Thursday, December 01, 2005

What's in a word/phrase?


While sitting at the urban coffee table, I mused about a few offensive terms that some Americans throw around with reckless abandon. Such words, or terms that come to mind are “Indian giving”; “Jewing down”, and the term “Blackmail”.

The vernacular trickery that embeds itself in these terms may seem obvious—but is it? Indian giving is a derogatory term that means simply to give someone a gift, and then take that gift back. To the best of my knowledge, the Native American never reneged on any treaties to the American government, or took back any gifts they had given in good faith. So why, then, has the term of taking back been labeled “Indian giving”? Simple: to denigrate Native Americans. Never mind the inherent denigration that comes from calling them Indians; that’s another story (and Christopher Columbus has a holiday!).

When bartering for a better price on an item, or attempting to secure the best possible deal for oneself, one has been said to have “Jewed down” another. With the predominant recollection of Jewish history (to Gentiles) generally being the Holocaust, how is it that a total race of people has been denigrated to being cheap? Simple: to humiliate and infuriate people of the Jewish faith.

That leads us to the term “blackmail”. Webster’s Dictionary defines the term as extortion through intimidation. Hmmmm, with exception to what we do in our own communities to each other, when has the Black male been in a position to extort anything through intimidation? This term has nothing to do with the mail, and it has nothing to do with the color black…is it mere vernacular trickery in an effort to denigrate the Black male, as such terms have done to “Indians” and “Jews”? It begs consideration. What has the Black male done to deserve such a charge from English vernacular? If anything at all, the Black male has been the victim of blackmail for over 200 years!! What a funny concept! When your land; family; dignity; religion; name, and culture have been taken from you by force and intimidation, how appropriate it becomes to juxtapose that feeling back to the Black male.

It should be incumbent upon American people to purge these terms from the common vocabulary. That, would be mighty White of you!!

Monday, November 28, 2005


Chrysler Crossfire: Whites Only Car?

Chrysler has been adding new vehicles with much success since being purchased by Daimler-Benz. The redesigned Chrysler 300 has been very popular with the African-American community and has been affectionately dubbed the "Ghetto Bentley". The Crossfire has received lukewarm acceptance in the black community, mainly because of its name. How insensitive for the Germans to name this car after a symbol that is so painful to Black Americans. Is "Crossfire" vernacular trickery for the "Official Car of the Ku Klux Klan"?

Wednesday, November 23, 2005


Terrell Owens--"Property" of the Philadelphia Eagles?
Does anyone have a problem with professional athletes being designated as "property" as opposed to "employee"? Well, the fact of the matter is that employees, whether salaried or at-will, have the right to vacate their employment. In other words, they can quit their jobs and seek employment elsewhere. Professional athletes, specifically those in the NFL don't have such latitude, as reflected in an arbitrator's ruling this afternoon that has drawn the ire of the NFLPA (NFL Players Association). In short, the arbitrator ruled that the Eagles were within their rights to suspend Owens without pay for four games (at a cost to him of approximately $764,704 in base salary) and also within their rights to deactivate him (with pay) so that he is not free to seek employment with another NFL team for the remainder of the season.

Regardless of your feelings on the ruling, the collective bargaining agreement sanctioned by the NFLPA does allow for such action. T.O. is in effect, the property of the Philadelphia Eagles. Why isn't he (or all professional athletes for that matter) labeled as "contractual employees in the irrevocable servitude of their employers"? Is the oft used term "property" nothing more than vernacular trickery for "slave"?

Let's take a look at the origin of this "property" issue:

All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened.
- Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705

I think the term "property" is indeed vernacular trickery for "slave". Fair thee well T.O., I guess it's on to your next massa.