Reply #199: Individuality is still not the issue here.

[political_Dem]

Mr. Baldwin may have felt that way and rightfully so. I also say this as a fan of books. I most especially adore Another Country, If Beale Street Could Talk, Notes of a Native Son and The Fire Next Time.

But, I still feel that you are missing the point. Let me put this to you succinctly:

1)This is not about the individual use of racial slurs and its said effects on that individual. I'm talking about such effects on individuals via the societal level.

2)Someone can cast the shackles off and not let the word enslave them. That's fine and well. However, such an individual act still doesn't take away the vindictiveness and implementation such racial slurs had in terms of influencing the public to hate a specific group of people as well as instigating the passage of oppressive legislation to infringe upon civil and human rights.

That is what undocumented people experience today.

3)Such an act will not stop bigoted individuals in the media, politics, education or other social institutions from using the term openly in a public venue without equal time given in order to publicly address the corrosive nature of such a term.

Privilege takes away the responsibility due to recognizing the implications of "othering" socialized out-groups. As a result, it allows the myopic view that the word in connection does not have dangerous and oppressive effects on groups targeted as offensive by the dominant culture.

4)Such racial slurs are implemented to denote power and supremacy, especially when it has to do with legislation. When Tom Tancredo started throwing around this word, it was no mistake what he meant by it. And he and his ilk still use the term despite the efforts of such individuals to cast off the shackles of this term.

And despite that ceremonial "casting off" by such an individual recipient of a specific racial invective, legislation such as California's Prop 187 and Arizona's H.R. 1070 was still thought up, written, passed and endorsed by societal leaders who used the racial slur in terms of dehumanizing the undocumented. And they still didn't care that it targeted and hurt some of the constituents in their areas.

Simply put: People who use racial slurs probably don't give a damn whether a targeted individual "casts off the shackles or not". To racists, that targeted invididual is still the slur in question. And the racists will endorse and vote for legislation that further punishes that individual and his or her specific socialized out-group.

Jim Crow was partially built from the language-oriented and image-laden dehumanization of Black people--especially from minstrel shows by white males in black-face.

The slur, "illegal", is not any different. In public, it promotes "otherness", disrespect and "dehumanization" in the same manner. It desensitizes the dominant culture against treating the targeted individuals with humanity or respect. Racial slurs add virulence to those policies--especially when such terms are legitimized by societal leaders. This occurs no matter what the individual does to "break free of the shackles" of such corrosive language.

Usually the voices of privilege never consider the effects that their words or behaviors influence the policy of racism in this country. That is because the implications such slurs possess have never been used to demonize and discriminate against whites via individual and institutional racism--especially to the degree of Jim Crow and now the laws of Arizona.