The N Word

 

Like my niggers from South Central Los Angeles they found that they couldn’t handle us. Bloods, CRIPS, on the same squad, with the Essays up, and nigger, it’s time to rob and mob and break the white man off something lovely…

 

Whoa, stop right there Dre. You can’t say that. No, you can threaten the white man as much as you like, though I’ve yet to understand exactly what your problem with albinos is, but you can’t use the N word. See, I just typed it and the gods of the web magically edited it to say “the N word”. Hey don’t feel down, doc. You’re not the only one whose words are being edited in this way. They even went after Mark Twain in the same way, and he’s not even alive to speak out against it. Check this out.

Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free nigger there from Ohio—a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you ever see, too, and the shiniest hat; and there ain’t a man in that town that’s got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane—the awfulest old gray-headed nabob in the State. And what do you think? They said he was a p’fessor in a college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything. And that ain’t the wust. They said he could VOTE when he was at home. Well, that let me out. Thinks I, what is the country a-coming to? It was ‘lection day, and I was just about to go and vote myself if I warn’t too drunk to get there; but when they told me there was a State in this country where they’d let that nigger vote, I drawed out. I says I’ll never vote agin. Them’s the very words I said; they all heard me; and the country may rot for all me—I’ll never vote agin as long as I live. And to see the cool way of that nigger—why, he wouldn’t a give me the road if I hadn’t shoved him out o’ the way. I says to the people, why ain’t this nigger put up at auction and sold?—that’s what I want to know.

Most of us can recognise this passage from Huckleberry Finn as a sign of the times. A sign of how awfully black people were treated in early America, to the point that many of them even felt they deserved to be treated so woefully. Part of the genius of the book is that the main character himself is a racist. For school children who’ve never experienced those times it’s a wonderful introduction to a historical period and a great jumping off point for a discussion on racism that may help to positively change their views in the future. Twain himself was trying to bring the plight of the slave to the forefront of people’s minds with this book, so it’s as much a stand for freedom as it is anything else. It’s also the fourth most banned book in America (based on the number of schools and libraries that have received enough complaints that the book has been taken off the shelves indefinitely) and isn’t allowed in most schools because it uses the N word. Gone are the chances to talk to schoolkids as adults and make them understand what was happening back then and why it should never happen again, gone was there gentle, yet enlightening introduction to a state of mind they have no reference for in this day and age.

Enter Alan Gribben, a sixty-nine year old scholar of Mark Twain’s literature who aims to save the day by replacing “nigger” (hey I slipped one through the PC filter) with the word “slave” throughout Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer novels and re-releasing them in a combined volume. Now Gribben has received a lot of flak about this plan (which will be enacted in February 2011 and is a limited release of 7,500 books purely for school use) mostly because he’s editing a classic work. A few people have gone further and actually noticed that slave isn’t exactly a racially tolerant word either. It’s not meant to be. It’s simply a way he’s found to get the same meaning across without violating the code that stops this book from being available to children, a way he’s found to allow children to have the wonderful experience he had reading these books as a child without setting the ever-present politically correct crowd on the book and letting them burn it. He’s not a devil trying to rewrite history, merely a man who loves something so much that he devoted his life to it and wants others to have the same chance as he did. He admits that he himself would have opposed rewriting the book until recently when he was sought out by teachers lamenting the loss of the book from the curriculum and asking if there was anything he could recommend that brings up the same sorts of issues. It was then that he started experimentally replacing the N word with slave in some of his public readings to gauge the public reaction and found that the public were more responsive to that word. In short, Alan Gribben is fighting the politically correct mob in the only way he knows – with words.

Top Ten Banned Books In American Schools
1) Impressions Edited by Jack Booth
2) Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
3) The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
4) The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
5) The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
6) Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
7) Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
8) More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
9) The Witches by Roald Dahl
10) Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite

But is his gesture taking things too far? As Gribben is no doubt aware, and as has been pointed out repeatedly since this news broke, Twain was as particular about words as I am. A single altered word can completely change the way a paragraph reads or how dialogue flows. Try substituting the word “nigger” for “slave” in both of the quotes above and you’ll see what I mean. To quote the man himself;

The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

I totally agree with that sentiment but that’s not what is being argued here, despite the many times it has been brought up in defiance of this project. The argument is actually whether what was the right word then is still the right word now when trying to bring the plight of the slave into the public mind. A nigger in those days was thought of as generally bad, and that’s the message the book is trying to get across (the way they were thought of and treated, not that they are actually bad), which is cheapened by the use of slave, which is a term for someone downtrodden. Changing the word is the difference between showing what is happening and saying what is happening. Should the word used in dialogue be changed and isn’t that just partially attempting to hide the past that this book tried so hard to make public in the first place? And, most importantly, why do we live in a world where a few can kick up enough of a fuss to dictate what should be available to the rest of us? Now I’m not going to get into a big discussion on censorship because that would take this article to epic poem proportions and would simply be rehashing what I’ve said on many occasions beforehand. What I will do is point out that a vast majority of the people who complained that the word is offensive are actually middle aged white women, presumably worried that their children will be bullied after reading that word out in class, but possibly just being busybodies. Not one of them has been subjected to the level of racism that they fear the N word will bring out, just as not one of them understands how that word had been taken in and changed by rap music from a derogatory term to a term of empowerment for young American black culture.

Of course, none of this really matters. The PC crowd have already leapt on the new book and started dissecting it as disrespectful to a classic of literature (despite a similar crowd banning it in the first place), ironically giving it the same eventual status as the book it aims to replace. Even the new book itself has no meaning except as a footnote in history, compared to the original, especially as there are other ways to combat the over-sensitivity of the politically correct crowd. Later this year another new version of Huckleberry Finn will be released, complete with reading notes that tell the reality of the novel as well as attitudes in that day and age.

And yes, it contains the word “nigger”.

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “The N Word

  1. We read that as part of our English course. I tried to do a radio version of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of darkness", but was stopped for the same reason. I took Conrad as attempting the same message. People.I read an interesting article in The Irish Times, reprinted from a number of decades ago, where a Laois community had been offered a Carnegie library, and there was opposition from, primarily, the local priest, because you couldn't have people reading whatever they wanted.

  2. So many believe that general ignorance in society is a safer way for a civilisation to be run, with only those in power knowing anything. It's depressing, to say the least. Only a few months ago a group of enlightened people were burning Fahrenheit 451, ironically mimicking the dystopian society portrayed in that book. The reason it was burned was that there was profanity in the book. 🙄

  3. I hope Indians also get rid of the caste system soon. People try to divert all attention to the history of the british rule in India, trying to ignore that Indians themselves have a hidden apartheid, the caste system with which they keep discriminating against eachother. One of the main reasons the caste discrimination is hidden from the world is that dark skinned and light skinned people are found in all castes here, even the gods like Krishna are said to have dark skin, so it's not based on the skin colour, but it's in the guise of a religion. People 1) try to guess your caste by your surname. Or 2) they directly ask your caste. Or 3) caste certificates are used to tell a person's caste. Because of the caste system I equally hate people who try to call themselves "high" by birth whether they are dark skinned or light skinned. In today's world every person should be judged by their individual behaviour. A good person is good whether he is light skinned or dark skinned. A bad person is bad whether light skinned or dark skinned. Don't try to evoke pity or appreciation for you in people, saying your ancestors were once the oppressed or the rulers. What you are as an individual matters the most.

  4. *shakes head* This PC thing is getting more and more out of hand each day. It's getting to the point where in most cases, the fact they're banning certain things is offensive to those they claim are offended by them being allowed.

  5. I have a problem with all these politically correct words. Some words are apparently offensive, and I don't really get it. See, one of my neighbours is black, in fact he's the blackest man I've ever seen. So, I call him negro. The word comes from Latin niger ("black") and Greek Négros (Νέγρος) (also "black"). But that's not okay to call him negro, even though it just means 'black'. I have to call him African, even though he's not born in Africa. How weird is that! :confused: I might add, just for the record, that I'm not a racist. I simply don't find the word condescending. It's just a word to me.

  6. Whoah – emotive topic!Yeah – I know what you're saying, Pussy Cat – I remember an american dude somewhere in one of your blogs kinda getting sniffy and mentioning 'the N word' and you didn't know what he was talking about – personally, the term 'Black' I've found to be the most acceptable to Black people (the ones I used to hang out with in London, anyway) – they generally got offended if you tried to call them some soft comfortable 'PC' name (not that I can think of any other than maybe 'Afro-American', 'West Indian', the awful 'of colour' and so on)…..The thing for me is to approach people as people not as colours (that's how I see things, anyway)…and there are people you get on with and people you don't. In NZ, you'd get into big strife even using the word 'Black', and, although the Maoris are 'brown' to look at, you can be 1/32 Maori and 'be' a Maori – which means you could look like you & me & still be 'black' in the racist terminology…….and when you find that there are (colour palette-wise) white middle-class people who look like (for instance) you, me, Mik, Kimmie and all, and yet they see themselves as what some would call 'Black' (i.e. Maori)..you get a whole new perspective, race-wise. It can be tricky if you make assumptions, and judge people by their skin tone, for sure.\edit : And the word 'slave' does not mean 'black' by default – there have always been slaves, white, black, brown…..colour's irrelevent to the slave trade, isn't it. African Slave – that's different. Black slave. Negro slave. But the word 'slave' is such a red herring….

  7. Whoa, epic comment here. Didn't realise I'd typed so much.Originally posted by KYren:

    In today's world every person should be judged by their individual behaviour. A good person is good whether he is light skinned or dark skinned. A bad person is bad whether light skinned or dark skinned. Don't try to evoke pity or appreciation for you in people, saying your ancestors were once the oppressed or the rulers. What you are as an individual matters the most.

    That's probably the wisest thing you've said that I've seen. The question remains though, whether a person can be judged by their reasons too. Is a man who upholds freedom of the individual because he believes in it equal to one doing it for fame? How do both those men compare to someone raised to hate that idea yet who upholds it anyway of his own volition, despite not completely being able to believe in it? The motives must always be examined alongside someone's actions before a judgement can be passed, and even then the judgement is only valid in the eyes of those who pass it as their experience differs from others. You can see that all over this site in the causes that people choose to champion, as well as those they stand against.Originally posted by Spaggyj:

    It's getting to the point where in most cases, the fact they're banning certain things is offensive to those they claim are offended by them being allowed.

    I believe we've been at that point for a long time now. There was an incident that I still remember from my childhood where I was listening to the radio and the reasons given for editing the Noddy books so that Noddy and Big Ears live in separate houses and no longer sleep in the same bed. Apparently it's "wrong that we're teaching our children that this is okay". Here we are years later and the original books still haven't been brought back.Originally posted by Zaphira:

    So, I call him negro. The word comes from Latin niger ("black") and Greek Négros (Νέγρος) (also "black"). But that's not okay to call him negro, even though it just means 'black'. I have to call him African, even though he's not born in Africa. How weird is that!

    The thing is that the word is in a transitional phase at the moment. Originally that is exactly what it meant, but then slavery began (I say began but it's more accurate to say the African nation was enslaved for the first time) and the word was appropriated by European slave drivers. From then on it degraded and added meaning, it became the term for these people who the general public saw as dirty, alien and just plain wrong. When criminal activity was detected but no witnesses were found it was thought the work of "the savage negro" (many's the woman who went into the slavehouse curiously, gave herself to a man then cried rape in those days, and many innocent men died because of that as they weren't even given due process of the law) and there's no way the people saying that just meant black. This continued well beyond the end of slavery and is still prevalent in some places today.The word was only as recently as the sixties taken back by the black community. It's meaning is again subject to change, this time with affectations of respect and brotherhood added to it. While you may not have ever meant any harm from the word, the fact remains that as a white woman you're a symbol of the theft of the word's meaning in the first place. Whether you meant harm or not there are others out there who would gladly take it back to it's meaning during the height of slavery so the black community is keeping the word as their own. Personally I think they're going the wrong way about it, but each to his own.I never liked this designation of African-American, African-European and all that malarky. I'm fine with it if the person lived in Africa then moved to another country, but to describe yourself that way simply because of skin colour is ridiculous. What about the white people whose families have lived for generations in Africa? They're not allowed that description for some arcane reason even if they lived there themselves, yet any black man may define himself with an African prefix simply because of his skin colour, even if it would take hundreds of years to trace his family back there? I mean Mitochondrial Eve was found in Africa so we all come from there if you look back far enough, so surely we can all have that African prefix?Originally posted by FlaRin:

    personally, the term 'Black' I've found to be the most acceptable to Black people (the ones I used to hang out with in London, anyway) – they generally got offended if you tried to call them some soft comfortable 'PC' name (not that I can think of any other than maybe 'Afro-American', 'West Indian', the awful 'of colour' and so on)

    When I was in school we were taught about equality and told that we have to use the term "coloured". So yeah, the polite terms happen to be the most offensive in some places. You can just ask Clint what connotations "coloured" has in South Africa for proof of that.Originally posted by FlaRin:

    And the word 'slave' does not mean 'black' by default – there have always been slaves, white, black, brown…..colour's irrelevent to the slave trade, isn't it. African Slave – that's different. Black slave. Negro slave. But the word 'slave' is such a red herring…

    True, and another reason why it would be a foolish word to replace in that way. Surely if the reason the books containing "nigger" have been removed is that they don't want kids picking up that word (which they obviously couldn't learn anywhere else at all) and using it to describe black kids, then using "slave" is actually worse as the lesson is lost but the insult remains. Only in this case the insult is one of implied servitude due to skin colour.

  8. Originally posted by clean:

    This article contains a word that offends me. We need to come up with a word to replace every useage of 'the'.

    Originally posted by FlaRin:

    How about 'Teh' ??

    Don't even joke about that!!! :knight: The language is fractured enough as is thanks to kids and their drugs (the only possible explanation for the way kid's statuses on Messenger are written).*mumble mumble grumble moan*

  9. Zlol. K. :)Originally posted by Mik:

    the polite terms

    …the polite terms seem to be polite only to the people who use them, don't they? Like they're used to make white people feel better, not black people. I wonder how 'Red' Indians feel about all of this too, having been nearly wiped from the planet by a few generations of white americans and no one else. Purely an in-house genicide.At least the black slave trade only ended up being perceived as an American thing – the ancient Egyptians, and the Vikings, Arabs, Greeks, and more contemporary Brits, French and all the rest of the early empire builders (i.e. everybody) bear joint responsibilty for indulging in it. I read that in the early 1960s, there were something like 300,000 slaves in Saudi Arabia. More than in USA.\edit : Originally posted by Mik:

    implied servitude due to skin colour

    …and even worse, would probably contribute to the continuation of the idea – if you say it often enough, it becomes normality, and once it's back in the national psyche like that, who knows how long it would subsequently take for somone to say "hey I know – let's use black people to dig up the roads for free, they're all jobless…"

  10. One would have to be of that mindset in the first place, but the thing about words is that they have a habit of being insidious once in use. As mentioned, the black community has started taking "nigger" back in an attempt to remove it's negative connotations (the quoted song being a misappropriation of that aim) so a man using that would soon find it has lost the power it once had. "Slave", on the other hand, has only one meaning (the unwilling servitude of a person) and can only do damage to those branded with it. The argument is that "slave" is currently an okay word to use while "nigger" is found to be offensive, but by changing from an old word that is currently in flux to a different word that has one set meaning the implication is that those branded with that word can be labelled with it so long as the word retains it's meaning. A dangerous set of circumstances indeed.

  11. Originally posted by Mik:

    One would have to be of that mindset in the first place, but the thing about words is that they have a habit of being insidious once in use

    yeah, I know – which is why I think 'slave' is *very* dangerous, as you say….you'd be surprised (well, probably not actually) at how thin the veneer of civilisation is – all this bloody stuff, segregation, black people being persecuted, shot, hung in public, KKK ad nauseum – was only going on like, 50 years ago – the concentration camps were happening like 65 years ago – human nature *does not* change much, if at all, in that time. It only takes a slight shift somewhere and we'll all be looking down the barrel of *somebody's* gun – and this is why it's kinda up to us to take *extreme* care with labels like 'slave' and suchlike, because a well meaning label, like a coin, has a reverse side, and is incredibly easy to flip.Pretty much what you said, actually…..I like the words 'brother' and 'sister' – we should use those a *lot* more.

  12. I was impressed when reading Jorge Amado and Friedrich Gerstacker on how racissm influenced the language. These authors described societies that needed words to mark someone as a 8 % black, word to divide a half black-quarter white-quater red-person from someone who is half black-half red and so on. Very weird, very far away from my point of view.

  13. Originally posted by Furie:

    It's also the fourth most banned book in America Top Ten Banned Books In American Schools1) Impressions Edited by Jack Booth2) Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck3) The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger4) The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)5) The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier6) Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson7) Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz8) More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz9) The Witches by Roald Dahl10) Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite

    :eyes:. what the fuck is wrong with America? :yikes:.(and yes, I said that out loud when I read this! :faint:)Originally posted by FlaRin:

    \edit : And the word 'slave' does not mean 'black' by default – there have always been slaves, white, black, brown…..colour's irrelevent to the slave trade, isn't it. African Slave – that's different. Black slave. Negro slave. But the word 'slave' is such a red herring….

    What's wierd for me is that people get upset about the mention of slaves in religious texts. but the 'slaves' of biblical times are what we'd call 'servants' today. :left:.Unlike American Slavery, (technically introduced by the British) slaves in the Middle East were paid a wage and could 'purchase' their 'freedom'. ( They could make enough to set up their own livelihood)Under Islamic law, if a Muslim owned slave became Muslim himself, the his 'owner' had to give him food and clothing and invite him to dinner as a guest. :p. :sst:. he also was no longer a slave! :left:.Originally posted by Furie:

    I never liked this designation of African-American, African-European and all that malarky. I'm fine with it if the person lived in Africa then moved to another country, but to describe yourself that way simply because of skin colour is ridiculous. What about the white people whose families have lived for generations in Africa? They're not allowed that description for some arcane reason even if they lived there themselves, yet any black man may define himself with an African prefix simply because of his skin colour, even if it would take hundreds of years to trace his family back there? I mean Mitochondrial Eve was found in Africa so we all come from there if you look back far enough, so surely we can all have that African prefix?

    +1 :hat:.Here in South Africa, we don't have 'African Americans'. Our official race groups are:AfricanAsianIndianColouredWhite:rolleyes:Chinese people are 'Black' in terms of 'Black Economic Empowerment' as are Coloureds and Indians, but Japanese are 'White' :faint:.Originally posted by FlaRin:

    I read that in the early 1960s, there were something like 300,000 slaves in Saudi Arabia. More than in USA.

    I think I covered this to some extent above! :left:. The Arabic word that means 'slave' is actually the exact same word that means 'domestic worker'. It also means 'apprentice' in another context! (btw, the word is abdul, and many Saudi's proudly use it as their first name! :p)Originally posted by Pineas2:

    These authors described societies that needed words to mark someone as a 8 % black, word to divide a half black-quarter white-quater red-person from someone who is half black-half red and so on. Very weird, very far away from my point of view.

    The child of a Zulu man is a Zulu, and hence black, even if the mother is white. But the child of a white man is white only if the mother is also white. If the mother is non-white, then the child is coloured. If a child has one coloured parent, then the child is coloured regardles of what the other parent is, unless the childs father is Zulu, in that case, see above! :faint:.I live in that world! :cry:.

  14. I'm going to argue with that to an extent. While the older definition of a slave did indeed come with a set wage, that wage was very rarely paid to the slave. Instead the owner would take the wage as the slave's rent and board, with anything left over being put towards the cost of freedom. In this manner slaves would be taken and would work to gain their freedom. However, only the scruples of their masters could determine how long their servitude would actually last.It is true that, apart from the fact these people were bought and sold, that they were culturally looked upon as a member of the household. Of course, how that manifested was again down to the master, and many would still find themselves living in a filthy hole set aside in the house. Still, they were expected to be clean and presentable as they reflected on the family who owned them, so many would have better circumstances than one would expect.

  15. And I won't disagree with you on that. Although I will say that the lot of many 'employees' today is just as miserable. :awww:.The only difference is that , technically, an employee can quit. But in practice, jobs are too few for most people with bad bosses to risk quitting. :awww:.

  16. Thank you, Mik. :pThe gladiators were also considered slaves, weren't they?The caste system tries to permanently typecaste people. I am from this caste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavsar , which is said to be from the second varna in the caste system and has aryan descent. But the fact is that we are said to be from tailors caste (slaves that are supposed to always weave clothes for people). Like there are castes like barber, carpenter, goldsmith, washermen, fishermen etc. In other words we are "secondary" in the caste system. We are called and labeled as tailors, generation after generation, even if we are in different professions now. Brahmins and Marathas are "high", generation after generation. This is the power of permanent labelling. Since we are already discussing controversial matters, I want to comment on this concept of "prowess". I hear whites have a certain guilt and inferiority complex about themselves. But remember we are all humans and we all have the prowess if we think, and if we think we don't then we don't have it. Thoughts are things.Today, the globalization is increasing and everyone will know his/her human rights. And the most appropriate would be to judge each and every person as an individual. And maybe in the future people might be able to easily change their skin tone and increase their height too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-442466/Change-eye-colour-skin-tone-popping-pill.htmlhttp://yforum.com/Message.aspx?id=6d93c5d7-cea9-4518-b52e-f218d36f0d50Future is in constant flux, with many possibilities, it keeps taking shape according to our collective consciousness. Nothing is permanent.

  17. No specific skin colour has a complex that affects those people with that skin colour. That'd be like saying all blacks have a feeling of paranoia or something. Each person is an individual and is as likely to feel a certain way as every other person, regardless of skin colour. It's the sum of our experiences combined with our body chemistry that determines how likely we are to feel a certain way, and pigmentation may play a small role in our experiences but it doesn't dictate who we are.For example, despite your opposition to the caste system, you were raised in it and this has affected how you feel. Had you not been raised that way you probably wouldn't be so affected by it. You also wouldn't have the need to separate people by skin colour or gender (which I've noticed you do more often than you'd think) which is something the system has taught you to do without thinking.Have another read through of the first link you posted and you'll see the actor they for some unknown reason talked to about this comes across the same. They concentrate only on the idea of black people lightening their skin as abhorrant and bowing down to whites, never once mentioning the fact that this breakthrough would also allow whites to darken their skin. In that actor's eyes the white man is an oppressor and forcing this technology on to people in an attempt to eradicate skin colours they don't like. It may be down to the way they were interviewed (considering this is the Daily Mail, that's pretty much a given) but the views given are still quite racist.

  18. Yes, I've heard in some countries talking about a tanning spray is considered as normal while talking about a skin lightening product is taken as an offence. But the fact is some people do want to lighten their skin tone not because of some external pressure but because of it's their own personal choice. The same article mentions this fact.I would show that actor this forum:http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/skin-lightening/whats-girls-skin-whitening-story-207104-2.html If he ignores this fact he's lying to himself. Anyways whatever the colour or gender, judging people as individuals is the right option.I do speak about genders cause it's become a major issue in India: http://my.opera.com/KYren/albums/show.dml?id=633283

  19. This is interesting! It's not often I (consciously) think of people's skin colour, but not long ago the questions was raised to a black colleague of mine. Although we're all PC enough not to say nigger (or negro, even), she preferred the term black.A year or two ago, there was a big similar discussion in Norway. It was about cutting the word "hottentot" from a children's book. I don't know if you it's the same word in English, but it sort of depicts a wild black man with a bone in his hairdo.The book was written in the mid 50's, and probably reflects the view from that time.

  20. The term 'hottentot' is the old dutch word for the Khoi-San people. There days it's often used in a derogatory term for Coloured. (of mixed white/non-white heritage)At here in South Africa that is. :left:.'Hottentot' comes from a reference to the way the Khoi-San language sounds. They have 'clicks' in their language.

  21. Originally posted by Rose:

    she preferred the term black.

    that was totally my experience in UK, until I left & became an immigrant myself. There are virtually no Africans or West IndiansJamaicans in NZ – I mean it's a *huge* surprise to see one here, and I *so* want to shake his hand or give her a hug if & when I do see one, like finding an old friend, because I miss my black friends, and I miss their mum's cooking, and their manner of speech…and all that.

  22. The Japanese are counted "white" since the war of 1904/1905. Rassistic logic says that a people who is able to beat a white people (i. e. the Russians) cannot be black or yellow but must be white. In ancient Greece red hair was the stereotype for slaves as they often came from Thesalia where red hair was wide spread among the people.

  23. I have a number of Indian friends, thank you and they are charming, kind and courteous people, every one. And a good home-made bowl of curried potatoes and a keema naan must be one of my favourite dinners :)I grew up in Southall west London, and Indian & to a lesser extent pakistani 1st, 2nd & 3rd generation people were part of my normal everyday life, at school and work 🙂 I learned there to appreciate & cook a damn good curry – although never really got Cricket. But, shit hap, you know? :)\edit : in fact – if you watch the film 'Bend It Like Beckham', you will see exactly the very streets I grew up and played in. Those *very* streets 🙂 It always gives me a strange twinge to watch that movie. Good times, you know? I was happy then, there. 🙂

  24. Originally posted by Pineas2:

    In ancient Greece red hair was the stereotype for slaves as they often came from Thesalia where red hair was wide spread among the people.

    Good choice in slaves. :left:

  25. Thanks, Flarin. You've lived in a multicultural environment. I personally have no friends from other ethnicities in real life.On Opera I have friends from Africa, Europe, and Japan. 😀

  26. Not until they do something interesting like they used to and stop playing "me too" with people who aren't even a threat to them, destroying their brand image in the meantime and effectively screwing over customers.

  27. WebOS is doing so badly that Palm is up for a buyout and is being considered by both Nokia and HTC. Whichever of those bought Palm would have access to their OS and a significant advantage in developing a new UI for an existing OS, as well as a new platform for applications.

  28. So, would you say it's not the right time to buy a new phone? :left:.I was going to get an N900 but i'm not so sure anymore. :awww:.I'm so confused! :cry:.

  29. Actually, I think it may be a bit over the top of my current needs. :p.My E65 is still going strong. (although it could use a new keypad and the cover glass over the screen is a bit funky. :left:)I mostly use the netbook online now. Except when I'm too lazy to swap my sim card over to my modem. :left:.So I'm a little conflicted. Part of me wants the phone, but another, more realistic, part of me says that I don't really need it. :rolleyes:.If I do buy it though, it's going to be a very long time, God willing, before I buy another one. :up:.

  30. The N900 is a remarkable device capable of many things, including the ability to be updated with new codecs that allow the use of applications that wont work on the original version. If you want one, get one, but don't mistake a powerful device for the be-all and end-all of mobile technology. There will always be something that performs better in one respect or other. Be sure that you know what you want from the device and that the device is capable of doing what you want and you at least know it'll keep you happy for your current needs.

  31. The old "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" thing isn't really paid attention to these days, is it? :awww:

  32. But there's that thing about the pen being mightier then the sword, isn't there….sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can be taken down in evidence and used againt me… 🙂

Have Your Say:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s