NationStates Jolt Archive

On March 4, 2001, an interview with FOX News Sunday host Tony Snow was aired. In the interview Byrd was asked about race relations: "They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said. "I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that." Then Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."

"We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Byrd's office later issued an apology.


What does everyone think of this?

I am pretty sure that Byrd is still a racist , but as for this comment, how much truth does it hold.

I think that we are making huge steps in eliminating the ignorance that causes racism, but the amount of talk about racism and the use of affirmative action is beginning to hinder the steps that are being made.

I think the constant talk about racism and affirmative action is reinforcing the belief that there is a fundamental difference between races but we should ignore them.

As for the "******" comment at the end, I have heard many african americans who do hold this view. They easily differentiate between black people and "niggers." I personally believe that no matter how you use it, it is a negative stereotype, so it shouldn't be used, but is Byrd's statement about the word justified?

I didn't exactly make a well composed point, and I could get hit hard for posting this but what does everyone on here think?

What does everyone think of this?

I am pretty sure that Byrd is still a racist , but as for this comment, how much truth does it hold.

That there are white niggers? That's true, at least in the sense that he probably means it. I think he was implying that there are alot of white people who are just as bad as alot of black people. It's still racist, but I think that's probably one of the more enlightened views of his era.

As for the "******" comment at the end, I have heard many african americans who do hold this view. They easily differentiate between black people and "niggers." I personally believe that no matter how you use it, it is a negative stereotype, so it shouldn't be used, but is Byrd's statement about the word justified?

Actually, some African-Americans differentiate between "niggers" and "black people", but others do not. There is a school of thought that says black people should take over the hurtful word and remake it into something harmless by removing the power it contains through common use.

Well I don't know enough about him to comment on whether he's a racist, but in regards to that quote specifically...

I agree completely. Anyone who is competant enough and hard-working enough can make something of themselves, wheter they be black, white, asian, hispanic, or anything else. Things like affirmative action, required to have BET, etc. etc. all just accentuate the idea that the color of your skin is indicative of who you are.

The system should be based on merit.... and things like affirmative action basically say "a black person's education is more important than a white person's education".

As to his point about the "N" word? Totally valid, 100% agree.

Why? What does "******" mean?

On the day when the government stops asking me what race I am when I fill out any form, we will have made progress.

On the day when equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome, is the measure, we will have made progress.

On the day when people won't cloak their guilt over their true racist feelings with feel-good legislation such as gun buy-backs, midnight basketball, and the insidious corruption of welfare, we will have made progress.

On the day when the Democratic Party doesn't feel a strong paterialistic streak over certain racial groups that keeps them from recognizing people who have made it in this world without the handout and the special break, we will have made progress.

Until then, it's far from over.

What does everyone think of this?

I am pretty sure that Byrd is still a racist , but as for this comment, how much truth does it hold.

I think that we are making huge steps in eliminating the ignorance that causes racism, but the amount of talk about racism and the use of affirmative action is beginning to hinder the steps that are being made.

I think the constant talk about racism and affirmative action is reinforcing the belief that there is a fundamental difference between races but we should ignore them.

As for the "******" comment at the end, I have heard many african americans who do hold this view. They easily differentiate between black people and "niggers." I personally believe that no matter how you use it, it is a negative stereotype, so it shouldn't be used, but is Byrd's statement about the word justified?

I didn't exactly make a well composed point, and I could get hit hard for posting this but what does everyone on here think?

Honestly, I think that if blacks are allowed to use ****** every five words, so should white people. I mean, come on. How many black people do you see getting into trouble for calling a white person a cracker. As long as you're not using ****** to classify someone as black, it's fine. "Wassup nigga," doesn't suggest anything racial at all. I wish people would realize how stupid racism is...what a wasted emotion it is. Hating someone for the color of their skin is like hating someone because of the color of their hair or eyes...it's a waste of time and emotion. Affirmitive action is, in my opinion, a move in the wrong direction. Hiring employees shouldn't be based on skin color, it should be based on the qualifications of the individual, black, white, or hispanic.

I've got a question for you now. Do you think I'm a racist because I generally don't find black women attractive?

Why? What does "******" mean?

****** is a derogatory term for a person with a dark complexion and/or with obvious African physical characteristics. I think it basically means an ignorant or stupid negro.

Do you use the terms boriqua and morena?

On the day when the government stops asking me what race I am when I fill out any form, we will have made progress.

Agreed.

On the day when equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome, is the measure, we will have made progress.

Perhaps so.

On the day when people won't cloak their guilt over their true racist feelings with feel-good legislation such as gun buy-backs, midnight basketball, and the insidious corruption of welfare, we will have made progress.

Agreed.

On the day when the Democratic Party doesn't feel a strong paterialistic streak over certain racial groups that keeps them from recognizing people who have made it in this world without the handout and the special break, we will have made progress.

Maybe on the day when people don't pat themselves on the back for making it over people who were for hundreds of years and still are denied that equal opportunity, then we will have made progress.

Until then, it's far from over.

Agreed.

I've got a question for you now. Do you think I'm a racist because I generally don't find black women attractive?

Nah. No more than I would think you were being unfairly discriminatory for preferring blondes over brunettes.

That there are white niggers? That's true, at least in the sense that he probably means it. I think he was implying that there are alot of white people who are just as bad as alot of black people. It's still racist, but I think that's probably one of the more enlightened views of his era.

He might hold that view, but I think that what he was trying to say is that there are degenerates in every race, it doesn't matter what race they are. I bet he is more likely to use it for blacks than whites, but I have to agree with the sentiments of his statement.

Actually, some African-Americans differentiate between "niggers" and "black people", but others do not. There is a school of thought that says black people should take over the hurtful word and remake it into something harmless by removing the power it contains through common use.

The gay community has done an amazing job of reworking most of their negative stereotypes into positive ones.

Unfortunately, the pop culture has done the opposite for blacks. So many public black figures seem to want to hijack the word but only further the negative connotation. I feel bad for the way the entertainment industry (mostly white controlled, but some minority), has only enhanced the negative stereotypes. Rap, NBA anyone?

****** is a derogatory term for a person with a dark complexion and/or with obvious African physical characteristics. I think it basically means an ignorant or stupid negro.


I see. It's like when in Mexico someone uses "indio" in an offensive manner.


Do you use the terms boriqua and morena?
Yes. But those are not derogatory by themselves, as far as I know. Boricua, I think is a black person from the Caribbean, and moreno/a is somebody a shade or two lighter than black.

But "indio" is used in a despective manner. Also "jarocho" used to be a terrible insult, but now it simply means someone who was born in my state of Veracruz.

I don't think words should be given that much power. It's the attitudes towards people that have to be changed.

Why? What does "******" mean?
It's a corruption of the word "Niger," which referred originally to people from the area around the Niger river, all of whom were black. The term was broadened to "Nigeria" later when the country of the same name was established. "Niger" came to mean any person of African heritage. I have no idea when the second 'g' was added.

He might hold that view, but I think that what he was trying to say is that there are degenerates in every race, it doesn't matter what race they are. I bet he is more likely to use it for blacks than whites, but I have to agree with the sentiments of his statement.


However, he should have used the appropriate word, instead of ******, and use ****** in a positive, or at least neutral, way. Otherwise you are still equating the negative characteristics with the color of the skin.

I see. It's like when in Mexico someone uses "indio" in an offensive manner.

It's similar, yes. That's actually a better example.

But "indio" is used in a despective manner. Also "jarocho" used to be a terrible insult, but now it simply means someone who was born in my state of Veracruz.

Interesting. It's strange how words change sometimes. Some words that used to be considered curses when I was a child are considered perfectly normal now, even for young children.

I don't think words should be given that much power. It's the attitudes towards people that have to be changed.

You are absolutely correct on that.

Honestly, I think that if blacks are allowed to use ****** every five words, so should white people. I mean, come on. How many black people do you see getting into trouble for calling a white person a cracker. As long as you're not using ****** to classify someone as black, it's fine. "Wassup nigga," doesn't suggest anything racial at all. I wish people would realize how stupid racism is...what a wasted emotion it is. Hating someone for the color of their skin is like hating someone because of the color of their hair or eyes...it's a waste of time and emotion. Affirmitive action is, in my opinion, a move in the wrong direction. Hiring employees shouldn't be based on skin color, it should be based on the qualifications of the individual, black, white, or hispanic.

I've got a question for you now. Do you think I'm a racist because I generally don't find black women attractive?

I agree that context and connotation is what matters, but it is a logical fallacy to say that because one person does something wrong, it is okay for me to do it.

The trouble is not racism, though, it is ignorance, and neither the black community nor the government is doing much to address the ignorance behind it.

why doesn't that bastard join the Republican party already?

why doesn't that bastard join the Republican party already?

Let us remind the dear reader that the President who freed the slaves was a Republican named Abraham Lincoln, and that in large part, the newly minted Democratic Party was born in the South, where the Northern penchant for espousing personal liberty for all was despised. These then are the true roots of the Democratic Party, and this philosophical outlook was not to change for nearly half a century, until the advent of Franklin Roosevelt. Even then, Southern Democrats were not to change their viewpoints until forced to by the Civil Rights era, and even then, a few old coots kept their seats.

Since the Democratic Party can ill afford to give up Senatorial seats, we have Senator Byrd.

It's a corruption of the word "Niger," which referred originally to people from the area around the Niger river, all of whom were black. The term was broadened to "Nigeria" later when the country of the same name was established. "Niger" came to mean any person of African heritage. I have no idea when the second 'g' was added.
Hmm always thought it had to do with negro ... black in spanish ... learn something new every day

I was planning on adding a more serious complement to my post, mainly that I find it interesting both how repulsed I am not only with the roots of the Democratic Party given my liberal outlook on life, but that the Republican victory in the South had much to do with the party's "state's rights" argument toward civil rights and integration (i.e. status quo- I'll admit though that the North wasn't a whole lot better at integration). What is so interesting about Byrd though is that he's well-educated and had a very liberal opinion on the Iraq war, yet is such a racist although more subdued now of day. Actually, to tell the truth, his opposition to the Iraq war is still kind of "in character", as he uttered a lot of Pat Buchananesque "the Jews control America" rhetoric. As much as the Democratic party needs as many seats in Congress as possible, the party could still do better than him.

I was planning on adding a more serious complement to my post, mainly that I find it interesting both how repulsed I am not only with the roots of the Democratic Party given my liberal outlook on life, but that the Republican victory in the South had much to do with the party's "state's rights" argument toward civil rights and integration (i.e. status quo- I'll admit though that the North wasn't a whole lot better at integration). What is so interesting about Byrd though is that he's well-educated and had a very liberal opinion on the Iraq war, yet is such a racist although more subdued now of day. Actually, to tell the truth, his opposition to the Iraq war is still kind of "in character", as he uttered a lot of Pat Buchananesque "the Jews control America" rhetoric. As much as the Democratic party needs as many seats in Congress as possible, the party could still do better than him.

Don't look now - because the Democrats have largely lost Federal power, they have a plan to embrace State's Rights so that they can at least save the blue states from Republican federal laws. And I'm not joking. This was openly discussed on NPR by Democratic strategists.

It's apparently viewed as their only hope.

I have to say for factual reference that I do believe the N-Word is a bastardization of the word Negro.

In the plantations, many accents transformed the word into "Nigra", which eventually became the derogatory language of today (which in itself, continues to be reshaped).

I can only assume (and I openly call it an assumption) that the country of Niger was named for its inhabitants (Negroids) by imperialists and was not the way the word came about.

I was right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-word

Here you go.

I was right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-word

Here you go.
No I was right (look at post 18) :p

Don't look now - because the Democrats have largely lost Federal power, they have a plan to embrace State's Rights so that they can at least save the blue states from Republican federal laws. And I'm not joking. This was openly discussed on NPR by Democratic strategists.

It's apparently viewed as their only hope.
That is quite hilarious. In fact, they are talking about Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist being liberals' new best friends, given their support for states' rights.

But yes...it may just be time to surrender to states' rights, let the South ban abortion, homosexuality, pornography, alcohol, whatever they want. Take it off the national agenda. The South can establish Christianity as state religion for all I care, seriously.

And Byrd is an embarassment to the modern Democratic Party, as I mentioned in another thread.

Were he to support the Iraq War he'd just be another Republican.

It's a corruption of the word "Niger," which referred originally to people from the area around the Niger river, all of whom were black. The term was broadened to "Nigeria" later when the country of the same name was established. "Niger" came to mean any person of African heritage. I have no idea when the second 'g' was added.


Um, no it's not. It comes from Portugeese (negra -> nigra -> ******).

"For two hundred years, 1440-1640, Portugal had a monopoly on the export of slaves from Africa..."

http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******_(word)

_

Well I don't know enough about him to comment on whether he's a racist

Here's an interesting fact about him. He used to be a dues-paying card-carrying member of KKK.

It's a corruption of the word "Niger," which referred originally to people from the area around the Niger river, all of whom were black. The term was broadened to "Nigeria" later when the country of the same name was established. "Niger" came to mean any person of African heritage. I have no idea when the second 'g' was added.

Wrong. It's derived from "negro" which is french for "black".

...this philosophical outlook was not to change for nearly half a century, until the advent of Franklin Roosevelt.

It did not change with FDR, but was rather mainstreamed by modification with secular feudalist ideas from another contemporary faction, called Marxists. The sense that there is a heirarchy of races was modified with a heirarchy of classes, wherein the colored races would be cared for by a educated elite, in the name of abolishing poverty, and of course would provide profit for their benefactors in turn.

The system by which this mechanism finds function is called the "Welfare State". It reached its height in the late 1960s, and is still something Democrats are keen to protect or expand upon to this day.

And Byrd is an embarassment to the modern Democratic Party, as I mentioned in another thread.

Embarrassing the Democratic Party is virtually impossible to do. Re: William Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, etc.

Wrong. It's derived from "negro" which is french for "black".
hmmm french too

Also spanish

and porchageese (sorry for the spelling murder)

I agree with what he says. There are white niggers, there are mexican, purto rican, german, english, french, chinese, indian, native american,.....etc... niggers. I know some people take it differently (mainly african americans). Thinking that it only refers to african americans. Its a slang word for an ignorant, lots of the time lazy person or someone who thinks they are owed something because of something that happened 200 years to people they never met or knew. I personally still try to avoid the word. But what pisses me off about it is we (refering to white people) can say it and get jailed or fined, and they can go up to each other and say stufff like "Wut up my ******!!??"...and..."Damn ******, where you been," and its ok. I dont give a $#!t if they are going to punish you for it (in the land where we have "free speach" might I add) then they shoulo be punished to or else thats just a form of racisim, and some cases favoritism or just feeling sorry to them.