Media regular Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was asked on radio 5 Live if she approved of black americans voting for Obama purely because of his colour. She apparently did. And why not? Nothing much else has worked for black americans since Reconstruction, so why shouldn't voting to create the first black president be as valid a political reason as any other? Unspoken but implicit within the question was the phrase 'whether democrat or republican'. As neither party has offered much to black americans, and what has been offered has often been clawed back in one way or another, voting to make history does at least offer a temporary thrill, and some hope. A lot of people in this election will have voted for Obama to be part of something big and important. And who would deny anyone that?
From the Afro-American viewpoint, demolishing the ancient race barriers could be seen as being just as important as tinkering with the economy. Historically, they are used to being betrayed by business and politics. But this is one achievement which simply cannot be denied. 'They can't take that away from me' as the old song says. Black parents will have Obama to hold up to their teenage boys, which might just weave a slender bond, enough to change a few minds and alter a few lives.
Obama is a symptom of the rise of the black middle classes, which are a product in turn of the liberation struggle which has its own causes. No Dr King, no Oprah, no Condi, no Obama. He will therefore pursue a middle class agenda, as every other president. That is understood. But at least the decision taken by America has improved its image beyond all expectation. In that sense, the Vote Black campaign served its country as devotedly as any studious voter who'd trawled through all the policies with a slide-rule and made a decision based on the 'facts' supplied by the two party machines.
Those voting for a black president were voting for hope, not for a race. And the ultimate hope is that Obama can recreate some of the goodwill towards America that existed the day after 9/11, and were a similar opportunity for international co-operation to emerge, not to squander it, as George Bush did.
The malicious, nitpicking cleverness of this quibble over race doesn't do justice to the American ideal. Race has been politicised in America for a long time, and has been used to lever vast amounts of privilege into American society. If it is now used to 'unleverage' some of that debt, that is merely a small historical payback from the political bank.
By the way, did anyone complain that people had voted for George Bush because of his idiocy, or for Kennedy because of his looks?
The viral poem for 11/4.
'Rosa sat so Martin could walk.
Martin walked so Obama could run.
Obama ran so we could fly.'
When young black people use the word nigger, the message to white people is 'we have reclaimed this word for ourselves, and we can use it when you can't.'
That's all. It is a minor act of petty linguistic theft, in part to make up for the appalling crimes of history. The fact that it's 'not fair' is the whole point. 'This is a tiny taste of what it feels like.'
So there isn’t any hypocrisy, merely a chance taken to make white people feel uncomfortable. Which is fair enough. Quite funny really. And judging from general reaction - job done it seems.
Now the new street usage may not be a productive or rational tactic, and many black leaders condemn it. But it probably feels good. And another thing. It's use requires CONSENT, which requires contact and communication. In other words, you need to have some form of relationship with the recipient before using it. This again reinforces a sense of identity and kinship and places the emphasis on human contact.. And who can argue with that in a society in which the sense of community is all but dead?
A world in which a black person gave a white person permission to call him a nigger would be a world without racism. Maybe it could happen in fifty years, if the word is ever washed clean of its history. But it'll take a lot of effort and understanding to do that, and I don't see a lot of that around.
As for the word itself. Try this. Say "Negro" with a Glasgow or Belfast accent. Most of the early middlemen and plantation enforcers were simple farmhands or failed tradesmen or criminals trying to better themselves in the New World. They didn’t speak BBC English.
So strictly speaking, nigger may well be just an English-speaking corruption from the Latin or more likely Spanish root(negro/negra>nigger) but the fact is that in each form, it was used to refer to people as units of production. It dehumanised black people. They were not people but different brands of slave:
On Sale Today
3 bull niggers - ages 20 -30 years. All own teeth.
2 She-Mullattos - child-bearing age.
Etc.
It is offensive also because it is an example of a word which has become poisoned by its usage and the history which allowed that usage. The power of words is not limited by the professors at the OED. Words can become tainted by their surroundings. 'Cripple' is another one, off the top of my head, now only ever used as an insult, and never towards people who can't walk. 'Cripple' is a very useful word, but irredemably negative, and therefore not useful as a word for a group of people who have enough problems to deal with. But in terms of sheer injustice and blood, that is not as bad as 'nigger'.
The overall message is: There’s no point getting fussed about black people using it as and when they like, they’ve earned the right to do whatever they want with it. And if ‘That’s SO Unfair.’ Then tough. Find your own word to hijack.
