Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on how that person speaks in other contexts.
To me, it does sound racist, whereas a phrase like "taking [x] to the woodshed" does not, because the latter has entered the vernacular as something even educated people will say to mean chewing someone out in private. In comparison, saying "Obama needs a whoopin'" sounds more like "Obama has gotten too big for his britches," which I'd also perceive as having racial overtones when referring to a black President.
Just my two cents, since you asked.
+1
Any time a white person who is not the president is insinuating that the president who is black needs to be taken down (has gotten too big for his britches, is above his station, needs to be brought back in line, etc.) the implication is that what is out of line is his behavior in accordance with his expected-to-be-subservient racial category. So, yes, while a totally bald parsing of that sentence may not be racist (and what is, except the n-word by that standard?) the sentiment and the lack of restraint in expressing it are both rooted in racism.
But people who do not understand why the n-word or coon or whatever are "still racist" will never understand or accept the reality of racism that is more subtle.
Anonymous wrote:
Any time a white person who is not the president is insinuating that the president who is black needs to be taken down (has gotten too big for his britches, is above his station, needs to be brought back in line, etc.) the implication is that what is out of line is his behavior in accordance with his expected-to-be-subservient racial category. So, yes, while a totally bald parsing of that sentence may not be racist (and what is, except the n-word by that standard?) the sentiment and the lack of restraint in expressing it are both rooted in racism.
But people who do not understand why the n-word or coon or whatever are "still racist" will never understand or accept the reality of racism that is more subtle.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not so fast. Whoopin has more racial connotations than many on here seem to be aware of. To wit:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/20/whooping/
BUt the very fact that "many" aren't aware of the racial connotations makes it inherently impossible to assign racial malice to them when they use the phrase. So, that's the box OP is in.
This falls under the category of "give them the benefit of the doubt."
OP is in no such box.
The OP suspects racial malice by a few. Because others might not have it, does not acquit the first group.
Yeah it does. Because has been demonstrated, "whoopin'" is not a universally understood racist dog whistle. So, yeah, OP looks really bad and loses her argument. If you're going to call someone racist, you'd better have the good.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not so fast. Whoopin has more racial connotations than many on here seem to be aware of. To wit:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/20/whooping/
BUt the very fact that "many" aren't aware of the racial connotations makes it inherently impossible to assign racial malice to them when they use the phrase. So, that's the box OP is in.
This falls under the category of "give them the benefit of the doubt."
OP is in no such box.
The OP suspects racial malice by a few. Because others might not have it, does not acquit the first group.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not so fast. Whoopin has more racial connotations than many on here seem to be aware of. To wit:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/20/whooping/
BUt the very fact that "many" aren't aware of the racial connotations makes it inherently impossible to assign racial malice to them when they use the phrase. So, that's the box OP is in.
This falls under the category of "give them the benefit of the doubt."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on how that person speaks in other contexts.
To me, it does sound racist, whereas a phrase like "taking [x] to the woodshed" does not, because the latter has entered the vernacular as something even educated people will say to mean chewing someone out in private. In comparison, saying "Obama needs a whoopin'" sounds more like "Obama has gotten too big for his britches," which I'd also perceive as having racial overtones when referring to a black President.
Just my two cents, since you asked.
+1
Any time a white person who is not the president is insinuating that the president who is black needs to be taken down (has gotten too big for his britches, is above his station, needs to be brought back in line, etc.) the implication is that what is out of line is his behavior in accordance with his expected-to-be-subservient racial category. So, yes, while a totally bald parsing of that sentence may not be racist (and what is, except the n-word by that standard?) the sentiment and the lack of restraint in expressing it are both rooted in racism.
But people who do not understand why the n-word or coon or whatever are "still racist" will never understand or accept the reality of racism that is more subtle.
Anonymous wrote:Not so fast. Whoopin has more racial connotations than many on here seem to be aware of. To wit:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/20/whooping/