Racial Slur Allegedly Used Towards CFRB Reporter

[TKTKTK]

Just the fact alone they uttered the word "nigger" means they made a conscious decision to single out a victim for being of a different race than their own.

That's not true.

She was singled out because she was in the parking lot.

 

[Steve_D]

Dentrobates also commits the injustice of painting all 'white' people with the same brush, effectively dehumanizing them and viewing them merely as a uniform entity of privileged 'enslavers'. This is the height of the very sort of bigoted and lazy thinking or stereotyping that he so viciously purports to decry when it comes to blacks.

...and such is the danger of Dentrobate's self-righteousness, by forcing yourself always as the marginalized victim of history and the whipping boy of society you are in effect doomed to to continue to be just that, if only in your own mind.

QFT++

 

[DENTROBATE54]

The fact that these individuals are branded a racist now probably does their future more harm than the n-word ever would do to the person they attacked. I think that shows the r-word (racist) is far more of an insult. Maybe they should demand apologies from their accusers for calling them racists.

This rationale should be applied equally to a person of color attempting to vocalize their discontent with the ongoing systematic oppression of their community by persons not of their ilk. Cutting off everything I say by labelling it 'racist' and 'bigoted', effectively shuts up a black person to suffer in silence. Isn't that precisely what segreagtion and slavery was all about, that non-white points-of-views, quality-of-lives were not of importance even consideration by the white oligarchy? And I'm very sure you wouldn't label a white women, gay or Jew decrying the discrimination they may struggle with daily as 'bigots' !

Those terms are highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as hate-inspired, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. I think a couple of respondents to my posts erroneously use the labels 'racist, bigot' to discredit my opposing position, or its proponent, by argument of fallacy ad hominem.

All you're doing is making assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online communities. Other members of this group (one person in particular who constantly keeps getting banned for bee-lining to mainly my posts, discredit my convictions then lazily call it 'racist, bigoted' to shut me up) are assuredly only closed-minded conspirators, i.e. trolls.

 

[TKTKTK]

Isn't that precisely what segreagtion and slavery was all about, that non-white points-of-views, quality-of-lives were not of importance even consideration by the white oligarchy?

Your constant framing of history as Whites against the world isn't accurate. Slavery has existed (on record) for at least 3-4,000 years. It still goes on today, and it's never been exclusively white/black binary (which is hardly even possible given the huge diversity of both white & black cultural / ethnic groups).

From Wikipedia (ymmv):

Why African slaves?
In the late 15th century, Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese first) began to explore, colonize and conquer the territory in the Americas. The European colonists attempted to enslave some of the Native Americans to perform hard physical labor, but found them unaccustomed to hard agrarian labor and so familiar with the local environment that it was difficult to prevent their escape. Their lack of resistance to common Old World diseases was another factor against their suitability for slavery. There was already a small traffic of African slaves to Iberia in the 15th century through the kingdom of Granada or the Iberian outposts in Africa, creating the Black Ladinos, African slaves who had learnt the language of their masters. The Europeans had also noted the West African practice of enslaving prisoners of war (a common phenomenon among many peoples on all of the continents). European colonial powers traded guns, brandy and other goods for these slaves, but this had little effect on the Arabian and African trade. Compassion for the suffering of the Native Americans prompted Friar Bartolomé de las Casas and other men of clergy to propose Africans as more suitable. Las Casas would later lament all slavery. The African slaves proved more resistant to European diseases than indigenous Americans, familiar with a tropical climate and accustomed to agricultural work. As a result, regular trade was soon established.



Source of slaves
All three slave-trading routes tapped into local trading patterns. Europeans or Arabs in Africa very rarely mounted expeditions to capture slaves. Lack of people and the prevalence of disease prevented any widespread gathering of slaves by Europeans and other non-Africans. Local rulers were very rarely open to allowing groups of armed foreigners to enter their lands. It was far easier and more common to make use of existing African middlemen and slave traders. Slavery has been present in Africa for millennia, and still is today even with children, though some historians prefer to describe African slavery as feudalism, arguing it was more like the serfdom system that controlled the peasantry of Western Europe during the Middle Ages or Russia into the 19th century than slavery as it was practiced in the Americas.

The slaves came from many different sources. About half came from the societies that sold them. These might be criminals, heretics, the mentally ill, the indebted and any others that had fallen out of favour with the rulers. Little is known about the details of theses practices before the arrival of Europeans, and so it is difficult to tell if the number of people considered as undesirables was artificially increased to provide more slaves for export. It is believed that capital punishment in the region nearly disappeared since prisoners became far too valuable to dispose of in such a way.

Another source of slaves, comprising about half the total, came from military conquests of other states or tribes. It has long been contended that the slave trade greatly increased violence and warfare in the region due to the pursuit of slaves, but it is hard to provide evidence to prove this; tribal warfare was certainly common even before slave hunting had added such an extra inducement.

For the Atlantic slave trade, captives purchased from slave dealers in West African regions known as the Slave Coast, Gold Coast, and Côte d'Ivoire were sold into slavery as a result of a defeat in warfare. In the Bight of Biafra near modern-day Senegal and Benin, some African kings sold their captives locally and later to European slave traders for goods such as metal cookware, rum, livestock, and seed grain. Previous to the voyage, the victims were held in "slave castles" and deep pits where many died from multiple illnesses and malnutrition. Conditions were even worse in the Middle Passage across the Atlantic where up to a third of the slaves died en route.

Elikia M’bokolo, April 1998, Le Monde diplomatique. Quote:"The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean"





This issue has almost always been about an arcane world-view; humans as chattel. It isn't bound to specific ethnic groups, to specific areas, or to specific times.

 

[TKTKTK]

And I'm very sure you wouldn't label a white women, gay or Jew decrying the discrimination they may struggle with daily as 'bigots' !

Are you joking? All three groups are chided when their perception of victimhood is applied indiscriminately. Women get called man-hating dykes, jews get called out on zionism being not dissimilar to racism at times. Gays are still given something of a pass, but we've only been in the mainstream for a short while now, give us a couple years and people won't be afraid to call us on our heterophobic rhetoric (which exists).

 

[Tewder]

If anything I'd like to be able to integrate more without the constant reminder that I'm the black guy selling out by associating with my non-black peers.

The only one preventing you from doing this is yourself; by so unremittingly positioning yourself as a marginalized 'victim' of society you are getting in the way of your own integration into society as a whole, one that is neither 'white' nor 'black'.

I'm not saying every white is racist against blacks but don't kid yourself into thinking those proclivities are a thing of the past.

This is the same thing as, "I'm not saying every Black is a criminal but don't kid yourself into thinking those proclivities aren't there"...

You undermine your credibility when you resort to the same brand of negative stereotyping you seek to discredit. You also distort your view of reality by forcing it into binary-opposite simplifications - marginal/centre, victim/abuser, black/white - that result in misleading and inaccurate semantic groups (centre/abuser/white vs marginal/victim/black). This is sloppy and lazy thinking that is no service to the many whites or blacks who do not fit into your convenient compartments.

I'm not using history as a crutch or limitation but that doesn't mean I should be oblivious from the ever so subtle social cues of prejudice to getting overlooked outright from certain circles/hit the glass ceiling. Personal traumas influence alot of what I post.

Yes, in fact you *are* using history as a crutch, and indeed as a weapon to wield in the pursuit of your agenda. This is shameful. A true historian would never approach the past by 'judging' it from the point of view of the present. There is always a social-historic context to events that happen. A true historian would also never condemn past societies or peoples outright for past events that we find difficult to comprehend or accept today. For example, it is now generally understood, historically speaking, that most German people were not responsible for or supportive of the rise of Nazism. To condemn them for it, two hundred years from now, would be inaccurate and simplistic.

The negative personal experiences you have had are unfortunate, of course. I do find it hard to believe, however, that you've never experienced fairness or positive acceptance outside your ethnic group. I'm sure if you sought this as steadfastly as you seek injustice you may be surprised where you'll find it...

 

[Steve_D]

We've all been stereotyped, and we've all been subject to abuse by other races. Blaming an entire race for the actions of a few is childish ,pathetic and solves nothing....something I wish veryone was tought in primary school.

 

[DENTROBATE54]

We've all been stereotyped, and we've all been subject to abuse by other races. Blaming an entire race for the actions of a few is childish ,pathetic and solves nothing....something I wish veryone was tought in primary school.

I in no way blamed an entire race for all the misfortunes of black people. I'm glad you admit to being discriminated against yourself, it really humanizes you. And if we could all put away our verbal machetes and move on, the world would be a better place to live in.

The only one preventing you from doing this is yourself; by so unremittingly positioning yourself as a marginalized 'victim' of society you are getting in the way of your own integration into society as a whole, one that is neither 'white' nor 'black'.

You'd think so eh? I'm not exactly what you'd call a stereotypical 20-something black youth. I was never arrested, addicted to drugs, listen to mysoginstic rap/hip-hop music, have a harem of baby-mamas or dropped out of high school when sculling class was all the rage. In that sense I'm the Anti-Black black youth. I don't allow people's perceptions of me dictate the quality of life I choose to lead. However if after all of that I'm still racially profiled, proving to me personally that the system is flawed then I feel I have the right to vocalize those sentiments.

You undermine your credibility when you resort to the same brand of negative stereotyping you seek to discredit. You also distort your view of reality by forcing it into binary-opposite simplifications - marginal/centre, victim/abuser, black/white - that result in misleading and inaccurate semantic groups (centre/abuser/white vs marginal/victim/black). This is sloppy and lazy thinking that is no service to the many whites or blacks who do not fit into your convenient compartments.

What makes you think by white people I meant every Caucasian that ever lived? Or black person that ever lived? It's undeniable that it was white oppressors that abused African descents for centuries now, undeniable. Not every white, but definitely several individuals and groups of that race. Whatever techniques white politicians and clergymen used to justify slavery/segregation in their minds and in their congregations minds, those are the techniques that worked, coerced and normalized the white master/superior-black slave/servant/inferior binary. People may ask for shades of grey over bifurcations but seriously this is a message board, not a venue for a 3000 word analytical, monographic essay.

Yes, in fact you *are* using history as a crutch, and indeed as a weapon to wield in the pursuit of your agenda. This is shameful. A true historian would never approach the past by 'judging' it from the point of view of the present. There is always a social-historic context to events that happen. A true historian would also never condemn past societies or peoples outright for past events that we find difficult to comprehend or accept today. For example, it is now generally understood, historically speaking, that most German people were not responsible for or supportive of the rise of Nazism. To condemn them for it, two hundred years from now, would be inaccurate and simplistic.

Shows how little you know. I'm presently enrolled in a Modern European History class so you can't say I'm making this up. Most Depression-era Germans (from the working class, military to the aristocracy) elected the National Socialists (Nazis) in droves and fully embarassed Hitler's victory over von Hindenburg by enacting the largest torchlight parade spectacle in recorded history. Politicians and dignitaries from around Europe also hailed praises of the uniformed, equalizing German society Hitler was creating. Sure modern-day Germans can't be blamed for Nazism but you sure won't catch me in Berlin anytime soon.

But back to the larger picture of black oppression. It all stems back to slavery and event thing since is derivitive of the common shared knowledge people have in the back of their minds. Such that if a black man pisses you off you can think to yourself: "Why the fuck am I allowing this 'nigger' to act/speak to me this way? Let me vocalize the disparaging term to mentally incapacitate him!" Like I said several posts ago, if you're that immature that you have to resort to name-calling, why bring race into it? What message are you disseminating by refering to someone as a 'nigger'? This is why the security guard and Micheal Richards were mean-spirited, because at the end of the day a poorer blue-collar white guard or a has-been washed up comedian is still of the master, conqueror race and their victims weren't !

The negative personal experiences you have had are unfortunate, of course. I do find it hard to believe, however, that you've never experienced fairness or positive acceptance outside your ethnic group. I'm sure if you sought this as steadfastly as you seek injustice you may be surprised where you'll find it...

That's true but I'm a pessimist by nature so it's easier for me to spot the flaws of society more so than the positives !

 

[TKTKTK]

because at the end of the day a poorer blue-collar white guard or a has-been washed up comedian is still of the master, conqueror race and their victims weren't !

That is, maaaybe, the most ridiculous thing you've written.

A blue-collar security guard that we know virtually NOTHING about is clearly a master/conqueror, while the educated, media-employed, black reporter is inferred (by you) to be inferior?

 

[Steve_D]

Whatever techniques white politicians and clergymen used to justify slavery/segregation in their minds and in their congregations minds, those are the techniques that worked, coerced and normalized the white master/superior-black slave/servant/inferior binary

What about black slave traders that also used those "techniques"? Where do they fit in your version of "history"?

 

[DENTROBATE54]

That is, maaaybe, the most ridiculous thing you've written.

A blue-collar security guard that we know virtually NOTHING about is clearly a master/conqueror, while the educated, media-employed, black reporter is inferred (by you) to be inferior?

Not inferred by me, by the security guard's usage of the N-word against her. That six-letter word speaks volumes more, has stronger connotations than her retort 'dumbass'! It all stems back to an era when people like him would have dominion over her (in more ways than one) regardless of how formally educated and relatively wealthier she might be over him. Semantics, the study of word usage and their connotative impact, is a course offered by most universities, you should enrol!

What about black slave traders that also used those "techniques"? Where do they fit in your version of "history"?

If a wealthy foreign entity came at you with glitz and glamour, flashy trinkets thrown at you, all for the price of betraying your fellow kinsfolk... would you? I suppose I overlooked the part of history where whites were introduced to black-controlled empires and made into slaves/servants; with the black majority turning a blind eye because their families personally benefited from slavery themselves so why sabotage the practice !

Abolition is the product of liberal mindset in nineteenth century intelligencia. I wouldn't be too surprised if slavery would've gone on far longer if left upto to the individual-level settler colonies. As long as slaves are kept docile and god-fearing right? As long as blacks don't assert equality in the face of trickery tactics of paper tiger legislation that claim every citizen is getting a fair piece of the pie, right?! A famous saying goes HISTORY ALWAYS REPEATS ITSELF. Is that not ammunition enough to be protectionist of whatever self-identity, individualism and right to free speech one has? And making a progressive impact while we can?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

dentrobate, before white europeans enslaved black africans, they had alot of practice on their own kind.

if you even look at the origin of the word slave, it comes from the word slav, as in slavic people.

 

[TKTKTK]

Not inferred by me, by the security guard's usage of the N-word against her. That six-letter word speaks volumes more, has stronger connotations than her retort 'dumbass'! It all stems back to an era when people like him would have dominion over her (in more ways than one) regardless of how formally educated and relatively wealthier she might be over him. Semantics, the study of word usage and their connotative impact, is a course offered by most universities, you should enrol!

Enroll has two Ls. I read what you write, you're in no position to claim semantic authority.

And anyway, you're using a very strict concept of semantics - one that assumes a word's meaning can't change over time, can't change in context, and can't mean anything other than what you suggest. I assume later in your course they'll get to Cognitive Linguistics - then you can revisit your arguments here?

If a wealthy foreign entity came at you with glitz and glamour, flashy trinkets thrown at you, all for the price of betraying your fellow kinsfolk... would you?

The slave trade was going on in Africa before whites got involved (before that the whites were just enslaving each other). No doubt renewed interest in African slaves sweetened the pot and encouraged other entrepreneurial Africans to get into the industry. I posted a pretty brief snap shot of the history of slavery a couple posts back. Did you miss it?

 

[DENTROBATE54]

And anyway, you're using a very strict concept of semantics - one that assumes a word's meaning can't change over time, can't change in context, and can't mean anything other than what you suggest. I assume later in your course they'll get to Cognitive Linguistics - then you can revisit your arguments here?

Alright, I get it, it all makes sense now, you're the perfect person, so right, so wrong !

The N-word already has several denotations. For the black in-group it's a term of salutation, endearment. However it can just as readily be used as a insult, by that very community. For outsiders though it conjures a different connotation. If you think in 50 years time it'll be any less a social faux pas or taboo to greet your black friend with: "Wassup n*gga?!", reassess your cultural sensitivity.

The slave trade was going on in Africa before whites got involved (before that the whites were just enslaving each other). No doubt renewed interest in African slaves sweetened the pot and encouraged other entrepreneurial Africans to get into the industry. I posted a pretty brief snap shot of the history of slavery a couple posts back. Did you miss it?

Why does it continually sound like you're justifying the slave trade? Every culture practiced slavery, so what? It didn't occur at the insurmountable levels of abduction that occured on the Dark Continent. You said so yourself 11 million souls supplanted, derived of the oppurtunity to build up their continent into a world-dominant hegemony like other nooks of the globe have. If Africa itself could be personified, she'd have been raped, beaten, maimed and murdered several infinite times over by now.

 

[TKTKTK]

Alright, I get it, it all makes sense now, you're the perfect person, so right, so wrong !

The N-word already has several denotations. For the black in-group it's a term of salutation, endearment. However it can just as readily be used as a insult, by that very community. For outsiders though it conjures a different connotation. If you think in 50 years time it'll be any less a social faux pas or taboo to greet your black friend with: "Wassup n*gga?!", reassess your cultural sensitivity.

In 50 years time it won't have quite the same meaning, and won't elicit the same reaction. The meaning has already changed over time. Even the black in-group use of the term is relatively new, it would have been unheard of mere decades ago. Nigger, in a non-pejorative slang sense, is already used outside of the black in-group.

And anyway, I can already greet my close black friends with "Wassup Nigga?!" Why wait 50 years?

Why does it continually sound like you're justifying the slave trade? Every culture practiced slavery, so what? It didn't occur at the insurmountable levels of abduction that occured on the Dark Continent. You said so yourself 11 million souls supplanted, derived of the oppurtunity to build up their continent into a world-dominant hegemony like other nooks of the globe have. If Africa itself could be personified, she'd have been raped, beaten, maimed and murdered several infinite times over by now.

A fate suffered by all the continents at one time.