watch any day of the week.  

IMO, anyone who says calling a black person an ape isn't necessarily racist is simply feigning ignorance or has zero education, formal or street.  It's 2018.  Good grief. 

Mental illness and sleeping pills or whatever other cover people want to point to don't explain away a pattern of racism. 

Roseanne makes liberal and progressives especially uncomfortable because she is exactly what they want to pretend doesn't exist- a generally more politically liberal than a conservative person who supported Trump and holds a mix of racist beliefs.  She's not a conservative Republican supporter of Trump.   And liberals as a group prefer to pretend that racism is a problem of a set of conservative "others".  Not letting conservatives off the hook here at all.  Racism is a deep, pervasive problem impacting the entire political spectrum.  

[Katy]

17 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

<snip>

I honestly hope they spin off a show named Jackie or Darlene, which I would watch any day of the week.  

<snip>

Roseanne makes liberal and progressives especially uncomfortable because she is exactly what they want to pretend doesn't exist- a generally more politically liberal than a conservative person who supported Trump and holds a mix of racist beliefs.  She's not a conservative Republican supporter of Trump.   And liberals as a group prefer to pretend that racism is a problem of a set of conservative "others".  Not letting conservatives off the hook here at all.  Racism is a deep, pervasive problem impacting the entire political spectrum.  

 

I totally agree.  Both about the spin off - which I hope is Darlene.  Both because I adore Sarah Gilbert and because no one has covered the rather pervasive issue of people in my generation with college degrees who would make more money as terrible waitresses than they would in many office jobs, and I think moving to a city for economic opportunity and then moving to your parents home with your kids in economic failure is something that is pretty common these days.

And yeah, I've seen facebook comments similar to your second paragraph repeatedly in the past couple days.  Frankly it shocks me how many liberal friends I have that honestly believe every single person who lives in a small town is racist, that there is no economic problem at all in the country other than people who refuse to move to a city for better economic opportunities, and that all Trump voters are white supremacist conspiracy theorists. It floors me that they cannot acknowledge there are legitimate problems outside their bubble, or that they have quite a bit of bias of their own.

[LucyStoner]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

 

I totally agree.  Both about the spin off - which I hope is Darlene.  Both because I adore Sarah Gilbert and because no one has covered the rather pervasive issue of people in my generation with college degrees who would make more money as terrible waitresses than they would in many office jobs, and I think moving to a city for economic opportunity and then moving to your parents home with your kids in economic failure is something that is pretty common these days.

And yeah, I've seen facebook comments similar to your second paragraph repeatedly in the past couple days.  Frankly it shocks me how many liberal friends I have that honestly believe every single person who lives in a small town is racist, that there is no economic problem at all in the country other than people who refuse to move to a city for better economic opportunities, and that all Trump voters are white supremacist conspiracy theorists. It floors me that they cannot acknowledge there are legitimate problems outside their bubble, or that they have quite a bit of bias of their own.

2

Your point about Darlene is very true.  For every one of my same age friends and classmates who is doing very well, there is another who is approaching 40 with little to show for it career-wise or financially.  

One thing I liked about the reboot, which I will admit to cautiously watching late at night with my brother, was that none of the kids "got out", even the one with the college degree.  A diminishing level of economic mobility is a very true to life thing, and I was afraid they would do the TV cop-out of having one or more of the kids be fabulously wealthy or even just affluent and successful financially.  Becky was a straight-A student turned lifetime waitress, Darlene went to college but was laid off and seemingly abandoned by her husband, DJ went to the military but is out and working a civilian job, the baby is a young adult on a fishing boat.  Americans share this delusion that what separates the well off from the not well off is hard work and making the right choices.  Well, a lot of kids from poor backgrounds make the right choices and work hard and end up with very little to show for it.  

There were problematic things about the reboot too, but there were some really good things as well.  Dan in the flooding basement feeling like he can no longer promise he will take care of it was especially poignant.  

Growing up in a liberal city as part of an bi-racial family immunized me early and often of any notions of white liberals being beyond racism.  

[SKL]

58 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Roseanne makes liberal and progressives especially uncomfortable because she is exactly what they want to pretend doesn't exist- a generally more politically liberal than a conservative person who supported Trump and holds a mix of racist beliefs.  She's not a conservative Republican supporter of Trump.   And liberals as a group prefer to pretend that racism is a problem of a set of conservative "others".  Not letting conservatives off the hook here at all.  Racism is a deep, pervasive problem impacting the entire political spectrum.  

True and well said.

[LucyStoner]

27 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

https://www.creators.com/read/connie-schultz/05/18/we-already-knew-this-about-roseanne-barr

I really like Conne. She’s had much to say in the recent weeks about how the original portrayed working class people.

 

Does the original speak for all working class poor people?  No.  Working class people, like any other large group, are not a monolith. But it rang very true to life to me and it was one of very few shows where actual financial struggles, day in and day out, have ever been portrayed on TV.   On TV, even families who aren't affluent seem to magically live like they are. The Connor's family dynamic, which was primarily loving underneath the dysfunctional spats, reflected my own.  The daily hustle of how to pay what and when and stay semi-afloat?  Many of those exact same things went down very similarly in my family of origin.  We were loud and a little crass, and my mom argued, loudly and unrepentantly, with teachers year in and year out to get my brothers and me a fair shake at school.  

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 

Does the original speak for all working class poor people?  No.  Working class people, like any other large group, are not a monolith. But it rang very true to life to me and it was one of very few shows where actual financial struggles, day in and day out, were portrayed.  The Connor's family dynamic, which was primarily loving underneath the dysfunctional spats, reflected my own.  The daily hustle of how to pay what and when and stay semi-afloat?  Many of those exact same things went down very similarly in my family of origin.  We were loud and a little crass, and my mom argued, loudly and unrepentantly, with teachers year in and year out to get my brothers and me a fair shake at school. 

Same. It was real life to me. And it showed that life is HARD, and you do the best you can and that's what you do. and it addressed things like domestic abuse, child abuse, economic injustice, workplace sexism, etc etc. 

The reboot turned it's back on a lot of that. 

[LucyStoner]

On 5/31/2018 at 4:18 AM, Quill said:

But note, I am not defending Roseanne for her words. I am referring to the poster who called the boy at gymnastics a little monkey. That is what I could surely do meaning nothing ill and it would not occur to me that it was a little black child. 

Personally, I think Twitter is a waste of data and think the world would be better off if nobody, certainly no celebrity or person of prominence, ever tweeted anything. Maybe, “my new book is available on Amazon now!” But no opinions about other celebrities, no jokes at the expense of other people, no political party schmearing. But I live in LaLa Land. 

 

 

I definitely disagree.  I don't spend much time on twitter on a regular basis but there's a lot of value there at times.  Following breaking news and sports.  My husband's primary connection to current events and news is twitter based and he's very well informed.  Recently, I had my older son read through a bunch of #actuallyautistic and it helped him break out of a long and troubling stretch of self-loathing as related to him being on the spectrum himself.   Similar affinity groups have emerged on twitter which are also informative and helpful.  Yes, there's nonsense but just like with anything, what you experience is largely dependent on how you use it and who you interact with.  

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 

I definitely disagree.  I don't spend much time on twitter on a regular basis but there's a lot of value there at times.  Following breaking news and sports.  My husband's primary connection to current events and news is twitter based and he's very well informed.  Recently, I had my older son read through a bunch of #actuallyautistic and it helped him break out of a long and troubling stretch of self-loathing as related to him being on the spectrum himself.   Similar affinity groups have emerged on twitter which are also informative and helpful.  Yes, there's nonsense but just like with anything, what you experience is largely dependent on how you use it and who you interact with.  

I guess it has its value to some. I am not anti-social media (obviously, since I am here), but twitter never resonated with me. 

There are definitely certain figures who should have their twitter suspended. It gives a platform for people who should have a filter installed. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Quill
Typo

[LucyStoner]

2 hours ago, heartlikealion said:

Are the reboot episodes available? Because I didn't even get to finish watching what aired on hulu. I saw like 3? episodes.

I was upset about the scene with Darlene's child and Roseanne at the sink and knew that the show might go in directions I did not like. But I did enjoy other aspects of the show. 

I would watch a spin off. People on my feed were joking about swapping out the mom (like Fresh Prince) or renaming it The Conners. A spin off about one of the other characters sounds like it could be good. 

 

Apparently, one thing holding up a spinoff is that Roseanne wasn't just an actress on Roseanne.  She created the show and characters.  

https://people.com/tv/why-roseanne-cant-continue-without-roseanne-barr/

The reboot episodes have vanished from the ABC website and Hulu.  

[Reefgazer]

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 8:26 AM, Ktgrok said:

The issue there is no one would know you meant it innocently. I don't think you did anything wrong, but sometimes we can accidentally do things that could be easily misinterpreted. Not your fault, but the world we live in. The yucky people kind of ruined things for the rest of us, is what I'm saying. And I say this as someone who did the EXACT same thing you did, and then felt awkward about it. I didn't apologize because in the context I said it in it was pretty clear how I meant it and drawing more attention would have made it worse I think. 

I think this problem could be solved by assuming general good will and not jumping to "racism" as the default explanation for something.  I think there are some obvious racism comments that can't possibly be taken any other way (like Rosanne's comments), but far too often, racism is used as an epithet to hurl at someone to shut down their opinion or to shut down discussion or as a political means to an end.

[Reefgazer]

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 8:42 PM, StellaM said:

I think by now anyone who has a functioning brain understands that calling a black person a monkey or an ape is racist.

If you call your own kid a cheeky monkey, that is not racist. Probably a good idea not to call random black kids monkeys though. 

Full disclosure: my mixed race kid had a t-shirt as a 6 year old that had a monkey picture on it. Also, my POC husband sometimes calls himself an ape, ironically, in the spirit of reclaiming a slur. Doesn't mean his white wife can call him an ape. (I actually hate when he does this, and think that for all the irony, it still reflects a level of internalised colorism - he's the darkest in his family, with a lighter skinned mother who desperaterly tried to make him light skinned too - but not my business to censor him).

Re Samantha Bee, I think it's misogyny to call another woman the c word. I believe she's apologised. Probably not for misogyny though. 

This stuff is not complicated. Really, it's not. Don't call people of color monkeys. Don't call women c****. End of. 

OK, so you are having trouble with context and meaning.  Again, the word "monkey" is not racist, even though some types want to use it to fan political flames, and word meanings and implications don't change just because someone doesn't like their original meaning. 

[Tanaqui]

Except that it potentially is, and you darn well know it. People getting offended at you casually using slurs is not "fanning political flames". It's asking for basic manners.

[goldberry]

1 hour ago, Reefgazer said:

OK, so you are having trouble with context and meaning.  Again, the word "monkey" is not racist, even though some types want to use it to fan political flames, and word meanings and implications don't change just because someone doesn't like their original meaning. 

 

Why would you say she's having trouble with it?  Her comment to me seems to show she has a very good grasp of it.  The word meaning does not change, but the implication most definitely does, based on the context.  It's not about someone "not liking" the original meaning.  It's about the word having been used in a certain way that carries a different implication when it is used in that way again.  

ETA, the idea that word meanings can change based on the context is not a political issue, but a principle of language.

 

[SKL]

When I was growing up, everyone called their kids "little monkeys" when they climbed on things they weren't expected to climb on.  It was no more an epithet than "little cutie."  Race wasn't even remotely considered.

I agree that most of us now realize it has a chance to be heard as a racial slur so we are careful.  There may be some people who aren't that aware though - many people don't hang out on the internet.

We need to remember not everyone has the same experience.

[goldberry]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

When I was growing up, everyone called their kids "little monkeys" when they climbed on things they weren't expected to climb on.  It was no more an epithet than "little cutie."  Race wasn't even remotely considered.

I agree that most of us now realize it has a chance to be heard as a racial slur so we are careful.  There may be some people who aren't that aware though - many people don't hang out on the internet.

We need to remember not everyone has the same experience.

 

I agree with that.  I didn't realize it myself for quite awhile.  But when I did, I didn't insist on continuing to use it that way.  That's the difference I think.  If a person who has no history of being racist or saying anything racist says something, they deserve the benefit of the doubt.  There are others who don't.

[marbel]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

When I was growing up, everyone called their kids "little monkeys" when they climbed on things they weren't expected to climb on.  It was no more an epithet than "little cutie."  Race wasn't even remotely considered.

I agree that most of us now realize it has a chance to be heard as a racial slur so we are careful.  There may be some people who aren't that aware though - many people don't hang out on the internet.

We need to remember not everyone has the same experience.

 

I will be honest - even though I hang out on the internet, until this thread I did not associate the word monkey - when applied to active children - as a potentially racist term.  Now, I don't tend to call kids monkeys (monkeys creep me out; my kids never had monkey stuffed animals and I avoided Curious George) but I've never had reason to think of it as something I shouldn't say, that it could be offensive if used in that way.

[goldberry]

I didn't have any idea of it until Obama's presidency.  There was a group around here buying billboards and putting up signs with Obama as a monkey or an ape.  Once I saw that the racism connection was very clear, especially the way the signs were designed.  I wouldn't call anybody a monkey (child or not) after that experience, especially not a black child or person.

[marbel]

15 minutes ago, goldberry said:

I didn't have any idea of it until Obama's presidency.  There was a group around here buying billboards and putting up signs with Obama as a monkey or an ape.  Once I saw that the racism connection was very clear, especially the way the signs were designed.  I wouldn't call anybody a monkey (child or not) after that experience, especially not a black child or person.

I wonder how I missed that!  I was paying attention.  Or maybe I didn't associate it with little kids. Maybe growing up playing on "monkey bars" had something to do with it - that I think of it as an innocent kid thing.  Who knows.   No chance of me starting to call people that now, in any case.

[SKL]

I remember when I took sociology in college and my professor was talking about people saying black people were closer to apes than white people.  (Monkey wasn't an issue then apparently.)  My teacher went on to point out all kinds of ways that apes are more like white people.  Most of them have lighter skin, smoother hair, and I don't remember what else.  But apparently people didn't stop making a racist comparison.

I also remember that there was a major fuss when (in 1983) Howard Cosell called a young black football player a "little monkey" referring to his speed / agility.  Apparently he had a history of calling both black and white players "little monkey" at different times, but it was considered a serious racist slur in this case.  So I guess at that point, the issue was out there, at least for adults.  I still don't think people made the connection with little kids at that point.

I learned "monkey" could be offensive for little kids when I joined the international adoption community.  Apparently some ethnicities consider it extremely offensive if their child is referred to as a monkey.  They use terms like "bean" as their affectionate non-human labels.  Good to know.

I never called my kids "monkey" because they weren't really climbers.  Therefore it's been quite a while since I called anyone "monkey," and I'm pretty unlikely to slip and call a black child that.  Not because I'm a better person than anyone who does, but because my own personal history makes it unlikely.  My sister who has more active kids & avoids the internet might well do it without meaning any harm.

[SKL]

Just now, heartlikealion said:

 

I would never think to use the term squirrel, probably because squirrels don't swing or have quite the same silly association. But, I can see it working in some cases.

Yeah, to me "squirrel" would imply "squirrely" which suggests a bad personality.

[Lady Florida.]

25 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

The word 'monkey' applied to a black person, or person of color, be they 5, 15 or 55, by a white person, has a long and ignoble racist history. Nothing wrong with my comprehension skills, nor my understanding of history. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Is it actually going to kill anyone to avoid calling black people 'monkeys' or 'apes' now that everyone on this thread has no excuse for not knowing the connotations and history of doing so is racist ? 

What a waste of free speech energy, arguing for the right to compare black people to apes, or call any child you like 'monkey' without having to face the fact the comparison has a racist history. Simianisation is just a variation on the dehumanising linguistic strategies used against those unlike 'us' (whites in this instance). You know how some people call refugees 'cockroaches' ? Well, calling a black man or woman an ape achieves the exact same thing - contributes to the essentialising view of blacks as 'less than human', as 'closer to animal than (white) human'.

It doesn't matter if 'you don't say it with racist intent'...it's racist. People should stop arguing for the right to use racist slurs. It's ugly.

Anything you want to say about children, athleticism, black politics, white politics etc can be achieved without racist slurs. 

All of the above. I actually find it surprising that people, at least in the U.S. don't know that ape and monkey have been used as racial slurs but it seems there are many who were unaware of it. Maybe my age is in my favor here because I remember a time when it was used publicly and without shame (user shame that is) to degrade black people. Roseanne is several years older than me so she was around then too. She should know better. In fact she does know better. By saying she though Jarrett was white it shows that she knows why it would be wrong to use ape or monkey when referring to a black person. 

Regardless if one was aware of the racial tone of the word when used towards black people, once that's known why is it so hard to just say, "Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize" and then just stop using it, as @goldberry said upthread is what she did once she found out. Why is it so important to dig one's heels in and continue to use it once you (general you) know the history and connotations it brings up? 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, SKL said:

When I was growing up, everyone called their kids "little monkeys" when they climbed on things they weren't expected to climb on.  It was no more an epithet than "little cutie."  Race wasn't even remotely considered.

I agree that most of us now realize it has a chance to be heard as a racial slur so we are careful.  There may be some people who aren't that aware though - many people don't hang out on the internet.

We need to remember not everyone has the same experience.

Yeah, I think it’s this. For my part, it would not hurt to become aware of potential problems with saying, “little monkey”. It would be wise to consciously change that to “little squirrel” or whatever. It wouldn’t be the first time I consciously changed a speech habit. (Mostly I intentionally curbed regionalisms that mark me from this area.)

OTOH, I do think there is some room for grace. If I noticed someone pulled a kid off the gym equipment (haha, just realized those were always called “monkey bars”) and call him a little monkey, it seems obvious from context that she is NOT hurling a racial epithet. 

I also agree that it’s easy for someone to not be that aware that certain things fall out of favor. Take for example, language referring to LGBTQ people. An older person who doesn’t hang out on the internet and doesn’t run in an “open” circle is not going to be up on terms. 

I learned a lot of my current diversity-sensitive information from having taken a college class on diversity in the past few years. 

[SKL]

My daughter (who is of indigenous Central American descent, lest people assume she is just another stupid ignorant white racist) has started noticing and critiquing people's noses.  I'm always hearing what she thinks of this and that person's nose - mostly white people, since most of the people she sees in person are white.  The noses may be too wide, long, the nostrils the wrong shape or whatever.  I am not fond of this line of discussion and I've told her it isn't nice, but she does it anyway.

Well last night, we were at a restaurant and she made a comment about an AA employee's nose being too wide.  I hushed her and told her people hearing that might think she was racist.  I thought about how to explain that to a goofy 11yo, and decided there was no point.

It raises the honest question of what people consider to be racist.  It seriously makes no sense that one's interest in other people's nose shapes becomes racist as soon as there is a certain amount of African heritage behind a given nose.  And obviously noticing noses is just one example.  It also raises the question of how we're ever to get to the point where all people are treated the same regardless of skin color, when we have more and more rules saying xyz is fine for whites but racist if someone is black. 

I'm not saying we all need to say whatever comes to mind, I'm just saying this is not a clear cut issue, especially as contemporary language changes over time.  Mistakes will be made, and acting like anyone making them is a racist pig is not advancing any worthwhile cause.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

I'm guessing it's time to change my username...  it was never ever meant to be offensive.  ?

Interesting. See, I never noticed that, either. It was just the same “little monkey” thing I had heard a million times before. 

[SKL]

And ps I don't think I saw anyone here insisting that they're going to keep calling black people monkeys / apes and they can just suck it up.  I didn't see anything close to that kind of reasoning.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

It's really boring when people post not understanding what racism actually is. And why a child of color critiquing a white nose is merely insensitive, possibly rude, and NOT RACIST. So not remotely comparable to calling a black woman a monkey, which is.

(Unless of course she has learned to critique noses as Jewish, in which case the poor kid's learned some nasty ole antisemitism.)

OK so is my kid's comment about a black guy having too wide a nose racist or not?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I'm actually 100% sure that no-one needs diversity training to not use slurs relating to sexual orientation or gender identity either. 

I mean, does anyone affectionately ruffle a child's hair and say 'Ah, she's such a little lezzo'.  Or call a transgender woman a 'tranny" ?  

No! Not if they are generally polite people they don't. Nobody needs training to understand that it's impolite to use a slur to describe someone. Most people of average and above cognition know when something is a slur. 

It is never OK to use slurs towards and about a minority or a group which does not exercise systemic power. 

I’m saying they would not realize it is a slur. It has been around them their whole lives and was casually used and nobody said, “don’t say that; it is a slur.” They can fail to have realized. 

I remember one time on these boards, someone was very upset over the term, “gyped.” I never in my life realized before that that “gyped” is a loaded term against Gypsies. (Or Romanov peoples or whatever they are called properly now.) I have heard people far and wide proclaim that they were gyped. 

And some terms are “minded” by some and not others. I think that with “Black.” Some people are fine with that descriptor. Some are not. I feel hesitant sometimes to even use a term. I used to work with a woman (with dark skin and kinky hair) who would get annoyed when people called her African American. She was Jamaican. But there’s no way to know she did not have African heritage and this was during a time when I was afraid to say Black. Once I knew she was Jamaican, okay, no problem. I will use that word in her case. 

Queer is like that, too. Some people hate Queer and others don’t mind it. 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

I remember one time on these boards, someone was very upset over the term, “gyped.” I never in my life realized before that that “gyped” is a loaded term against Gypsies. (Or Romanov peoples or whatever they are called properly now.) I have heard people far and wide proclaim that they were gyped. 

 

Interestingly, the etymology here is a bit confused and it's not 100% whether the term IS related to "gypsy" at all. But many people think it is, and it surely sounds connected to what is an unpleasant racial stereotype, so it's a lot easier to just say "cheated" rather than laboriously explain that really I wasn't thinking that blah blah blah. (Easier for me, and a heck of a lot easier for the listener as well. Nobody wants to hear that I'm not really a bigot like those other folks.)

Quote

OK so is my kid's comment about a black guy having too wide a nose racist or not?

 

It's always offensive to criticize people's bodies in this manner. If you're capable of telling her flat-out that it's not acceptable to say it about black people's noses, then you really ought to lay down the law when it comes to everybody's noses, knees, elbows, figures, freckles....

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

It's always offensive to criticize people's bodies in this manner. If you're capable of telling her flat-out that it's not acceptable to say it about black people's noses, then you really ought to lay down the law when it comes to everybody's noses, knees, elbows, figures, freckles....

Well sure, but even she knows that it's a lot worse to be viewed as a racist than just a general jerk.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

Hmm. I think you're maybe underestimating the racism and overestimating the ignorance.

Re queer, ask. Some LBG people definitely consider it a slur. Some LBGT people don't.

IME, there are many people who have tons of racism in their heads and are, in fact, racist, but don’t think they are. They just think they are “normal.” 

I remember one time, I was at a pool party for end-of-season sports party. There was a couple who were Middle Eastern and were Muslim. (There were also other non-White people on the team, but let’s stick with this one example.) So, I’m sitting on the pool step with the ME lady to my left and a white lady to my right. We are talking about sunscreen and how easily/not easily we burn. I burn easily and don’t tan that dark. The white lady says, “I hardly ever burn. By the end of the summer, I will be so dark, I’ll look like a terrorist.” I was absolutely stunned. The ME lady said nothing. I said nothing.

So, here’s the thing: do I think the white lady has a (racist) narrative in her head about “dark skinned = terrorist? Yes, I do. Do I think she purposfully said that because she was maligning the ME woman? No, I don’t. I don’t even think it ocurred to her that she had said something gallingly offensive. 

Now - what would happen if someone pulled her aside and told her, “That was quite hurtful, I am sure, to ———, who has dark skin and is Muslim. You ought not to compare having dark skin with terrorism. Obviously having dark skin does not make one a terrorist.” Would it dawn on her? Would she get defensive? Would she change? I don’t know. But people don’t have an opportunity to change for the better unless they get information. 

There were lots of things I did not realize were racist and a slur until I learned otherwise directly. I think it’s nuts to think people will just “pick up” on certain things. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Interestingly, the etymology here is a bit confused and it's not 100% whether the term IS related to "gypsy" at all. But many people think it is, and it surely sounds connected to what is an unpleasant racial stereotype, so it's a lot easier to just say "cheated" rather than laboriously explain that really I wasn't thinking that blah blah blah. (Easier for me, and a heck of a lot easier for the listener as well. Nobody wants to hear that I'm not really a bigot like those other folks.)

 

It's always offensive to criticize people's bodies in this manner. If you're capable of telling her flat-out that it's not acceptable to say it about black people's noses, then you really ought to lay down the law when it comes to everybody's noses, knees, elbows, figures, freckles....

I agree that it is just as easy to say, “I got cheated,” and this is what I now say, after I heard the “gyped” thing discussed on these boards. But my point was that I used that term, as a reasonably intelligent and polite person, for something like 40 years. It never bothered me if someone else said it and I didn’t connect it with racism and I certainly would not have characterized myself or others saying it as racist against Romanis. 

I still know lots and lots of people who use the term gyped and mean nothing by it. 

[Sneezyone]

25 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well sure, but even she knows that it's a lot worse to be viewed as a racist than just a general jerk.

 

The thing is, what does her ‘ideal’ nose look like. As a parent, that’s what would concern me. Children of all races and ethnicities tent to idealize traditionally Caucasian features above all else—narrow, long-ish, pronounced bridge, straight, symmetrical, etc. If that’s what she’s praising, I’d be addressing standards of beauty in general and the derivation thereof.

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

The thing is, what does her ‘ideal’ nose look like. As a parent, that’s what would concern me. Children of all races and ethnicities tent to idealize traditionally Caucasian features above all else—narrow, long-ish, pronounced bridge, straight, symmetrical, etc. If that’s what she’s praising, I’d be addressing standards of beauty in general and the derivation thereof.

Well actually, she thinks that her nose is the "perfect" nose.  Her nose is small similar to East Asian noses.  (But she does not want to be viewed as appearing East Asian, for unknown reasons.)

She doesn't get this from me, I assure you.  My nose is most definitely not ideal in her mind.  It's long and pointy and has warts on it, as she is fond of commenting.

This daughter has a history of noticing and evaluating different details of people's appearance.  She's just fascinated by this.  Used to be mostly shoes, nails, hair, and make-up.  Now it's noses.  Tomorrow I don't know what it will be.

ETA I should note that she doesn't just pick on people's appearance ; she will also comment on what she likes - often she says she likes this random person's hair or nails etc.  I tell her that it would be nice for her to tell the person that.  She is too shy to say it directly to the person usually.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well actually, she thinks that her nose is the "perfect" nose.  Her nose is small similar to East Asian noses.  (But she does not want to be viewed as appearing East Asian, for unknown reasons.)

She doesn't get this from me, I assure you.  My nose is most definitely not ideal in her mind.  It's long and pointy and has warts on it, as she is fond of commenting.

This daughter has a history of noticing and evaluating different details of people's appearance.  She's just fascinated by this.  Used to be mostly shoes, nails, hair, and make-up.  Now it's noses.  Tomorrow I don't know what it will be.

 

My daughter went through a phase where she idealized ‘blond’ hair, and by that she meant any hair that was long, relatively straight, and of any color. She liked anything but the kinky, curly, black hair that grew out of her head and would constantly comment on others’ hair being ‘better’ than hers. It needed to be addressed. There are all sorts of twisted notions of beauty out there.