The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

I recently heard about a person contending that television had a double-standard on slurs, as while they'd bleep out the n-word, they'd air the term "honky." I then had a friendly debate with a third party about the matter. First off, if we want to purely look at things from a black-and-white perspective (no pun intended), all slurs are bad. However, as is almost always the case, things are more complex than that. There are several reasons why the n-word is regarded as a more offensive slur than "honky," the biggest of which is historical context. The etymology of honky  is unclear. One theory is that the term originated in Oak Hill, West Virginia, where coal miners were segregated into three groups: 1) Whites, 2) Blacks, and 3) Non-English-speaking whites knows as "Hunk Hill." Another theory is that the term started in the meat-packing plants of Chicago, where black employees referred to white employees as "honkies." Yet another theo...

A couple of weeks ago, I observed an interesting debate between two friends of mine concerning the power of words and whether or not we could universally erase a select few. One seemed to believe that words possess only as much power as people provide them, that they can mean nothing if we treat them as such, and if we stop using them in the future, they'll all but vanish. The other seemed to disagree with this notion, as they mentioned how a few words got under their skin more than any other, and that whether or not we uttered such words in the future, that wouldn't remove their affect on us. First of all, as a writer, I'm inherently biased toward the power of words. I'm also a believer that less is often more when it comes to certain words. If an individual rarely uses what's considered to be profane language, when he or she does utter such a word, it often times lands a bigger punch than if the stereotypical drunken sailor utters such a remark. It should also b...

Former Italy soccer coach Arrigo Sacchi has found himself in hot water due to some controversial comments he recently made while speaking at an awards ceremony, where he said following: "I'm certainly not racist and my history as a coach demonstrates that ... but look at the Viareggio [youth] tournament I would say that there are too many black players. Italy has no dignity, no pride. It should not be possible that our teams should have 15 foreign players in the squad." After facing the inevitable backlash from his comments, Sacchi attempted to clarify his remarks by speaking to Gazzetta dello Sport  and saying this: "I have been misrepresented, how could I be racist? I just said I saw a game featuring a team who fielded four coloured boys. My history speaks for itself, I always coached teams with different colours and I bought many, both at Milan and at Madrid. I just wanted to point out that we are losing our national pride and identity." I'm n...

In a poll released last week by ORC International for the Change The Mascot campaign and goodness Mfg., there were some interesting, ironically humorous results with regard to the public's perception on the Washington Redskins nickname. When asked whether they'd ever call a Native American a "redskin" to their face, 82% of respondents said no. Even so, just 39% found the name offensive and 25% said the name should be changed. So, how does that logic work? Over 4 in 5 people find the term offensive enough that they'd never refer to a Native American as such, yet less than 2 in 5 claim to find it offensive, and just 1 in 4 think the name should be changed. I can just imagine such an individual engaging in the following conversation with an actual Native American: Native American: "Do you think the Washington Redskins should change their nickname?" Joe Schmo: "No" Native American: "Do you find the term 'redskin' to be at a...

According to a new survey conducted by NFL Nation reporters, of 286 players whom were asked whether or not the Washington Redskins needed to change their name during the off-season and training camp, while 42% of them said yes (167), 58% of them said no (119). The reporters also asked 51 Washington Redskins players the same question, of which 26 responded with a no, 1 responded with a yes, and 24 didn't respond at all. This is a rather pointless poll - especially with regard to the Washington Redskins players. There are approximately 1,696 players in the NFL, so 286 represents just 16.9% of the league. Also, it's not as if this is a general election year and it'd be virtually impossible to ask every person in this country for whom they'll likely vote. There are 1,696 players in the league, so it would be very possible to survey everyone and garner a better idea of how the league's players feel about the matter. As far as the Redskins players are concerned, their...

Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is at it again, in trying to defend his team's nickname. Over the past several weeks and months, the team has come under increasing pressure to change their nickname. While many Native American groups, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and also dictionaries find the term "Redskin" to be derogatory, Snyder has a different take on things. When asked by ESPN's John Barr on Tuesday, "What is a Redskin?" Snyder responded with this: "A Redskin is a football player. A Redskin is our fans. The Washington Redskins fan base represents honor, represents respect, represents pride. Hopefully winning. And, and, it, it's a positive. Taken out of context, you can take things out of context all over the place. But in this particular case, it is what it is. It's very obvious." Barr then asked Snyder, "For people who don't know you and don't understand where you're coming from on this issue, wha...

When Texas Senator John Cornyn winds up sounding like the voice of reason in a debate, that's a pretty good indicator his opponent is crazier than a hamster on speed. It's being reported that Cornyn's Tea Party opponent in the upcoming GOP primary - Chris Mapp - recently had some interesting things to say to the Dallas Morning News ' editorial board. In the editorial board's endorsement of Senator Cornyn, they wrote the following: "South Texas businessman Chris Mapp, 53, told this editorial board that ranchers should be allowed to shoot on sight anyone illegally crossing the border on to their land, referred to such people as 'wetbacks,' and called the president a 'socialist son of a b**ch.'" Not only was that bad, but Mapp made things worse by later defending his remarks to the San Antonio Express-News , when he told him the racist term was as "normal as breathing air in South Texas." The often times irrational Senator Co...

On Facebook last night, someone I know posted the following status: "So there is this president from Chicago who has beef with the name 'Washington Redskins' because it is derogatory to Native Americans.....meanwhile, the same president has nothing to say about his hometown NHL hockey team that is titled the 'Blackhawks'....and their logo is a Native American. Kettle...meet pot. Pot-Kettle" I was reluctant on joining the discussion at first, until this morning, when I read through 15-20 Obama-bashing comments. These ranged from: "You've got more important things to be worried about!" to "He is the most bass ackwards person in this country!" Then when the poster of the status said the term "Redskins" "could" be seen as derogatory, I finally decided enough was enough and made the following comment: "I wasn't going to chime in here, but this is getting ridiculous. The guy was asked a question in ...

Last night, I ran across a picture on Facebook posted from an old acquaintance of mine in high school, which almost prompted me to unfriend him. The picture showcases a very young looking Ronald Reagan, who appears to be providing a monkey with milk from a bottle. Underneath the photo are the words, "Rare photo of Ronald Reagan babysitting Barack Obama in early 1962". I've included the link to the picture if anyone is curious to see it for themselves. Once I clicked on the photo and skimmed through the commentary, I'd say that roughly 3 out of 4 commentators bashed the photo, while the other 1 out of 4 said to lighten up and that it was just a joke. I love how racists attempt to mask their prejudices through jokes and telling people to not take matters so seriously - to lighten up. No matter how the original poster of this photo wants to think of it, the picture is racist. It's not even borderline racist. It's flat-out racist. The term "monkey"...

The Republican Party has had a tough mountain to climb as far as winning over women voters. Most of the party has held steadfast on three issues very important to the fairer sex. They've: 1) ...tried to make abortion illegal in any and all cases, 2) ...tried to make it more difficult for women to get their birth control covered through employer-based insurance, and 3) ...fought against women receiving equal pay as men for performing the same jobs. In addition to all this, the party has been notorious for treating the act of rape as not that big of a deal. Then Missouri senatorial candidate Todd Akin said the following in the run-up to last year's election: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Then Indiana senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock said the following during a debate in the run-up to last year's election: "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is th...