The R-word

Editor’s Note: E. King Alexander, Jr., the author of this post, is a Louisiana, California, and Texas attorney engaged in indigent defense in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. He currently serves, with Julie Hayes Kilborn, as Co-Chair of the Amicus Committee of LACDL.  Before dedicating himself to indigent defense, King focused on civil litigation including intellectual properties and was a longtime professional musician.

This has only to do with social, versus criminal, justice, but it was inspired in part by Dr. Alan Bean’s post on Rep. Joe Wilson and this writer’s second response to it, which caused thoughts to gel that have been percolating for awhile. It concerns use of the R-word. In order to be clear, the word itself will be spelled out now lest someone assume that the R-word is “Republican”: the R-word is “redneck.” Some of the comments on this site (not posts, but comments to posts) have employed it, certainly not a unique situation on the Internet, but that is only the free or tolerated speech of the public at large, not condoned by the site or the foundation and people behind it.

The R-word is a racial epithet, and should be retired. No gold watch, no pension.

The R-word is an exonym. That means it is a word that at least formerly was used only as a pejorative and by persons outside the subject group. (Another example of an exonym also starts with an “R”– namely “Redbone,” signifying a group for which there is no polite term, and which some say, with correctness as it turns out, does not truly exist as a single ethnicity. Like the R-word at issue here, there are today persons who identify with that group and who have in fact embraced the exonym, giving it a second life as an ethnonym, though by and large the term remains at best controversial, and at worst, fighting words. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redbone_(ethnicity) ).

One need only visit any of numerous political debate chats and public comment sites online and pretend to be white and to espouse some conservative viewpoint, in order have the R-word hurled like a javelin of invective in the most hateful and vitriolic manner, often by the very amateur polemicists who claim to represent positions of tolerance and equality. Throw in the suggestion that one hails from the South, even without a view associated with the political right, and one may find that the regional component complemented by the racial is enough that people who may not otherwise have a dog in the fight will blurt out the R-word. It is manifestly unfair to apply a racial epithet selectively according to mainstream political views that any American is entitled to hold, or according to region as indicator of lack of sophistication and of genetic bottlenecking. The same views may be held legitimately by a person of any race, or any part of the country. As for rusticity, the South certainly has no monopoly on it. Eh? Yah.

Moreover, persons having a Scots or Ulster Scots, Presbyterian background or heritage (formerly the “Covenanters,” what in Ulster is now simply called “Protestant”) have further reason to take offense at the R-word. When it is applied to them, they are being name-called not only for their ethnicity, but also for their religion. See,http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/rednecks/rednecks.html . During the Second Great Awakening, in 1810 the “Old Side” Presbyterian Church gave rise in Kentucky to the revivalist Cumberland Presbyterians, whose ordination did not require a higher education degree. It soon grew throughout Appalachia and beyond. Presbyterian William Boardman’s 1858 book The Higher Christian Life, emphasizing the personal relationship with Christ, influenced the Holiness Movement and Pentecostalism, eventually expanding the variety of white Americans who would come to be seen as fair game for targeting with the R-word. The religious component is also seen in the “WASP” (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) racial-religious stereotype. This includes notably the Anglicans, who arguably are Protestant only in their schism from the Pope of Rome and certain doctrinal leavings of the Puritan Interlude which were later hidden in the hinter pages of the Book of Common Prayer. Some white Southerners may attempt to distinguish themselves from the nefarious R-word by claiming liberal politics (which is often the very goal of the person using it), or a Roman Catholic dispensation, or some other non-Protestant, non-Christian, or ethnic exception. It is quite understandable that they would wish to escape the ignominy which has accrued to the label.

Here is a true anecdote that illustrates the wrongheaded use of the R-word by someone who should have known better. New Orleans blues harmonica ace and bandleader J. Monque’D was performing with his band in the 1990’s in England, when he noticed a scowling woman standing at the edge of the club stage, shouting something over and over at him as the band played. J. is a Creole of color, very light-skinned and straight-haired, tall, and often wearing a white plantation-style hat. He identifies as African-American, or black, and certainly under the one-drop rule, so would have the law considered him when he was born. The main clue of his ethnicity to strangers is the yellow gold dental work which is part of his constellation of trademarks, familiar to those who have seen him in a memorable Louisiana Lottery television commercial in which his broad smile in the final frame serves as the punch line. His gold teeth would not have been apparent that night in England as he played the harmonica. When he finally figured out what this odd person was yelling at him repeatedly, he realized it was the R-word. It seems that she perceived him as white, and felt compelled to heckle and condemn him in public for coming into her country and “stealing the black man’s music.” She expressed what she considered her superior social consciousness by trying to shout down his performance with a racial epithet. How ridiculous is that?

Thus there can be no question that the R-word is used, with the intent to discredit or cause emotional pain to others, as an insulting shorthand for a set of demeaning racial, ethnic, regional, and religious stereotypes. As such, the R-word can have no place in the civilized exchange of ideas, nor in polite society, much less in our schools, but rather must go the way of every other ethnic slur: into disapprobation, and ultimately into oblivion.

Some will ask, “What about Jeff Foxworthy?” It is true that there are those who in good humor toward themselves, their relatives, or their community and race, use the R-word. Does that make it okay? The late great comic Richard Pryor formerly used the N-word prominently in his routines. However, after visiting Africa at the height of his career, and before his life-threatening freebasing accident and the diagnosis of his Multiple Sclerosis, he had an epiphany and announced that he would never again use the N-word in his standup comedy routine. Users of the R-word for comic purposes should follow Richard Pryor’s great example in keeping with the Golden Rule: there can be no same-race humor exception to the condemnation of a racial slur. Jeff Foxworthy, therefore, should be the first to receive a cease-and-desist letter from the USCDL (Unsophisticated Southern Caucasian Defense League).

 Should there be a musical exception? After the notorious Don Imus radio incident in early 2007, and in agreement with such black leaders as the Rev. Al Sharpton, Def Jam Records co-founder Russell Simmons searched his soul and concluded that the N-word, as well as certain other terms which were demeaning of women, had to go. Whites who have used the R-word in music should follow this additional great example of self-improvement from the black community: there can be no same-race music exception to the condemnation of a racial slur. The second USCDL cease-and-desist letter should go to Jerry Jeff Walker.

What about those people whose manners, conduct, and mode of life closely correspond to the R-word stereotype? May we not at least call white Southern social conservatives by the R-word, because they are such A-words (props to Van Jones )?  No, there can be no “call a spade a spade” exception for the R-word. It should not be forgotten that there were, and are, stubborn people who insisted that there are black people, and then there are N-words. In each case the word itself is wrong precisely because of the hurtfulness and the stereotyping, and it has to stop.

The seriousness of the final point here cannot be left to inference, no matter how adequately the “USCDL” references may telegraph the tongue-in-cheek component. Jeff Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck if …” one-liners date from the early 1990’s. He has substantially moved on. The song “Up Against the Wall, Redneck Mother” was actually written in the 1960’s by Ray Wylie Hubbard, and made famous in 1973 by Jerry Jeff Walker, who recorded his seminal album “Mr. Bojangles” in 1968, the title song honoring the great African American showman Bill Robinson. BMI lists no fewer than 390 songs with some form of the R-word in the title. ASCAP lists another 146 R-word-titled songs. These figures exclude those songs that only use the R-word in their lyrics. There will be no stopping the R-word’s comic and musical use in our lifetimes. Nevertheless, this writer believes, as Russell Simmons realized, that the target group’s using a pejorative to defuse it is only a transitional strategy, prelude to the preferred one of eliminating it altogether.

The final point is this: there is, emphatically, no moral equivalency between the R-word and the N-word. The writer has learned to vet these forays into sensitive issues, and is indebted to, prepublication readers who are neither white nor Southerner, yet live among them. Though the Covenanters who were the original targets of the R-word were in their time and place a people hated and subjugated by an oppressive majority in a society that was not, for them, entirely free, the R-word as used then and today cannot compare to the N-word which has been applied to an entire race who were literally enslaved and subsequently oppressed legally, economically, and socially here in America right to the present time, which has seen Barack Obama shatter the ultimate glass ceiling well before many thought possible. While the R-word is a much lesser concern, it is nevertheless an evil that it is applied with great hostility and frequency especially to conservative whites of any or no religion, from any part of the country, in the attempt to discredit them, shout them down, and silence their views. As such, it is an odious race-based weapon against political free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

How long will it take for sensibilities and consciences to close this last loophole in the Golden Rule and generally-accepted doctrines of political correctness, to reject and condemn the R-word?

 King Alexander

7 thoughts on “The R-word

  1. If the R-word stands for “racist” or “racism” this article makes limited sense, if it stands for some other word then the article makes none.

    It is not possible to hold a sensible conversation unless both parties using the same word associate the same meanings with it. The words “racist” and “racism” present a problem since the vast majority of human beings attribute invalid meanings to them. While there is majority agreement that “racism” potentially exists and has existed at some times in the past or exists now in some far away places and that it is very very bad, most people are incapable of recognizing the racism that exists all around them here and now.

    For most people “racism” means hostility to their own ethnic group by people of other ethnic groups or hostility by members of their ethnic group to members of other ethnic groups that is far beyond what they themselves feel towards these others that they can recognize it. For most people “racism” means Adolph Hitler, the Ku Kux Klan or people who tow niggers behind light commercial vehicles. Consider the good white people of Jasper Texas who were horrified when two of their white neighbors did just this. None of them I will warrant reflect on how the two men who committed this atrocity did so under the impression that the other white people of Jasper would have heartily approved. The Negro towers of Jasper are extreme racists but the vastly more numerous moderate racists among whom they lived never conveyed to them the idea that killing Negroes is wrong.

    There is no doubt that anti-Negro racism in the US is less than it was before the civil war, is less than it was during the Jim Crow era, is even less that it damage done to victims of racism has declined to the same extent. Even quite weak racism does damage to those who are its subjects when they are also socially and economically disadvantaged.
    The damage of racism does not occur when individuals act as individuals but when individuals act as agents for some group or institution. For example consider a Negro person who is accused of selling drugs by an incentivised informant. What is the likelihood of his or her escaping without a drug conviction. The answer is very little because anti-Negro prejudice in all actors in the legal system, police, prosecutors, judges and jurors ensures that the prosecutors will charge despite very thin evidence, that jurors will believe the lies of police and snitches against claims of innocence no matter how true. I refer you to Nate Blakeslee’s book on the Tulia cocaine busts and to the film American Velvet for examples of how prejudice obliterates the presumption of innocence. I refer you to the HBO series “The Wire” for more illumination of how the war on drugs channels racist hate to destroy the lives of poor black people.

    When 95% of the people see the terms racist and racism as applying only to a minority of extreme racists sensible discussion with members of this 95% is impossible.

    There are other problems with the words. Racism has many different aspects or dimensions and an entire subsidiary vocabulary is needed to describe these aspects otherwise the terms become overloaded with all the subsidiary meanings and confusion arises when one participant in a dialog misunderstands what aspect the other is using the word to mean. One might postulate a single summary measure that might be termed the modulus of racism and be based on a weighted sum of all the aspects but it would be of limited use two racists having the same summary value being in fact very different.

    In one necessary sense of the word it is reasonable to say that all humans are racist. That is there is no zero value, to say of an individual human that he is racist is like saying that an individual dog has four legs. The important question about each member of homo sapiens is what is the shape of his or her racism and at what subgroups of homo sapiens is it aimed.

  2. After hitting submit in the post above I find an error. the sentence:-

    “There is no doubt that anti-Negro racism in the US is less than it was before the civil war, is less than it was during the Jim Crow era, is even less that it damage done to victims of racism has declined to the same”.

    It should read:-

    There is no doubt that anti-Negro racism in the US is less than it was before the civil war, is less than it was during the Jim Crow era, is even less than it was in the sixties but there is doubt that the damage done to victims of racism has declined to the same extent.

  3. It is a fallacy that racism is a binary property, a person is either racist or not racist.

    In fact racism comes in various strengths, for example consider a person willing to participate actively in the lynching of a Negro, as against a person who will watch the lynching but would not himself deign to handle the rope and finally a person who would not watch the lynching but will not make any statements opposing it. Here we have 3 different strengths of racism in order of decreasing strength.

  4. So, if the r-word is not “racism,” the article makes no sense at all? You got nothing from it? No other word can be “the r-word”? Hmm, interesting. Thanks for your comments, anyway.

    Unfortunately there are only twenty-six letters in the Roman alphabet, and more than twenty-six words in the English language. It turns out that there is (at least) yet a third idea of what the r-word is, and that the group holding that idea has been thinking about it a good deal longer than either of us have. This is their web site:

    http://www.r-word.org/

    To them, the “r-word” is “retarded.”

    I really don’t want to take them on. But be my guest.

  5. King.

    I dislike that kind of political correctness that completely outlaws the word “nigger” but accept that there are genuine reasons that support restricting its use. However with the R-words, “racist” and “racism” I believe that there are no analogous reasons of any strength in support of banning them. Racism and the existence of racists are real phenomena and banning words necessary to refer to a real phenomenon is outrageous.

    It is true that people resent the word “racist” being applied to them and I suspect that the resentment rises in accord with the applicability of the word. However the righteous indignation of racists who have the word applied to them is not feigned, they really are consciously unaware of their hostility to members of other races. It is also unlikely that explicitly telling a racist that he is one is going to change his or her mind, but neither will pussy footing around and trying to talk to him or her on the false assumption that he/she is not a racist.

    There is one technique that appears to work in sensitizing racists to their unconscious attitudes, it is that developed by Jane Elliott and illustrated in the documentary films “Blue Eyed” http://www.janeelliott.com/and “A Class Divided” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/.
    I think there is a case for making participation in this exercise compulsory for all police, prison officers, judges, criminal lawyers and all potential jurors.

    I must admit that loud protests by white people because they are called “racist” after they have said or done something that a reasonable disinterested and unbiased observer would judge indicates racist attitudes make me angry. Lets compare the discomfort with such a white person called “racist” with that of a Negro called “nigger” by a white person. In the case of the Negro, “nigger” is not just an indication of the contempt and malice that the white speaker has for him, it is a reminder of all the bad things that happen to him daily at the hands of white authority, it is a reminder of all his ancestors who were hanged from trees, it is a reminder of the labpur stolen from his ancestors who were slaves, it is a reminder that the police can shoot him dead impunity no matter how obviously criminal the act, it is a reminder that white people have more wealth than he is ever likely to see, have a stranglehold on all the good jobs and high places in society. On the other hand the word “racist” does not raise in the white man fears of being lynched, or forced to take a Zyklon B shower or being beaten by the police.

    ecause of being

Comments are closed.