The American way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin

one of the few examples of free speech he offers is the 'freedom' to refer to Native Americans as "Indians," African-Americans as "blacks" and I assume that extends to calling Jews "kikes;" Italians "wops," Latin Amricans "spicks," &c. He's offering (or his persona is) the American Way as the freedom to be boorish or bigotted.

---

No, again, there are nuances that one acquires of living in a country. Indian and black are not per se derogatory terms. They have been used in the language for many years. In fact African Americans pushed the term black in the 1960s when they didn't like the term negro. Neither negro or black are derogatory terms, though negro is very outdated and I would have suspicions if someone decided to use it. As to Indian, that has been the accepted term probably for centuries until someone wanted to create a politically correct version. And to be fair to those that created the political correctness, it probably has to do with the tone and context of how you use the word Indian that made some seek a separate term. As to kikes, wops, and spics, those have always been derogatory slang.

Let me re-iterate, the author of that original poem said nothing derogatory or jingoistic. The subject matter is political correctness which is entangled with the first amendment to the US constitution. That is why he refers to it as the American Way. [Now I understand why non-Americans are thinking this as jingoistic. You don't make the connection to our constituion.] Here:

Quote:

---

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

The subject matter that Randy takes up is something that is discussed in high schools across the US. His implied audience is other Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

Sure. I'm still coughing from the dust after being hit with heavy tomes from shocked Lit-netters. The point is, does free speech equate to free action?

---

No. Unequivocally, no. And it shouldn't. That's the whole point: the separation between 'I feel like killing you' and actually killing someone is crucial.

I'll further re-emphasise that you shouldn't feel sorry for 'encroaching on Randy's sphere'. That's what debate is. Randy came here with a point of view, one which, as JBI pointed out, was a defense of freedom of speech. All you did was exercise the right he himself was defending. You didn't hit him or literally tread on his toes, just argued and argued better.

My advice, and I hope it doesn't sound patronising, is, if people hit out at you for what you say, never ever just assume they're right because they're angry or because they outnumber you. Those things are not arguments. What matters is the sense - your reason for speaking in the first place, so go back to that. Freedom of speech matters because it gives us our best hope of making sense of things. Being bullied into not speaking or recanting is to risk loss of sense. You have the right to speak, to try to make sense, even if what you say is wrong. The proper response, if you are, is cogent argument, not an outraged suggestion that you were wrong to speak at all.

Anyway, if you can learn to see it this way, and as long as you really believed in what you wrote in the first place, creating outrage with what you write is kind of fun. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Anyway, if you can learn to see it this way, and as long as you really believed in what you wrote in the first place, creating outrage with what you write is kind of fun. :D

---

Well, one has to be right about what one is saying. And I just proved that she either didn't understand the poem or was gratuitiously insulting. I believe that Delta did not understand Randy's poem entirely and made an incorrect judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

There's a great irony - the American way about not shutting up, contrasted with your deep response against Delta saying what she wants. Notice the irony?

In truth, the freedom of speech because it is America is a fallacy. You may have freedom of speech in The States, but you hardly are the only country that does, I think that is a blind sense of nationalism - I mean, it's even funnier given the response to a speech against, or somewhat criticizing the country. Come on, does no one else see the irony!

The silly thing though, is the fact that there is such a thing as politically correct. Why don't people just not use racial slurs. In Canada, the sense of, I guess "African Canadian" doesn't really work, so I guess it is different (60% of black Canadians are of Caribbean decent, 30% of which are Jamaican) but still, I see no problem with the political correctness, as long as people just stick to it.

The irony though, is that the poet inadvertently says that throwing racial slurs and somewhat offensive "say what I want"s is the American way - calling all black people black, regardless of decent, or culture, and all Aboriginals Indians. Why not just call them Native American, or Aboriginal?

---

Yeah. At its worst, it boils down to, 'We're the most democratic, most free-speech respecting country in the world, so don't you dare ever suggest we're ever wrong about anything at all.' viz Joe McCarthy, Nixon's House UnAmerican Activities Committee etc. Free speech becomes a propaganda instrument for shutting down debate, not opening it up.

This contradictory belligerence is there in the poem too. The poet demands freedom of speech, but avers stoutly that he doesn't care what anyone else says. He wants freedom of speech, but denies it, utterly, its power to convince rationally. All he apparently wants it for is the freedom to say whatever pops into his head and not have it challenged. D'oh!

By the way, I say 'black people'. I live in England where black people say it too.

Meh, it's bigoted. Just use the politically correct term - besides which, black and "Indian" are generally unplausible words to refer to cultural background.

Black can mean many things, whereas African American means one specific thing - those descendant from Africans brought over as slaves. The term has bastardized itself, making it refer to all black people living in the States, but in truth, you don't call all white Americans Caucasian Americans, or European Americans. Likewise, it would seem strange to use the term African-American, as it is perceived, to refer to a Jamaican American, or to some extent, an African who moved to the States.

Generally though, it's better not to use terms that may seem offensive. The meaning of the word is what's important, and if African-American is deemed a more politically correct way of wording something, then just use that. It's not free speech to deliberately try and create shock or insult.

I just want to point out one thing-- I do think that the term "Indian" is somewhat derogatory, or well just not precise in any shape, way or form. It comes from Columbus' idiocy in thinking he was in India and thus calling the natives "Indians." plus you are generalizing a vast group of people into one... one category.. Indian... when there were hundreds, even thousands of tribes and different languages...

In any case, shouldn't everyone just be American? Why make the distinctions? if you want to call yourself German-American, go ahead (if you want to recognize your heritage or ethnicity), but I think generally everyone should just be American. And African-American is silly... grouping ALL of AFRICA into one. Or ASIAN American... yet if you are Iranian or Indian, you are Iranian-American, Indian-American, etc. these categories are just irrational at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, one has to be right about what one is saying. And I just proved that she either didn't understand the poem or was gratuitiously insulting. I believe that Delta did not understand Randy's poem entirely and made an incorrect judgement.

---

Why does one have to be right about what one is saying? How can one even be sure that one is? If one really had to be right about everything, would anyone say anything at all? Isn't the point about debate that there is usually another side to the argument and your opponent provides it?

I do, however, believe, that there's an onus on each party to back up what they say and show their workings - provide reasons for their opposition, not just flatly declare the other wrong without explanation. That didn't initially happen here. You simply said you thought Delta's poem was an 'insult', then made a sort of peace with her when she apologised.

Now you say you've 'proved' the point, but so what? Why didn't you prove it initially and without using a loaded, moralistic, fight-picking word like 'insult'?

I disagree with your 'proof', for the following reasons: I think Randy's poem, with its declaration that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks and his heavy-handed invocation of The American Way as justificatory principle, is shot through with aggression and arrogance and, as I've tried to argue in my previous post, contempt for rational debate. Delta's response brought out the aggression in that and suggested, to me, that there is another powerful strain to 'The American Way' and it is one that is antithetical to freedom of speech, even when it uses it as justification: violence. This is certainly up for debate, but, I'd respectfully suggest that if you want to do so without walking into a logical trap, you strenuously avoid being bellicosity, righteous indignation or intimidation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Meh, it's bigoted.

---

I can't agree. It's in absolutely mainstream, common use here and no one ever ever says 'African-Britons'. In other words, it's no good saying,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Just use the politically correct term

---

because we don't have one. Or 'black' is, judging by all the people who use it to describe themselves here. Are you sure you're not just being influenced by the norms of your locale? I know you could throw the same thing back at me, but what's inherently denigrating about it?

I do say 'native American', because the fallacy of 'Indian' is absurdly obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoeticPassions

In any case, shouldn't everyone just be American? Why make the distinctions? if you want to call yourself German-American, go ahead (if you want to recognize your heritage or ethnicity), but I think generally everyone should just be American. And African-American is silly... grouping ALL of AFRICA into one. Or ASIAN American... yet if you are Iranian or Indian, you are Iranian-American, Indian-American, etc. these categories are just irrational at best.

---

There are numerous instances where people need these terms for purely practical identificatory purposes. One of them, unfortunately, is the continuing need to stand up to racial discrimination. The discrimination doesn't need the words in order to happen (though it may use racial epithets), but you do need them in order to identify it: 'He always picks on the African-Americans' or 'She's never seems to hire the Muslims.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

No, again, there are nuances that one acquires of living in a country. Indian and black are not per se derogatory terms. They have been used in the language for many years. In fact African Americans pushed the term black in the 1960s when they didn't like the term negro. Neither negro or black are derogatory terms, though negro is very outdated and I would have suspicions if someone decided to use it. As to Indian, that has been the accepted term probably for centuries until someone wanted to create a politically correct version. And to be fair to those that created the political correctness, it probably has to do with the tone and context of how you use the word Indian that made some seek a separate term. As to kikes, wops, and spics, those have always been derogatory slang.

Let me re-iterate, the author of that original poem said nothing derogatory or jingoistic. The subject matter is political correctness which is entangled with the first amendment to the US constitution. That is why he refers to it as the American Way. [Now I understand why non-Americans are thinking this as jingoistic. You don't make the connection to our constituion.] Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

The subject matter that Randy takes up is something that is discussed in high schools across the US. His implied audience is other Americans.

---

I agree. I grossly overstated the case in leaping from "Indians" and "blacks" - neither of which are necessarily pejorative - to kikes, wops, spicks, which are always pejorative. My apologies.

I'd like only to reassert my belief that the original post was meant tongue in cheek, a parody of a certain kind of American but not necessarily all of them, and probably not the author himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Why does one have to be right about what one is saying? How can one even be sure that one is? If one really had to be right about everything, would anyone say anything at all? Isn't the point about debate that there is usually another side to the argument and your opponent provides it?

---

Sure. But this is a poetry forum and lit net does not allow current politics to be debated. This was Randy's thread on his poem. Delta didn't start her own thread on her poem. She didn't even discuss the poetry of Randy's poem. She attacked what she thought was a supercilious attitude from an American. And her attack wasn't even leveled at Randy personally, but at American culture directly.

Quote:

---

I do, however, believe, that there's an onus on each party to back up what they say and show their workings - provide reasons for their opposition, not just flatly declare the other wrong without explanation. That didn't initially happen here. You simply said you thought Delta's poem was an 'insult', then made a sort of peace with her when she apologised.

---

By not discussing the poem and by attacking American culture without, I'm pretty sure to assume, Delta never having lived in the US, then by all fair accounts it was an insult. A person who has never lived in another country and disparages its culture is gratuitiously insulting it. It's like me never having been to Kazakhstan and putting down its reliance on eating horsemeat. The very thing that upset Delta, her perception of superciliousness, is exactly what she in turn did.

Quote:

---

Now you say you've 'proved' the point, but so what? Why didn't you prove it initially and without using a loaded, moralistic, fight-picking word like 'insult'?

---

Because Delta's response was fight-picking. Go back and read it. And it didn't initially dawn on me that non Americans did not pick up the nuances.

Quote:

---

I disagree with your 'proof', for the following reasons: I think Randy's poem, with its declaration that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks and his heavy-handed invocation of The American Way as justificatory principle, is shot through with aggression and arrogance and, as I've tried to argue in my previous post, contempt for rational debate. Delta's response brought out the aggression in that and suggested, to me, that there is another powerful strain to 'The American Way' and it is one that is antithetical to freedom of speech, even when it uses it as justification: violence. This is certainly up for debate, but, I'd respectfully suggest that if you want to do so without walking into a logical trap, you strenuously avoid being bellicosity, righteous indignation or intimidation.

---

Well, that's wrong. I explained how Randy's post is within the context of American culture and language. There is no line in his poem that even slightly reflects outside American culture. The term "the American way" is a long held americanism. Everything that Randy spoke was internally contextual.

Edit: I am reminded that the tag that went along superman comic books (which were pre WWII I believe) was that he fights for "truth, justice and the American way." And if one really researched it, I bet it goes back way further than pre-WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

There is no line in his poem that even slightly reflects outside American culture.

---

Surely this statement is self defeating when taken in the context of this statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

This is why I shutter when people think they understand another country having never lived in it.

---

as it implies that you have sufficient knowledge, understanding or awareness of non-American culture to make a judgement on how this poem may or may not be perceived or be relevant to a non-American and yet which, by definition of all your own arguments, is an understanding you can't have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Meh, it's bigoted. Just use the politically correct term - besides which, black and "Indian" are generally unplausible words to refer to cultural background.

Black can mean many things, whereas African American means one specific thing - those descendant from Africans brought over as slaves. The term has bastardized itself, making it refer to all black people living in the States, but in truth, you don't call all white Americans Caucasian Americans, or European Americans. Likewise, it would seem strange to use the term African-American, as it is perceived, to refer to a Jamaican American, or to some extent, an African who moved to the States.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoeticPassions

I just want to point out one thing-- I do think that the term "Indian" is somewhat derogatory, or well just not precise in any shape, way or form. It comes from Columbus' idiocy in thinking he was in India and thus calling the natives "Indians." plus you are generalizing a vast group of people into one... one category.. Indian... when there were hundreds, even thousands of tribes and different languages...

In any case, shouldn't everyone just be American? Why make the distinctions? if you want to call yourself German-American, go ahead (if you want to recognize your heritage or ethnicity), but I think generally everyone should just be American. And African-American is silly... grouping ALL of AFRICA into one. Or ASIAN American... yet if you are Iranian or Indian, you are Iranian-American, Indian-American, etc. these categories are just irrational at best.

---

This was exactly my point. The same goes for Africans when they were brought to what is now the US. I think "African Americans" have the only legitimate claim to being classified as American. Their history begins here. There is a small chance that they can trace their genealogy back to their original African tribe.

I do get offended when someone asks me my background and after telling them they reply, "you're Black then," or "you're Native American," after I have named three different tribes.

I was raised by my mother, conceived by a Gentry and a Mckinney, who is Dutch, French, Scottish, Irish, Cherokee, Apache and Blackfoot and it's offensive to only be identified as "African-American". It's a slap to the face of my upbringing.

There is not reason to connect race and nationality.

Closed for a number of reasons, the main one being that this thread is proving to be not a discussion about "poetry"; and there's too much personal bickering going on.