District 9 - Now with Spoilers!! MAJOR spoilers!

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Raemon777

Bear in mind, there's nothing intrinsic to the actual N-word that makes it inherently racist. It's just a tweaked version of what was, at the time, a legitimate term for people of African descent. What makes it racist is entirely how it is used and the cultural baggage that goes along with it. It doesn't matter what prawn actually means and whether it'd be an okay term for the aliens. It matters that for (20?) years the term was used offensively to describe a race that everyone saw as dirty and creepy.

Put me in the camp of people who were GLAD to see a movie that didn't sugarcoat anything and give us a sympathetic white guy to help us pretend that if we (I am referring to other white people like myself, and perhaps by extension people integrated into European culture) would have acted like good, tolerant people that, in all honestly, we probably would not have.

*Cough* Avatar *Cough*.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Actually using a word from another language when you have one that means the same thing in your does sound rather intentional to me. Remember, they where enslaving them, and dehumanizing them helped in justifying it.
The vikings had the best name imo, they called blacks blue people, because of what the ones from N Africa they met wore...

As for Avatar, well the tolerant one was somewhat of a tree hugging scientist type...
 
Rob King

Rob King

@Li3n said:
Actually using a word from another language when you have one that means the same thing in your does sound rather intentional to me.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all.

You mean "Black" versus "Negro" is somehow intentionally derogatory? Because we do that all the time. Like "Retarded" from French, rather than "Slow" in English ... and remember that 'retarded' used to be the Politically Correct term.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

But was "negro" ever used in a non-discriminatory way?

Remember, it works both ways, some words that where bad are no longer considered offensive enough etc.
 
Rob King

Rob King

@Li3n said:
But was "negro" ever used in a non-discriminatory way?
Click to expand...
I don't doubt for a second that it was. I remember looking at old books on aLibris.com once, and finding a book from the mid-1800's called "The Sexual Behavior of the Negro." It may have come from an outdated and narrower understanding, but aside from the general ignorance of the time, there is nothing inherently offensive in the use of "Negro" there.

@Li3n said:
Remember, it works both ways, some words that where bad are no longer considered offensive enough etc.
Click to expand...
This is true too, but the only examples I can think of have had their meaning softened to the point where they're virtually useless words now anyhow, like "Lame."
 
R

Raemon777

I don't know if a book title like that from that time would count as non-discriminatory...
Click to expand...
True. That's part of why Negro isn't used any more - it's too reminiscent of a time where almost all discussion about black people was racist to some degree. But at the time, Negro was the word to use, whether you were a racist hick or an advocate for the abolition of slavery.
 
Rob King

Rob King

Raemon777 said:
I don't know if a book title like that from that time would count as non-discriminatory...
Click to expand...
True. That's part of why Negro isn't used any more - it's too reminiscent of a time where almost all discussion about black people was racist to some degree. But at the time, Negro was the word to use, whether you were a racist hick or an advocate for the abolition of slavery.
Click to expand...
Well, this is kind of what I'm getting at. It strikes me more as a relic of a less enlightened time than an inherently derogatory term.

I mean, certainly someone using it today is a no-no, but two hundred years ago it's just unfortunately ignorant, not necessarily hateful.
 
I

Iaculus

Hrm - I could be wrong, but wasn't there a point when 'negro' was actually considered less offensive than 'black'? I'm pretty sure that it was generally presumed to be the proper, polite term at one time, but I don't remember when.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Rob King;339489][QUOTE=Raemon777 said:
I don't know if a book title like that from that time would count as non-discriminatory...
Click to expand...
True. That's part of why Negro isn't used any more - it's too reminiscent of a time where almost all discussion about black people was racist to some degree. But at the time, Negro was the word to use, whether you were a racist hick or an advocate for the abolition of slavery.
Click to expand...
Well, this is kind of what I'm getting at. It strikes me more as a relic of a less enlightened time than an inherently derogatory term.

I mean, certainly someone using it today is a no-no, but two hundred years ago it's just unfortunately ignorant, not necessarily hateful.[/QUOTE]

Well no term in inherently derogatory, some are just already sicielly associated with something "bad" before, which might not carry over to another culture...


But prawns is associated with them in a bad manner either way, just as calling dark skinned people crows is, sure there's a connection based on looks (aliens had mouths and exoskeleton, crows are black), but the association with an animal is meant to dehumanize...

Iaculus said:
Hrm - I could be wrong, but wasn't there a point when 'negro' was actually considered less offensive than 'black'? I'm pretty sure that it was generally presumed to be the proper, polite term at one time, but I don't remember when.
Click to expand...
All i can think of is that it might have been more "scientific", with the whole negroid thing, which was scientific racism...
 
Rob King

Rob King

@Li3n;339593][QUOTE=Rob King;339489][QUOTE=Raemon777 said:
I don't know if a book title like that from that time would count as non-discriminatory...
Click to expand...
True. That's part of why Negro isn't used any more - it's too reminiscent of a time where almost all discussion about black people was racist to some degree. But at the time, Negro was the word to use, whether you were a racist hick or an advocate for the abolition of slavery.
Click to expand...
Well, this is kind of what I'm getting at. It strikes me more as a relic of a less enlightened time than an inherently derogatory term.

I mean, certainly someone using it today is a no-no, but two hundred years ago it's just unfortunately ignorant, not necessarily hateful.[/QUOTE]

Well no term in inherently derogatory, some are just already sicielly associated with something "bad" before, which might not carry over to another culture...


But prawns is associated with them in a bad manner either way, just as calling dark skinned people crows is, sure there's a connection based on looks (aliens had mouths and exoskeleton, crows are black), but the association with an animal is meant to dehumanize... [/QUOTE]

I might agree with you if the Non-Humans were human. Then dehumanizing them wouldn't be much of an issue. But even the PC term, 'Non-Human' does dehumanize them, albeit in a somehow less racist way. Which was my point from the beginning. For whatever reason, 'Prawn' is racist, but the politically correct term defines them as what they aren't rather than what they are.
 
Silver Jelly

Silver Jelly

Xenohumanoids? Xenomorphs? Homo Xeno? Homo Johannesburgensis? Androxenoinds? Alter Homo?

I can't come up with anything good...
 
I

Iaculus

mr_thehun said:
Hrm - I could be wrong, but wasn't there a point when fourteen was actually considered less offensive than 'jail bait'? I'm pretty sure that it was generally presumed to be the proper, polite term at one time, but I don't remember when.

Oh Icarus, bless your .... for the fun you have brought to this board with your kid fiddling ways.
Click to expand...
'Scuse me?
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Well the most obvious one would be whatever they call themselves... or go crazy and call them ET (extraterrestrials).

But the idea was that association with an animal is meant to imply they're sub-human (just like we do for other humans). Of course non-human also has a negative connotation in our culture and has been applied to actual humans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top