Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
Language evolves and the current situation with regard to that word is that it seems to be acceptable to some sections of the community and not to others. Ordinarily, a situation like that word be hard to justify, but, we're talking about the colour of people's skin here and so I would argue that normal rules do not apply.

It's far from the best example, but I can see similarities with the way we sing 1-0 to the sheepshaggers, while opposing fans shout sheepshaggers at us as a term of abuse. It's down to the context in which people use the word - one group uses it hoping to offend and would face calls from some of being racist, while with the other its usage can be seen as self deprecating humour or even a badge of honour.

With regard to the "National outrage" as you call it, all I'll say is that any white politician who uses a term like that shows a lack of understanding, a crass stupidity and an attitude more at home in the world as it was around one hundred years ago that should mean they forfeit the right to expect the vote of anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
Bob

You say ordinary rules don't apply because of a person's skin colour. That is the very definition of racism. I know you don't intend for it to be racist, but when we start treating people differently and allowing them to act differently to each other based solely on skin tone, then we are promulgating race distinction via the backdoor.

Either the word is acceptable to all or none at all.

The way Africans were treated was a crime against humanity, not just a crime against africans. Africans betrayed Africans, Europeans abused that betrayal.