quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Edit: Oh and in case you never noticed: "Obamanation" is a racial epithet.
Is it? I've heard both people for and against Obama using that term.
Of course, generally, the pro-Obama (Probama?) people are using it as a play on Obama Nation AND abomination.
You've heard Obama supporters using "Obama Nation"? I find that really really hard to believe.
Believe it. Being an Obama supporter myself, I come by my knowledge first hand.
Now, whether the people who use it positively are doing so because they appropriated it from the conservatives, I don't know.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard abomination used many times as a biracial derogatory term. I grew up in and spent a lot of time in New England, mostly Maine -- maybe it is regional.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up in Maine, I've never heard the term used specifically referring to race, but I can understand the potential for racial undertones.
That being said, the particular example of 'Obamanation' has absolutely no connection with racial objections. The entire argument is ridiculous. Is everyone who's voting Republican somehow living in 1880?
The most hardcore right-wing nut jobs that do object to race aren't even seeing him as a half-black candidate, but rather, they're refusing to even consider 'levels of blackness.' That, or they just think of him as a Muslim. I don't know why this is such a point of contention, but really, let it go.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sharpie, are you sure you are not thinking of the word, "amalgamation," rather than "abomination"?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What I am claiming however, is that people are using "Obamanation" as a racial epithet. I believe that.
Then you're dumb. Because no one is using it that way. It's a ridiculous thing to claim. Your reason for claiming it is dumb. I do not believe that the foulest racist cracker out there is using the term that way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
That's quite the claim based on what evidence?
IP: Logged |
posted
"Amalgamationist" was the word most often used to attack abolitionists before "miscegenation" became a buzz attackword. Back in the 19th century. It's pretty archaic by today's standards though. "Abomination" to my knowledge doesn't have much of a major history with reference to bi-racial issues. In every history book I've read, it's been one of the two I mentioned at the top.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those of us who believe in individual liberties did our mourning a very long time ago. I love how you equate authoritarianism with realism.
Your definition of 'authoritarianism' includes things like "taxation" and terrible rights-crushing things like "free public education made available to all children" and "regulatory oversight of business" so I am going to consider it a tad more realistic than the non-aggression principle alternative.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always take my definitional cues from the OED, given that my English teachers and professors have drilled it into my head that it's the authoritative dictionary of the English language. Here are (all) the definitions of abomination, according to it:
1. The feeling or state of mind of combined disgust and hatred; abhorrence, detestation, loathing.
quote: 1395 PURVEY Remonstr. (1851) 7 Alle resonable men have greet abhominacioun of bodili sodomie. 1483 CAXTON G. Leg. 431 [He] vysyted the hospytalles..wythout abhomynacion of dyfformyte ne of ordure or fylthe of somme pacyente. 1525-30 MORE De quat. Nouis. Wks. 1557, 96 We se gret cause to haue it in hatred & abominacion. 1611 BIBLE 1 Sam. xiii. 4 Israel also was had in abomination with the Philistines. Mod. To regard smoking with abomination.
b. Physical disgust, nausea. [So in early Fr.] Obs.
quote:1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. (1495) VII. viii. 228 Yf gedynes comyth of the stomak the pacyent felyth abhomynacion and wamlynge.
2. A state or condition giving rise to intense disgust; defilement, pollution, abominableness. Obs.
quote:1413 LYDGATE Pylg. Sowle (1483) III. i. 49 What stynke and corrupcion what fylthe and abhomynacion is there withynne the helle. 1480 Rob. the Devyll 31 I desyre youe to heare my confession Of my greate synnes the abhomynacon.
3. An action, or custom, abominable, detestable, odious, shamefully wicked or vile; a degrading vice.
quote:c1325 E.E. Allit. P. B. 1173 (1864) 73 He vsed abominaciones of idolatrye. c1386 CHAUCER Man of Law's T. 88 He..Wolde never wryte in non of his sermouns Of such unkynde abhominaciouns. 1494 FABYAN VI. clxxxi. 180 Ye great abhomynacion of thyse tyranous Danys, that beat, robbed, and slewe ye innosent people without mercy. 1549 LATIMER 7 Serm. bef. Edw. VI (1869) 207 What an abhominacion is it? the foulest that euer was to attribute to mans worke oure saluacion. 1606 SHAKES. Ant. & Cl. III. vi. 94 Th' adulterous Anthony, most large In his abhominations. 1611 BIBLE Mal. ii. 11 An abomination is committed in Israel. 1682 BURNET Rts. of Princes v. 159 He was not guilty of these monstrous Abominations. 1852 C. M. YONGE Cameos (1877) III. xxiii. 355 Ninety-five theses, many of which were directed against the special abominations of Tetzel.
4. An object that excites disgust and hatred; a thing detested or detestable. (Followed by unto, to.) esp. in the Bible, a cause of pollution, an idol.
quote:1366 MANDEVILLE (1839) xxviii. 282 Fro him comethe out smoke and stynk and fuyr, and so moche Abhomynacioun, that unethe no man may there endure. 1382 WYCLIF Matt. xxiv. 15 {Ygh}e schulen se the abhomynacioun of discomfort that is seid of Danyel, the prophete. 1535 COVERDALE 2 Kings xxiii. 13 Malcom the abhominacion of the children of Ammon. 1611 BIBLE Prov. xii. 22 Lying lippes are abomination to the Lord. 1794 SULLIVAN View of Nat. II. Nor was it until the days of Hezekiah..that this abomination [the brazen serpent] was torn from the land. 1856 KANE Arctic Explor. II. v. 59 Brewed up flax-seed and lime-juice and quinine and willow-stems into an abomination which was dignified as beer.
5. loosely. An unpleasant or disgusting amount, etc. Obs.
quote:1604 DEKKER Honest Wh. (1873) 8, I ha spent an abomination this voyage.
I'm not seeing anything in there that is racially charged.
For those of you who dislike the idea of the Brits controlling the language, here's the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is the main American English dictionary that my university's library links to:
abominable: 1 : worthy of or causing disgust or hatred : detestable <the abominable treatment of the poor> 2 : quite disagreeable or unpleasant <abominable weather>
Personally, I have never heard abominable being used in a racially charged way (grew up on in CA, now live in NoVa). If two major dictionaries - one considered the most authoritative from all English experts I've spoke to - don't give any indication that it's a racially-charged word, I think it's unfair to call it a racially-charged word without any qualifiers. If you want to say it's got racial connotations in specific region, or where you grew up, or what have you, that's one thing. Expecting the rest of the English-speaking world to agree to your region's dialect's definitions is going a bit too far.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Wikipedia says the book is racially charged, but does not claim that the term itself is.
While I don't think that everything Lisa has said in this thread is awesome, and I'm normally in agreement with most of what Orincoro posts, I think the claim that "abomination" is a racial slur is stupid. And I say this as a mixed-race person, married to someone of yet another ethnicity, and with several subscriptions to list servs and publications that explicitly deal with racial & mixed-race topics.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really doesn't matter if the dictionry says a word is racially charged or not, it is, and historically has been racially charged. While it has not been used in a racial way by anyone on this thread it is being used in that way, just because you don't want to see a word as racially inclined doesn't mean it is not.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this like Romney's "tar baby" comment from a couple of years ago.
Xann - that is is racially charged is still up for debate. At most it was used that way in a small area of the country...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
Wikipedia says the book is racially charged, but does not claim that the term itself is.
It doesn't occur to you that the racially charged qualities of the book (I don't attest to them as I haven't read it), could lend that connotation to the word? Something doesn't have to be in a dictionary to have that particular meaning, and the word "obamanation" is not the same word as "abomination," we're just comparing the two to see what we find.
Again, the word we are talking about as a racial slur is "Obamanation" and not "abomination." A does not equal B, does not equal C.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: It really doesn't matter if the dictionary says a word is racially charged or not, it is, and historically has been racially charged. While it has not been used in a racial way by anyone on this thread it is being used in that way, just because you don't want to see a word as racially inclined doesn't mean it is not.
Okay. So the term "bong" in Indian English can be used to refer to the Bengali ethnicity in a slightly derogatory manner - I know at least some of the older generation wouldn't care to be referred to in that manner. Does that mean that if you make some sort of reference to "bong" and my husband (who is Bengali), you're making a racially charged reference? Despite the fact that "bong" is used in that way in only one part of the English-speaking world? Because Indians use that word in that way, "bong" is now & forever a racially derogatory term when used by any English speaker?
I'm sorry, I don't really buy it. If you can't point me towards one credible, authoritative source that shows an accepted, widespread understanding of the word as racially charged, then it is generally not racially charged. That doesn't mean it can't be in certain times or places - just that you shouldn't call it racially charged anymore than I should call your use of the word "bong" as racially charged. Abominable has not met this standard.
Orincoro - it is quite possible that the book may make the term obmanation into a racially-charged term - but given that I haven't seen any media coverage of it, I'm doubtful. And given that you haven't even read the book, I don't think that was your reasoning when you called out Lisa. And, yes, a word does need to be cited in a dictionary or at least some authoritative source has having a certain meaning or connotation before I'll accept it as having that meaning.*** If someone tells me that "socks" is an evil derogatory term, and I shouldn't use it, I'm sure as hell not going to listen to them unless they give me some reason besides "because it is!!!"
***Note: I'm referring to words that already exist. New words become invented all the time, and of course, they can have a known meaning before they make it to the dictionary. And slang is constantly changing - but you don't get to call someone out for not knowing your particular in-group's slang.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: That doesn't mean it can't be in certain times or places - just that you shouldn't call it racially charged anymore than I should call your use of the word "bong" as racially charged. Abominable has not met this standard.
Although i don't know of any way to use the word "bong" other than for a noise or a "water pipe", i don't essentially see how your disagreeing with me. I'm not saying that abomination or Obamanation shouldn't be used, what i AM saying is that i have heard many times abomination used as a racial slur, I have also heard Obamanation used as a racial slur. Even if Obamanation isn't used in any racial way by anyone it is close to a word that in alot of minds is racial. Really when is the last time you heard someone say "niggardly"?
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xann., I don't think you're understanding me, since I am fundamentally disagreeing with you.
Let's say you made a joke about my husband using a bong, or combined his name (Abhi) with "bong" - like "Abh-ong". Maybe your intention is just to say he's acting like a pot user - which he can when he's pigged out on chocolate cookies. Or whatever. Anyways, would I be right in saying that you're using a racially-charged word, or that saying "Abhong" is a racial slur? After all, in Indian English it would be.
According to your logic, because one subset of English-speakers recognize the word "bong" as an ethnic slur, your language would be racially-charged, despite the fact that you don't mean it as a slur, don't know it's racial-charged, doesn't have a history of widespread use as a racially-charged, and it isn't recognized as a racial slur in any of the authoritative dictionaries. That's exactly the status of "bong" as a racial slur and of "abomination". If you're saying one is a racial slur, then you're saying the other is, and you shouldn't use either.
The term "nigger" isn't at all an analogous situation, since it is widely recognized throughout the English-speaking world as a racial slur AND it is listed as a racial slur in any dictionary you check.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you're saying one is a racial slur, then you're saying the other is, and you shouldn't use either."
IF you think that the people calling Obama an "abomination" don't mean it racially...I've got a bridge to sell you. Also, in breaking news, the Moon is made of green cheese. I grew up and live around people like that. I know what they mean. I seriously doubt you know enough of the kind of people I do to speak from experience.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's one Pix...and there's 10 frickin' million rednecks. So...yeah, it's racial. Nobody ever seriously questioned that fact, if they actually know a lot of people who are
A. against Obama
B. against Obama because he's black.
I do know such people, believe me. I guarantee there are more that use it racially than ones that don't.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obamanation may or may not be racially charged, but you can say the same thing with McLame.
McLame has nothing to do with McDonald's and corporate greed. It has everything to do with the fact that McCain is an old, lame, white dude, while Obama is a "cool", hip, young, black man.
This is one reason why I believe a pseudo-Bradley effect may take place tommorrow. It is not directly tied to race, but a lot of people may say they are voting for Obama because that is the "cool" thing to do, but when it actually comes down to it they might vote McCain.
Either way, Obama will still win short of a miracle. Unfortunately for McCain, Obama is the messiah and is the final decision-maker on miracles.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I voted for Obama. I voted for every last Dem on the frickin' ballot. When I got to the back, where all the non-partisan offices were listed, I voted for women whenever I could. The only exception was when one of my former male classmates showed up on the school board list. I voted for him.
There wasn't any damn "reverse Bradley effect" going on with me.
Also, to anybody who says "McLame" is racist...have you been taking your meds? Talk about reaching.
I'm not saying Obama would be a better President. I don't know for sure, but the men he seems to be lining up as his close advisors, Colin Powell ( who has boatloads of integrity and foreign policy and military creds) and Joe Biden (an older, wiser head, with more foreign policy experience), look really good to me. I once read that a Presidency succeeds or fails based on the quality of the advisors and Cabinet. As long as I see Obama plus those two guys, I'm thinking we might end up doing OK.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't actually think McLame is racist. My previous post was just to prove the point that this nickname arguing is pointless. All this thread is doing is causing people to pointlessly argue over some stupid nicknames.
Tommorrow, we will elect a new President. Maybe the new President will be good, maybe the new President will be bad. All you can do is read up on the candidates and vote on who you think will be the best president, even though your vote will most likely make no difference.
These last few months, I have watched the election play out and I get frustrated or irritated or downright mad at what I see. But I don’t have any control over it and at times, especially at that initial knee-jerk moment, I wish I had control. Then things begin to settle, mainly my thoughts, and I remember why I love this country. I don’t have any real control, so complaints will fall on deaf ears. That is something that I am okay with. There’s just no real reason for me to get mad about something that I have no control over the results in.
When it comes down to it, this country has given me so much more than I have given it. Obviously I don't always agree with the way our government is run, but I have no control over who wins the election tommorrow, and if you are reading this post, I'm guessing you have equally little control. Do what you want, say what you want, and conduct yourself in any manner in which you please. But at the end of the day you have to ask yourself what good complaining on Hatrack will do? Obviously it helps you vent your frustration towards the government. But why are you so frustrated with something you can’t control, and frankly something you wouldn’t be any better at? I guess to me this forum is about enjoying something I can’t control with people who understand that they can’t control it either. It’s about a love of a country that gives us so much, we feel the need to stand up for it at all times.
Although I have barely posted on Hatrack, know that I have read these forums the last couple weeks and that I thank everyone here who has particpated in respectful debates. Now lets get back to arguing over something that matters.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
I believe it was Samuel Johnson who said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Here's a quote from an online essay. I don't know if it's accurate, but it's funny.
-----"After Dr. Johnson said patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel, the cynic Ambrose Bierce amended it with, "I beg to submit that it is the first." Then H.L. Mencken jumped in: "But there is something even worse: it is the first, last and middle range of fools.""-----
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course if I told you that I voted for Obama then your response to my posts will be totally different...
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
But please enlighten me about one thing. I've always wondered at the thought processes of those who say how futile it is to post on internet fora while doing the same thing themselves. I mean, are you exempt or what? Do you get a pass due to Utilitarianism or inner wisdom or something?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. At first I was like "Am I being mocked? Which novel?", thinking LOTR, or something. I'm proud to say it only took about 2 seconds to realize you meant Mr. Vonnegut's.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the confusion. The last couple of posts were a melting pot of thoughts and may have been hard to understand.
1. Internet forums are very good places to meet a multitude of different people with different background in order to understand different points of view.
2. This American tear bucket topic is pointless. Regardless of whether or not the candidate we support wins the election, it is important to support the next President and hope that he pleasantly suprises you. Of course it is frustrating if your candidate does not win, but that's democracy. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Although you may think Obama will be an abomination or Mccain will be lame, once your emotions settle down it's important to work towards improving the country and the world. 10% of life is what happens. The other 90% is what you do after it happens.
Eventually, we may all be able to ride off on our unicorns to the gumdrop forest where the economy is fixed and money grows on trees.
(Incidentally, I once wrote a book on money trees. It had twenty-dollar bills for leaves. Its flowers were government bonds. Its fruit was diamonds. It attracted human beings who killed each other around the roots and made very good fertilizer. So it goes.)
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: And, yes, a word does need to be cited in a dictionary or at least some authoritative source has having a certain meaning or connotation before I'll accept it as having that meaning.***
This is categorically incorrect. English is not a standardized language. As such, there are many, many accepted forms of it spoken throughout the world. The use of a single word for a single purpose is valid even between two people. On a larger scale, a word can come to have a new shade of meaning very quickly, and its validity is in the eye of the beholder.
There is no official English language, and no official English dictionary. Thus, there is no ultimate authority, other than that of common use.
I don't really give a crap at this point, with people hauling out 9 dictionary definitions of related words. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe what I say. I just don't like to be shouted down from a position that is based on a false premise.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kilgore Trout: This is one reason why I believe a pseudo-Bradley effect may take place tommorrow. It is not directly tied to race, but a lot of people may say they are voting for Obama because that is the "cool" thing to do, but when it actually comes down to it they might vote McCain.
Either way, Obama will still win short of a miracle. Unfortunately for McCain, Obama is the messiah and is the final decision-maker on miracles.
So, he wins because of the reverse-Bradley effect... oh no wait he wins because "black people are cool." Yeah, 130 million voters all responding to Ghetto Culture. Makes total sense.
So how long have you been a racist?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And, yes, a word does need to be cited in a dictionary or at least some authoritative source has having a certain meaning or connotation before I'll accept it as having that meaning.***
This is categorically incorrect. English is not a standardized language. As such, there are many, many accepted forms of it spoken throughout the world. The use of a single word for a single purpose is valid even between two people. On a larger scale, a word can come to have a new shade of meaning very quickly, and its validity is in the eye of the beholder.
There is no official English language, and no official English dictionary. Thus, there is no ultimate authority, other than that of common use.
I don't really give a crap at this point, with people hauling out 9 dictionary definitions of related words. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe what I say. I just don't like to be shouted down from a position that is based on a false premise.
I didn't make a claim about anyone else; I said what I'll accept. I DO think people are foolish if they expect others to accept and know their regional dialects as always valid in any general context, and I'll gladly point out such foolishness. The use of abomination as a racial slur is a regional dialect, and it's silly to expect people to not use the word just 'cause you think it's racially-charged, when this is far from a widely-accepted understanding of the word.
Do you use the word "bong"? Don't you know it's a racially-charged word in India? How can you use such language? </sarcasm>
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I don't really give a crap at this point, with people hauling out 9 dictionary definitions of related words. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe what I say. I just don't like to be shouted down from a position that is based on a false premise.
What false premise? You said "'Obamanation' is a racial epithet." All you've managed to muster in support of that claim is that it has been used as a racial epithet in certain circumstances. Of course, saying that it has been used as a racial epithet does not imply that it is a racial epithet. To show that it is a racial epithet you would have to establish that it is used in a racial manner often enough that any usage of the word should immediately be suspected as racial.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sorry for using sarcasm in my posts. I understand that this is an important election and that people are very tense and easily aggitated right now. I apologize if I came off as inflammatory to anyone. Please remember though that while it may be easy to throw personal insults at people from the safety of your computer, there is always someone on another computer who is hurt by these attacks.
posted
To be fair to the Fish it did kinda sound like a witty form of sarcasm, albeit a difficult to parse one, it wouldve parsed better with a smiley.
Threads, the false premise is that NO ONE uses the word as a racial epithet which Pixiest claimed and is obviously wrong about.
I see 2 usages: Obama Nation as in the "Obama<space>Nation in reference to the wave of enthusiastic support for Obama's candidancy and policies. This is the "Pro" and not bad usage.
And 2:
Obamanation as in Obama+Abomination which to me IS a racist term, or at least heavily derogatory and rude, in reference to either extreme libertarian belief that Obama will bring Socialism and thsu the destruction of USA thus referring to his "policies" and the more racial term referring to his mixed background.
REGARDLESS of whether you think it racist if it is USED in a derogatory basis its barely in my view 1 step below racist. More so then Negro as apposed to the "N-word".
IP: Logged |
quote:I see 2 usages: Obama Nation as in the "Obama<space>Nation in reference to the wave of enthusiastic support for Obama's candidancy and policies. This is the "Pro" and not bad usage.
It doesn't split that easily since the book "Obama Nation" is unquestionable an anti-Obama racial charged screed.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My main problem with this was the immediate calling-out of "Obamanation" as a racial epithet. If Orincoro had said, "you know, I'm a bit uncomfortable with that term, 'cause I've seen 'abomination' used as a racial slur" that'd be one thing. I'd probably avoid using the term just because I like to be polite (also, I'm an Obama supporter), despite the fact that I've never come across anything that would lead me to believe abomination is a racial epithet. Maybe we could have gotten into an interesting discussion about regional variations in language or something.
But I don't like it when people try to control others' language usage. No one wants to be labeled a racist, just like no one wants to be labeled unpatriotic. It's not cool when someone says I'm unpatriotic for criticizing Bush, and it's not cool when someone says a thing is racist when, really, there's absolutely no reason to believe the term is widely accepted as a racial slur.
Now, if you want to say I'm unpatriotic for calling for the nuking of the US (which I'm not, FYI), or if you want to say it's racist to use the word "nigger", that's another kettle of fish entirely. Because, of course, these actions are widely recognized as being unpatriotic & racist.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
