For several years American elected officials have been considering options in the Middle East in the face of various violent problems created by opponents of American "nation-building."
The Middle East has not proven to be the land of milk toasts.
Most of apparently progressing nations have been ruled by "strong men" such as Saddam Hussein. There does not appear to be any good option when cutting off heads and burning foes alive seem reasonable political expressions of opposition.
Therefore, to undo the damages done by removing a strong man who "ruled with an iron fist," the American presidents - with the advice of the Pentagon brass and variously placed U.S. advisors - usually have decided that American "boots" must be sent to "walk the walk" of American policy-makers. Soldiers in various units have been sent to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, et al, to gain some semblance of Western-style order. After all, how can you create a democracy in chaos?
The United States then established a puppet to be the face of democracy in the "rescued" nation. Serious, violent opposition then arose to fight the American puppet. American soldiers must fight the "now you see them, now you don't" opposition. Deaths among the U.S. soldiers grow as the years go by. For some reason the people don't rally behind the American puppet, who also now wars against religious "heretics" in very brutal fashion. Fraud and massive theft of money and war materiel shock U.S. officials some of whom have not participated in the looting. At home people have become concerned by the open-ended war, the accumulating dead soldiers, and the rising debt required to pay for it all.
"Why were we here?" ask many. "What was our interest?"
Since the Middle East policy involved oil and Israel, isn't it appropriate for America to declare that the opposition has been badly wounded and that Israeli "boots" should replace American soldiers in establishing a new peace process for all in the Levant? If Israeli officials want to create a state of hegemony for their nation in the Middle East, they should get their "booties" on it.
The word "nigger" is surely the most curious offensive term a person can utter in the American English language. It is not the denotative interpretation of the word that carries offense; it is the interpretation by the person so named of the contextual connotation that determines whether the word is very offensive, mildly offensive, inoffensive or even humorous.
In a sense it is the most racist of terms, as the degree of offensiveness quite often is determined by whether or not the user belongs to the same race or a different race from the potentially offended party. In its allegedly worst degree of offensiveness it is spoken by a white person to or about a black person. Hence, equal treatment of people speaking this term "goes out the window" when race is factored into the equation.
African Americans today may use the term among themselves with a richness of connotations which may be humorous, which may have a "black everyman" character, which may have a "street wise" character or which may carry a "put down" connotation.
On my Pandora application one of my channels is "Gangsta Rap." It seems to be mostly West Coast in terms of artist and style. Needless to say, the word "nigger" is not a stranger to this musical genre. As used here, the worst interpretation (other than profane) would be "put down." In a given rap song the word may experience two or three usages, letting the listener participate according to his/her interpretation. There is an invitation to the audience to participate, because it was and is an "our thing" event.
The word "nigger" seems to be derived primarily from the word "Negro." The Latin word "niger" seems to have spawned the French word "negre" and the Spanish/Portuguese "negro." In Roman days "black" was "nigrum." The African countries Nigeria and Niger appeared to have gotten their names due to the Spanish/Portuguese/French influence.
Parenthetically, the various tribal peoples now known as Nigerians or Nigerites do not seem too stressed by the likely origin of their names. However, in time they may choose to change it, viewing it as a remnant of colonialism.
Still, people don't usually halt the use of words which have long, respected and practical applications. Probably only in America could one find large numbers of people embarrassed or angered upon hearing the word "negro," even though it was employed by a Latino while discussing a bean used to make his/her soup. Political Correctness, a redesigned Marxism possessed allegedly of a "human face," hovers like a dismal swamp gas over the fearful, superstitious descendants of the nation's founders.
I am confident that Southerners originally spoke the word "negro," after the British fashion generally. However, since the slave traders were often of Dutch (migrants from Iberia), Spanish and Portuguese ancestry, there common usage of "negro" for the "hombres" they brought to America in their ships as slaves must have created a common usage over time with the British, Scots, Welsh, Irish and German settlers.
Still, although the "word" was embraced by most colonial settlers, the various settlers would still speak it with slightly different accents. In the South there were pockets of French and Spanish people who maintained some of the old ways of culture, style and pronunciation. While the more cultured - or pretentious - white Southerners might continue to pronounce "negro" as the British did, the marked heat and humidity of much of the coastal areas of the South must have worked their "mildewing" effect on the pronunciation of all words uttered by them. Southerners tended to conserve their energy. Words elongated and letters not absolutely required - such as "r's" - were let go. People asked for "wat-ah." The word "negro" probably was generally "nee-grah" - with the "r" almost silent or a whisper.
I am not convinced that the word "nigger," or "niggar," was much used by Southerners, until after the War Between The States, when large numbers of carpetbaggers and land-speculators swarmed into the South, bringing their more clipped, sharp, hard pronunciations. As these "New Aristocrats" took possession of a Post-Bellum South, their phraseology was adopted to some extent by Southerners trying to "make it" in tough times. By the time of Mark Twain the word "negro" had evolved into "nig'r" or "niga."
The problem with the word "negro" - however it was pronounced - was its implication of a low status. This may be what really incensed American rulers in regard to the college fraternity members in Oklahoma who were chanting "racist" words. It made the status issue too crudely overt. President Boren, an elite type, was very angry.
On the other hand a crowd of angered black folks can scream "Kill the white people," and the American rulers would not be incensed. It is a social issue of status with them. Soto voce they would whisper, "What do you expect of them, for god's sake? They are America's underclass."
A great deal of effort has been made to address this situation, often at the cost of considerable blood. The present American leadership is Marxist, and for that reason its approach is to dictate equality of the community. If a Procrustean Bed had to be utilized to achieve the equality they demanded, then appropriate the money and build it. And in all these matters of socially correct society-building, it must always be remembered as George Orwell warned, "Some Americans are more equal than others."
Chercher les conseillors, mes amis.
