Niggas and Nappy Headed Ho's

"Sticks and stones may break my bones/ But words will never hurt me." We've all heard this nursery rhyme one time or another. And we've all had it recited to us by our teachers when we've been teased by our friends. But do we heed those words? Obviously not. In the wake of Michael Richards and Don Imus--one being ostracized the other losing his career--it is quite clear that we are not over these particular words. "And rightfully so." My black brothas' and sistas' would say. But let's take a look at these words in light of this little rhyme and history. Let's apply this back when whites would actually tell a black person "coloreds ain't allowed in hea'."

STICKS AND STONES PRIOR TO THE 80's

I don't think I need to inform my readers of the atrocities that occurred during the times of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and Reagan's trickle-down economics, which I think was a good idea philosophically, but pragmatically it devastated the black community. Blacks were trodden down...stepped on like dirt on the ground. I was going to link pics of those atrocities, but it would be redundant and unnecessary. However, what sticks in my mind is the story of Emmett Till. A 14yr boy who whistled at a white woman in Money, Mississippi and later found out that lookin' at a white woman was a death sentence let alone whistling at her. The murders, Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam, were acquitted after 67 min by 12 white male jurist. One jurist was quoted as say they took a soda break to "make it look good." What made me even more angry was the fact that after the trial, both men confessed to the crime, but because of our double-jeopardy law they couldn't be tried again. If he did it, O. J. wasn't that brazen. Now we see why whites and blacks were so divided.

WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME PRIOR TO THE 80's

Along with those atrocities came labels to describe those blacks that were being lynched. Nigga was given to blacks to further put them down as if death wasn't enough. Naw, they had to rub it in while they executed their unholy judgment. That word has HEAVY connotations. Remember, my white brothas' and sistas', the next time you say, "why don't blacks just get over it." It maybe easy for some to forgive, but very hard to forget, especially when you have whites that continue to use it!

STICKS AND STONES AFTER THE 90's

I believe the last lynching occurred in the 1960's, but we all remember the Chris Byrd case in 97 when he was dragged behind a pick-up truck by three white men, whom he had reported to know on a personal level. We don't see these kinds of atrocities anymore. However, some say that the police are doing all the "lynching" in their so called justifiable shootings. One case that comes to mind is Amadou Diallo who, when reaching for his wallet, was shot in a hail of 41 shots by 4 white male NYPD officers. Still others say that "lynching" is covert in that blacks are barred from making a living. In other words, they are not given the right compensation that their white colleagues are given, effectively disenfranchising the black community.

WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME AFTER THE 90's

Now we see why blacks have a problem with the word nigga. "But, you guys say it to each other all the time." I have a few arguments that may help us understand why it is different when whites say.

1. We could always argue that two wrongs don't make it right. You would have to be a TOTAL and COMPLETE IDIOT to say nigga or call a black woman a nappy headed ho, if you were a white person in a black persons face. So, why would it be right to say on stage (with malice--which is what Richards admitted too, and you will find that a majority of black comedians will agree that a comedian must be allowed to free speech, but made to make us laugh) or on the radio? To say Richards and Imus used poor judgment is an understatement. They are (expletive) stupid to say the least.
2. We could make the argument that whites bring back those HEAVY connotations because of the history they have wrought. They're the ones that committed those atrocities and used that word to further denigrate blacks. So that when a black person says it to another black person, those connotations just aren't there. Something else is happening, which I don't have time to explain, perhaps in another post.
3. We could argue this is a relatively new phenomena. In talking with blacks who have actually lived in the "bad" times of our racial history, they have said that that word would have NEVER come out of their mouth as a term of endearment--never. So, these rappers and youngsters, who have never lived in those times, have no idea of the HEAVY connotations that are brought. Or, have a warped view of it, which propagates it.
   

My wife is white, as you may have noticed. And, my last name is of Hispanic origin (my dad is Hispanic). She hates the word and won't let me say it even in an academic since (except for this post). But I must confess that I don't hold blacks accountable for saying it like I do whites. And, I think it's because of what I just described in #2. Look, Imus and Richards should not be civilly punished for what they said, but being ostracized and losing ones job, I think, is the correct response.

My Religious and Libertarian Views: Conflicting or Compatible

After 10 years a Republican, I became dissatisfied with the "Grand Ol' Party's " compromises on different issues. It became quite clear to me that the lines were beginning to blur between it and the Democratic party. In fact, I'm not the only one that has felt that way. David Boaz and David Kirby of the CATO Institute brought to light some fascinating statistics that were not at all surprising to me. What they figured out was that most Americans, after having answered some some simple questions, actually subscribe to Libertarian tenets.

Basically, we (Libertarians) have an aversion to LARGE government involvement in personal freedoms (some Libertarians don't believe in any government). The only role the government has is to protect me from enemies foreign and domestic. And to make sure that I can travel from "here to there". However, there are some issues that come into conflict with my religious views. One in particular that I'm very passionate about--abortion. How can I as a Christian and a Libertarian stop a woman from having an abortion through government sanctions? In other words, as a Christian, killing an unborn child is the cruelest form of inconvenience elimination that a society can employ. At the same time, as a Libertarian, I believe that government injunctions are not the answer. So, what do I do? Well, there are a few things I propose.

1. I can argue that abortion is sin and that anyone who engages in that type of behavior will suffer an eternity in hell. But somehow, I don't think this is going to convince a woman to give up on this cruel crusade. In fact, I would be considered a hate-monger.
2. I could argue that abortion is actually murder. That way government has an invested interest in the unborn fetus, thereby, invoking the government without stepping on personal freedoms. Instead, It would be the protection of civil rights in the fetus. But this has been tried and failed.
3. Leave this issue to the state governments, which is in place now, but every time a challenge comes up in front of a states supreme court it is the federal government that makes the determination for the states.
4. And this the one that I favor. Leave it to the individual woman. Since, collectively as a society, we don't deem the fetus as a person anyway. This gets government out of the way. Then, Christians can rail against that behavior all they want. If it works to get her to stop the cruel act praise God. If it doesn't, then she and she only will have to answer for her actions in the heavenly court.

#4 I think will work in all situations in which I have a conflict between my religious and Libertarian views.

Ladner's Thought Experiment

Recently, my friend and fellow philosopher, posed a question that I'm sure has been posed before, and I'm sure will be posed again. It is this, "If we awoke tomorrow morning without any religious notions of morality and ethics, would we be happy?" I hope I captured the gist of the question. If I didn't, I'm sure and I hope my friend will correct me. But let me clarify, so we won't be confused about the topic.

For many years, the debate about humanism or evolution vs. religion (more specifically Judeo-Christian values) or creationism has been going on for eons. From the snake convincing Eve that God lied, to Paul debating the Stoics on Mars Hill, to Dawkins and Collins. This will never end. But what if it did, and the humanist and evolutionist won. And, not only did they win, but we have no knowledge of God or religion. Would this make us more happy? Without getting in a long discussion about what happiness is, let us say that generally happiness is defined as the absence of that which would causes us duress. So that, if we could get rid of all that would cause us duress, we are happy.

If we were to pick out the negative aspects of religion, this, consequently, would remove all duress that would follow from that side of the debate, e.g. religion's incessant propensity to war against other belief systems--"killing in the name of God!" However, that which would cause duress for the humanist or evolutionist when religion is eliminated would appear to increase. The answers that we found in religion are no more, which increases the frustration that would normally plague us. One of those problems is meaning. Why are we here? What is our purpose? This is not so easy to explain on a humanist or an evolutionary level. Sure one can argue that our purpose is to reproduce and protect our offspring. But somehow--to me anyway--this seems to reduce us to the level of extremely intelligent animals, than the more nobler human race created by God for a specific purpose. It also would appear to move ethics and morality to a more relativistic level, even though humanist and evolutionist could make an appeal to Kant's Categorical Imperative. But, who's to say I agree with it and would stick with?

In addition, if we leave out all the religiousness that we would miss out on or not, then this turns into a purely epistemological context. Without any appeal to religion, everything must be rationalized, and tested to make sure it works. I believe this would further frustrate humanity. (Which by the way, makes the author's of religious texts not just geniuses but hypergeniuses, because they got it right the first time--assuming there is no God). In this context, we aren't able to get out of the skeptic's trap let alone for it to make us happy.

In conclusion, a world in which we have forgotten all religious aspects, would make for a frustrating and joyless life. But, I'm bias. I'm keenly aware of my need for my religious beliefs. It is how I live my life. This makes me happy even in the times when I think all is lost. And, the reason for that is because this life is not the end.