On the N-Word

As you may have noted from my post a couple of days ago, I have few qualms about openly using the word "nigger."  I know this can be surprising to some people, so I would just like to take a couple of minutes and/or paragraphs to explain this for the future.

Personally, I find the word itself to not be offensive at all.  Offense comes from its intended usage and context.  In my post about the vitriol hurled at Mia Love, I used it purely in an "academic" context, in that I used it to explain something rather than to insult or offend. 

I remember a professor of mine who really enjoys nineteenth-century American literature.  Of course, the problem with this literature (for example, Frederick Douglass's My Bondage and My Freedom) is that it is a commonly used word.  Unfortunately, my professor (and no offense intended to him by this remark), rather than be bold enough to just say the word in our classroom discussions, tended to twist and dodge around using the word.

Not that I blame him, mind you, yet at the same time, it would not be a word used to offend, but rather used purely for the sake of understanding.

There are only two times I find the word offensive.  One is obviously when it is intended to insult people, as in the case of Mia Love.  The other is when it is used in total ignorance, as it is used in hip-hop culture and by so many black youth in general (at least, as far as my personal experiences have shown me).

I fail to see how it is uplifting for black people to call each other "nigga" or "nigger."  You can't take back a word that was never originally yours to begin with, now can you?

It is my hope that, one day, the word "nigger," along with so many other racial slurs, will only be heard in classrooms as relics of a bygone era.

On Real Racism

Something my (many) liberal friends tend to ask me is, “Wait, you're black and you're a Republican?” I suppose when you grow up in the liberal bubble, that would be odd. However, it's also a question that is also borne out of ignorance and one I find rather offensive. Of course, not nearly as offensive as what I read last night.

 

 You see, last night, a mayor and congressional candidate from Utah gave a short speech at the Republican National Convention. Her name is Mia Love, a black conservative, whose articulate delivery of conservative ideals leads many to see her as a possible rising star within the party. The left, of course, the side that always wants to see black people and other minorities succeed in this country, embraced the idea of a conservative black woman with—

Okay, I can't finish that. Instead, let's take a look at some of the hatred and racist invective hurled at her on Twitter.

Or better yet, let's look at this screenshot of vandalism of her Wikipedia entry:

Yeah, I'm feeling the love.  (Note: the changes have since been removed).

I find that Wikipedia edit particularly infuriating, not because of its “house nigger” crack, but because of the words “she is a total sell-out.”

A “sell-out?”

A “traitor?”

This is why people use slavery analogies when referring to the black vote and the Democratic party. When we “stray” from the Democratic plantation, we aren't just seen as independent thinkers. We are seen as traitors, like the Democrats are owed something by black people. As though Democrats have somehow earned our vote.

I don't owe the Democrats my vote.

If anything, they are owed my eternal ire and hatred for being the party of slavery and Jim Crow.

Besides, I'd much rather be on the side of someone as articulate and passionate as this.

Look at that clip and answer me this: Does that look like a “house nigger” to you?

On My Beliefs

Something I feel I should clear up before I get into the weeds of certain issues (particularly the less palatable, moral ones) is just what governs my beliefs. After all, I didn't become a conservative because I come from a family of them or because it was “inevitable.” On the contrary, about ten years ago, as I was entering my teenage years, I was becoming increasingly liberal. At the very least, I was on track to become “moderate.” Then something happened which arrested that development.

My family had always been christian, but more in the sense that we believed God existed, but never gave Him much thought. However, as we entered a period of hardship, my parents turned to Jesus and brought me along for the ride. From that point forward, I was evangelical and went the opposite direction of most of my friends and became increasingly conservative.

“Wait a minute,” you might ask, “So that means your one of those “Jesus freak” types who actually believes all that stuff about the cross and blood and whatever?”

That wasn't a terribly flattering way to phrase it, but yes. I don't think you can really call yourself Christian if you don't believe that, considering it is central to the faith. Without it, we're just blasphemous Jews.

“And you believe that the rest of Bible is the literal truth and God's Word and that all those people and stories actually happened?”

Of course.

“And that all those miracles and speaking in tongues are actually real and happen today?”

Definitely.

“And that sex before marriage and abortion and all those other issues are wrong and immoral?”

Yup.

“And that—”

Okay, okay, I'll stop. I think I got the point across. It's just a fair warning so I don't surprise any readers with just how conservative I am. I'll let you guess what else I believe as my postings slowly clarify my beliefs.

A Tale of Two Armstrongs

...What? You were expecting some sort of Dickens-eqsue parody? I haven't even read “A Tale of Two Cities.”

Anyway....

This weekend, America lost two great Armstrongs, one to death, the other to his own hubris.

America's finest.

Let's take each in turn. Yesterday, we learned of the death of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. He is universally regarded as one of humanity's greatest pioneers, literally the first to walk on an alien world. He is considered a man to look up to, whose accomplishments show that with the dreams and the drive, one's potential is almost limitless. Not only that, but his accomplishments were coupled with a great sense of humility, as he was a man who never sought the spotlight and indeed commonly went unrecognized.

I admit, it's not the most flattering picture.

On Friday, we learned of Lance Armstrong surrendering his fight over doping allegations. Armstrong was, of course, the famous bicyclist who earned seven Tour de France titles despite battling cancer. His story inspired millions, until he was accused of doping several years ago, tarnishing his record. In giving up his fight against the allegations, it seems a tacit admission of wrongdoing, no matter what he says to the contrary.

Now personally, I feel like too much weight is put on sports figures, even in the cases of major, record-breaking ones like Lance Armstrong used to be. However, some people see them as heroes, as they should, for accomplishment in sports, coaching or playing, still requires hard work and dedication.

However, in recent years, more names have been tarnished and ruined, from allegations of cheating (Marion Jones) to acts that are flat out evil (Joe Paterno, who abetted Jerry Sandusky's perversions). Both names are now stained and defined by their footnotes instead of their accomplishments.

Neil Armstrong, to me, seems to hearken back to a day when we could look back at our heroes, in sports or otherwise, and not have to worry if they would be tarnished by self-inflicted scandal. It feels like, in this modern day, we can not find people of integrity who we can look up to and emulate without finding some dark blot in their past.

One day, I hope we can again find those people like Neil Armstrong, who can be a shining example of excellence. The kind of people whom we don't preemptively fear will reveal a darker side of themselves.

On Today's Shooting

Not much to say today. Just a small comment.

Well, there's been another shooting and something I've come to expect is people wondering if this is evidence that we require stricter gun control laws. Considering that it appears the NYPD inflicted more casualties taking down the gunman, I'm not sure we want to get into the weeds of that argument.

Honestly, the calls for stricter gun control every time there's a shooting is starting to get really boring. This time around, such calls are ironic, considering the shooting occurred despite some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

Remember something people: if someone wants to commit a gun crime, no amount of legal wrangling is going to stop them. Particularly if they have no prior criminal record. It seems far wiser to put guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, giving them a chance to protect themselves from gun-wielding nutcases and perhaps stop them before much, if any, harm can be done.