Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

blah...blah...blah

Going back to my original point there is no equality, some public servant shoots his mouth off in a restaurant making a racist statement, he effects what 30 people and all you rabid PC'ers want him strung up? Some assclown rapper shouts his mouth off on the radio, TV, whatever, about killing whites, his gangsta crap, how every woman is a ho and his bling from crime, but that's a good thing.

If one believes the public servant did the wrong thing, but one believes the rapper is doing the right thing, then one would be delusional and a hypocrite. They are both wrong and should both be dealt with in the same manner.

ETA: Wow, 38 pages for this? LOL.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: FlyersFan

T'was a crass thing to say . . . regardless of how true he perceived it to be.

HOWEVER, it's FAR MORE CRASS to observe the current designated Destroyer-in-Chief . . . gleefully do all he can to shred our culture, society, values and nation.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

blah...blah...blah

Going back to my original point there is no equality, some public servant shoots his mouth off in a restaurant making a racist statement, he effects what 30 people and all you rabid PC'ers want him strung up? Some assclown rapper shouts his mouth off on the radio, TV, whatever, about killing whites, his gangsta crap, how every woman is a ho and his bling from crime, but that's a good thing.

If one believes the public servant did the wrong thing, but one believes the rapper is doing the right thing, then one would be delusional and a hypocrite. They are both wrong and should both be dealt with in the same manner.

ETA: Wow, 38 pages for this? LOL.

Cheers - Dave

yes, you, and many others have made this claim time and time again.

What youre missing is that the public is what has a say here. There is no hard and fast rule, as youd like.

We have free speech. People are free to say idiotic things whenever and wherever they want. And people are free to react however they want.

I, like ive said, dont like it when anyone uses that word, which is why I dontspend my money to support people who do.

I love, though, that my supporting the towns right to expression somehow makes me a "rabid pcer" in your eyes. So many people are really upset that society no longer accepts blatant bigotry. It makes me laugh.

a reply to: undo

You make a great point about japan, andsomething certainly needs to be pointed out on thatnote: japan is VERY big on social etiquette. Its not a questionn people demand a certain standard when in public.

Youd never hear an elected official say something this crass over there, and if they did, the person would resign in shame immediately.

Thats truly all any of this comes down to. Social etiquette. In a civilized society, public square requires etiquette.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

amazing culture.
however, it takes an hour just to make a cup of tea. hehe
fascinating, though.



now if we were this polite, i think we'd all fall asleep from the quiet.
surely the japanese people have a few choice words to say about their politicians, from time to time.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OpinionatedB

What does any of that have to do with an American Police Commissioner using a term that was applied to an entire people that were defined as sub-human animals, incapable of critical thought or morality, here in America?

I was responding specifically to your post which I replied to:

The difference is, slurs such as "honky", "whitey" and "cracker" don't refer to someone who was once thought of as a sub-human animal species incapable of critical thought, morality and human dignity, was sold for profit, kept in chains, beaten and raped into submission and forced into hard labor to the benefit of honkies, whities and crackers.

This isn't about the history of slavery. You people have been twisting yourselves into a logical pretzel trying to justify the use of the term "#ing #ger" as if it's not a racist term

No, YOU made it about whites and discussed how white people were not forced into hard labor, beaten or raped into submission etc. I beg to differ, they were, and at the EXACT same time blacks were. Since perhaps you didn't read the articles; here it is again

Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart.... This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

...In most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

Same period, and were NOT treated as well as the blacks.

because "there were slaves" other places, and "the Bible promoted slavery." BLAH BLAH BLAH!

I didn't say anything like that... I answered to your post saying whites did not experience slavery. Apparently this hurts your feelings? I'm not sorry - the truth is a bit more important than your feelings. You can stamp your feet and cry though all day long... not falling for it.

Basically, this guy Copeland, by using that slur is saying that Pres. Obama, based on of the color of his skin, is a stupid animal incapable of critical thought or morality. This is racist bigotry and there's no way around it.

Basically, this guy Copeland used a word I hear blacks call one another all day long, every day.

I don't know if this man is racist, all I know is that he called the president a 'n-word'. I was clearly taught the use of the word 'n-word' in a black neighborhood. Sure its an offensive word, its why people often use it concerning others. But then, I listened to a black woman Saturday calling her husband a damn 'n-word' - in the derogatory. I'm absolutely positive when I go back out today I'll hear its use some more and it wont be white people saying it.

I'm against racism, but hell - calling someone a 'n-word' apparently isn't racist or blacks wouldn't be the ones to use it most often.

What we are doing in inferring racism because of the use of the word toward another person - if we did that then quite frankly I don't know even one black person who is not a racist sob.

You cannot take the usage of the word from 50 years ago and infer it as being exactly the same today. Meanings and their usage change as time goes on.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: VforVendettea
The waitress shouldn't have been evesdropping.

I would avoid such a reseraunt, perhaps she should be fired.

do you normally go out and loudly exclaim racial slurs in public places?

If not, youre probably safe.

Btw, she wasnt a waitress.

It amazes me how many people think that being in a place where someone says something loudly enough for people to hear constitutes eavesdropping....

Hey Cap!

Speaking of "loud racial slurs in public places" - as my wife may have mentioned, we live in a rough neighborhood. Last September, while she was out of town, I walked my sllnky, bright and shiny ass down to a cut-rate grocery store to pick up some stuff to cook for dinner. On the way back, I heard a black guy screaming to the world what all he intended to do to some poor, unfortunate soul, and he prefaced each dire promise with the phrase "bitch ass nigga".

It was only two blocks later, when I was STILL hearing all that mess, that I realized that the "bitch ass nigga" he was referring to was ME. Imagine my surprise. It was actually him screaming "Hey YOU! Bitch-ass nigga I'm talkin' to YOU! Can't you hear me?" as he followed me, followed by more promises of dire consequences that I realized it, so I stopped and turned around and replied that I'd wait there, and as soon as he got within arm's reach, we'd get to find out just which was a bitch ass.

One of his companions ( I believe they are referred to in the local vernacular as "homies"), sensed the change in the tenor of the situation, grabbed him and dragged him off saying "he didn't mean nothin' by it - he's just drunk". Well hell, I figured if he meant something by it two blocks ago, that could have been remedied and apologized for then, why wait until now? So I told the companion that he ought to keep his homie on a shorter leash, and perhaps turn the volume down if they didn't want to attract untoward attention.

My point here is that these days, this sort of thing is not race-limited. Racism is racism, and if it ain't, it ain't. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and either everyone gets a pass for it, or no one does. If I can be a "bitch-ass nigga", then so can you - and so can the guy screaming the threats, and I'll bet that all three of us are 3 different races. As I was told by a black guy "nigga ain't just about color no more."

If you want to get a genuine feel for what racism is all about, just take a look at how the American blacks treat the Mexicans (or perceived Mexicans - they ain't all from Mexico) and Africans around here. Condemn it in one place, condemn it everywhere. Fair is fair.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

No, YOU made it about whites and discussed how white people were not forced into hard labor, beaten or raped into submission etc. I beg to differ, they were, and at the EXACT same time blacks were.

I never said that whites were NEVER slaves, degraded or forced into hard labor! I said that the terms "honky", "whitey" and "cracker" were never used to describe a white person as a sub-human animal, incapable of critical thinking and morality.

I would also like to remind you that "Irish" isn't a race! What whites experienced, in the "New World" wasn't racism, it was extreme prejudice. Whites, of all nations, were still considered to be "made in God's image", while blacks were considered to have been either created along with the beasts of the field or that they still bore the curse of Cain.

Here is a common philosophical critique on the "negro race".

Scottish philosopher and economist David Hume said, "I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilised nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or in speculation. No ingenious manufacture among them, no arts, no sciences."[77] German philosopher Immanuel Kant stated: "The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them, and at the lowest point are a part of the American people."
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, I know the Scotts and Irish have fought between themselves, but they never considered themselves separate races.

Here's an example of an esteemed doctor explain why the "negro" should be considered inferior to whites, another attitude that was popular among black slave owners:

........Negro felt less pain than any other race and lacked in emotions. Meiners wrote that the Negro had thick nerves and thus was not sensitive like the other races. He went as far as to say that the Negro has “no human, barely any animal, feeling”. He described a story where a Negro was condemned to death by being burned alive. Halfway through the burning, the Negro asked to smoke a pipe and smoked it like nothing was happening while he continued to be burned alive. Meiners studied the anatomy of the Negro and came to the conclusion that the Negro have bigger teeth and jaws than any other race, as Negroes are all carnivores. Meiners claimed the skull of the Negro was larger but the brain of the Negro was smaller than any other race. Meiners claimed the Negro was the most unhealthy race on Earth because of the its poor diet and mode of living and lack of morals.
en.wikipedia.org...

They substantiated this argument by citing
examples in the comparative anatomy of the black and white races. As Dr. W. T. English wrote:
"A careful inspection reveals the body of the negro a mass of minor defects and imperfections
from the crown of the head to the soles of the feet...." Cranial structures, wide nasal apertures,
receding chins, projecting jaws, all aped the Negro as the lowest species in the Darwinian
hierarchy.
www.med.navy.mil...

There is no excuse for an old white man, (Copeland) who is an elected official of law enforcement, to perpetuate these outdated stereotypes of racial inferiority. It insults us all, as the "sniping# snipper#" is also an elected official, holding the highest office of the nation.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: OpinionatedB

What does that have to do with THIS man yelling THIS word in THIS country THIS year at a TV, in a public restaurant, to express a bigoted sentiment? Can you think of an ethnic slur used to refer to Irish slaves that is in use today to disparage people of Irish descent? Were there Irish-only drinking fountains and Irish-only seating areas 50 years ago?

Yup.

Mick.

Paddie.

In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York's Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.

Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker. "Oh," said the worker, "the 'n-word's are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything."

Also:

White working class "rednecks" and "crackers" (both of these terms of derision were first applied to White slaves)

Source


ETA: After re-reading this, I am somewhat amused that the auto censor changed the n-word in the quoted text to "n-word", and left "Paddie" alone. Gotta love robots!

originally posted by: windword

I never said that whites were NEVER slaves, degraded or forced into hard labor! I said that the terms "honky", "whitey" and "cracker" were never used to describe a white person as a sub-human animal, incapable of critical thinking and morality.

You're kidding, right?

That's the way those terms are STILL used!

Frankly, I'm mystified as to why you didn't include the terms redneck and hillbilly in your list.

I would also like to remind you the "Irish" isn't a race! What whites experienced, in the "New World" wasn't racism, it was extreme prejudice. Whites, of all nations, were still considered to be "made in God's image", while blacks were considered to have been either created along with the beasts of the field or they still bore the curse of Cain.

Oh.

It was only "extreme prejudice".

Well.

That makes it all OK then.

Just as long as it wasn't racism, then you're good with it, eh?

Are you at all familiar with the English view of the Irish during that period?

a reply to: nenothtu

From you source:

The Establishment would rather weep over the poor persecuted Negroes, but leave the White working class "rednecks" and "crackers" (both of these terms of derision were first applied to White slaves)

If true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, except for the fact that I've never heard that before, and I considered myself pretty well read in the American cultural literature of the era, can you provide a written citation or an example in literature, in context, proving the origin of the epitaphs "cracker" and "redneck" referring to white slavery?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nenothtu

From you source:

The Establishment would rather weep over the poor persecuted Negroes, but leave the White working class "rednecks" and "crackers" (both of these terms of derision were first applied to White slaves)

If true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, except for the fact that I've never heard that before, and I considered myself pretty well read in the American cultural literature of the era, can you provide a written citation or an example in literature, in context, proving the origin of the epitaphs "cracker" and "redneck" referring to white slavery?

Maybe.

Word etymology can be a bit slippery, what with all the competing stories as to word origins floating around. I guess I'll do it right after you "prove" that the n-word originated in reference to black slavery. I'll do that either after your proofs, or after I get home from work, whichever comes last. My sources indicate that it originated in the Spanish, and referred solely to differentiate color, independent of servitude status.

Maybe your sources differ on that.

BTW, an "epitaph" is generally found on tombstones. Perhaps you were casting about for the word "epithet" instead.

Words are funny things, aren't they?

a reply to: nenothtu

I never claimed that word's origin was what the word came to mean. There is no doubt that the word came to be associated with the uncivilized black person, who was thought to be an animal, incapable of morality and higher intelligence. I have no doubt that was the meaning that Copeland was attempting to confer onto the President of the United States.

Here's a cultural piece that confirms the ideology of slavery, insult and inferiority onto the black race using the word:



I believe that this packaging advertisement is relaying that this scouring pad works as well as a "N#" or as well as a little "N#'s" nappy head.

Can you present something similar for the epithets "red neck" or "cracker"?

BTW, an "epitaph" is generally found on tombstones. Perhaps you were casting about for the word "epithet" instead.

Ah! Thanks. Yes, that's what I meant.

an adjective or descriptive phrase expressing a quality characteristic of the person or thing mentioned.
"old men are often unfairly awarded the epithet “dirty.”"

synonyms: sobriquet, nickname, byname, title, name, label, tag; More
an epithet as a term of abuse.
"the woman begins to hurl racial epithets at them"

a reply to: nenothtu

originally posted by: windword

I never said that whites were NEVER slaves, degraded or forced into hard labor! I said that the terms "honky", "whitey" and "cracker" were never used to describe a white person as a sub-human animal, incapable of critical thinking and morality.

You're kidding, right?

That's the way those terms are STILL used!

No they're not!

There are multiple explanations of the etymology of "cracker", most dating its origin to the 18th century or earlier.[3]
One theory holds that the term derives from the "cracking" of whips by rustics to guide their cattle and other draft animals.

A "cracker cowboy" with his Florida Cracker Horse and dog by Frederick Remington, 1895
Another whip-derived theory is based on Florida's "cracker cowboys" of the 19th and early 20th centuries; distinct from the Spanish vaquero and the Western cowboy. Cracker cowboys did not use lassos to herd or capture cattle. Their primary tools were cow whips and dogs.

The term "cracker" was in use during Elizabethan times to describe braggarts. The original root of this is the Middle English word crack meaning "entertaining conversation" (One may be said to "crack" a joke; a witty remark is a "wisecrack"). This term and the Gaelic spelling "craic" are still in use in Ireland, Scotland and Northern England. It is documented in Shakespeare's King John (1595): "What cracker is this... that deafes our eares / With this abundance of superfluous breath?"
en.wikipedia.org...(pejorative)

Cracker
Originally the white slave driver because he would "crack" the whip, hence the noun cracker.
Yo homey pick the cotton faster cuz here comes ole Mr.Cracker with his whip!
www.urbandictionary.com...

honky
a derogatory term for a Caucasian person.
there are three main theories for the origin of the word:

1. the word originated from the practice of white males wishing to hire African-American prostitutes in the 1920's, and going to the appropriate part of town while honking their car horns to attract the whores. Some versions state that the reason for this was that the white men were too afraid to actually stop in those neighborhoods, so the honking would bring the hookers to them. Others say that since few African-Americans could afford cars back in that time, the honking signaled a higher-paying white client and would quickly gain the prostitutes attention.

2. the term comes from the word "honky-tonk", which was used as early as 1875 in reference to wild saloons in the Old West. Patrons of such disreputable establishments were referred to as "honkies", not intended as a racial slur but still a disparaging term.

3. "honkie" is a variation of "hunky" and "bohunk", derogatory terms for Hungarian, Bohemian, and Polish immigrant factory workers and hard laborers in the early 1900's. African-Americans began to use the word in reference to all whites regardless of specific nation of origin.
www.urbandictionary.com...

a reply to: nenothtu

You are correct, it is not ONLY used in a racial sense these days. But it certainly WAS being used as a racial slur by the man mentioned in the op.

Ive actually been called the word quite a few times.

Condemn it in one place, condemn it everywhere. Fair is fair.

Many people keep making this same statement, as though someone is supporting it in one place and condemning it in another. I have not seen anyone support it in any sense, so I am not quite sure why you all keep making this statement.

CNN is reporting that the commissioner has just resigned

www.washingtonpost.com...

WOLFEBORO, N.H. — Town officials confirmed Monday that the 82-year-old police commissioner who was heard publicly calling President Obama the n-word — sparking nationwide outrage — has tendered his resignation.

Bout time.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
www.washingtonpost.com...

WOLFEBORO, N.H. — Town officials confirmed Monday that the 82-year-old police commissioner who was heard publicly calling President Obama the n-word — sparking nationwide outrage — has tendered his resignation.

Bout time.

Amen. Time to get these dinosaurs out of office so our society can evolve.

Slowly but surely we are. We have football and MMA fights now instead of deadly gladiator fights. We haven't had a world war in quite some time. Things are changing. Although as with this story, and the defendants of this guy in this thread, change isn't always wanted. But as the song says, we don't always get what we want, but we get what we need.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
What youre missing is that the public is what has a say here. There is no hard and fast rule, as youd like.

A less than majority segment of the public, you mean.
hosted.ap.org...

At a meeting last week, Copeland defiantly sat with his arms folded as more than 100 residents pushed for his ouster and tore into his comments, saying he didn't speak the town or its people.

That is 100 out of 6300 residents... or about 2% of the residents. Far more accurate is this:

A handful of people at the meeting spoke on behalf of Copeland, saying he had a right to free speech. But the louder message came from those who wanted him out.

America has become who can shout the loudest, not who can generate the majority opinions. A louder, more aggressive 2% overshouted the 98% of the residents who were either apathetic or, likely true for a large chunk of them, felt too intimidated to show support for the man in the face of the louder segment. Statistically there is no evidence that points towards the majority of Americans being "outraged" over these manufactured claims of racism. There is, however, plenty of evidence that points towards a current bullying tactic that attempts to either force support or force silence, with the knowledge that the third option, opposition, will be met with public character assassination and accusations of racism of their own.

It's bullcrap. It's also disingenuous to then fall back on this compliance by force tactic and use the end result as some manner of support for the "society has changed" argument. Society hasn't changed, they've just become scared to death to stand up for themselves and put a stop to the bullying. It's easier to sit down and shut up than it is to risk the backlash over saying "Hey, what happened to having a little perspective and common sense in defining concepts like racism?"

a reply to: burdman30ott6

scared to death to stand up for themselves and put a stop to the bullying.

Oh the irony....its dripping off of this statement.