Political correctness, words we can't use

[Jeanfromfillmore]

‘Todd and Don Show’ to return, officials say
By Juan Castillo | Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 04:35 PM
Yanked off the air in July after co-host Don Pryor repeatedly uttered an ethnic slur, “The Todd and Don Show” will return to KLBJ-AM on Dec. 7, according to a statement released jointly by the station’s management and local Hispanic leaders who met earlier today.
The station’s management could not immediately be reached for comment.
Spokesman Paul Saldaña said Emmis Austin Radio, the station’s parent company, announced its decision during a meeting with the Hispanic leaders earlier today. According to Saldaña, Emmis said the show will return to the air “with a transformed perspective on community history, expectations and cultural sensitivity.”
Saldaña said Emmis also announced a plan for mandatory diversity training for all on-air personalities, producers and station management at all six of its Austin radio stations.
He said Emmis assured the leaders that “efforts to better serve the entire Austin community would be ongoing.”
Pryor, the son of longtime radio personality Cactus Pryor, repeatedly used a slur to describe illegal immigrants, triggering complaints from listeners and from leaders of Hispanic groups.
Emmis Austin canceled the show July 20 under an agreement with local members of the U.S. Hispanic Contractors Association, which canceled plans to boycott Emmis Austin’s six local stations and their advertisers.
Scott Gillmore, Emmis Austin Radio vice president and market manager, said then that the decision was made after the station’s ownership and management heard complaints from hundreds of listeners and after it consulted with Hispanic leaders and community members.
Pryor and Todd Jeffries each received two-week suspensions without pay. “The Todd and Don Show” had been on the air about nine months before it was canceled.
Pryor used the word “wetback” during a discussion on the July 14 show about labels for people who are in the country illegally. The use of the slur “wetback” has a long history in the United States, particularly in Texas, and many Mexican Americans consider it hurtful and offensive.
While the use of the slur outraged many local Hispanics, the suspensions and removal of the show also generated complaints from listeners who criticized them as too harsh and as an overreaction to public pressure and political correctness.
http://www.austin360.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/music/entries/2009/11/17/todd_and_don_show_to_return_hi.html

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I'm out of fashion. I think people should use the term. A pejorative is appropriate for someone who engages in improper or unlawful behavior. I realize this is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the perspective of folks who get upset when you call someone an illegal immigrant because a person can't be illegal.

I think wetback has utility and connotes a particular type of disdain for people in the country unlawfully. Further, it does not fall into the same objectional category as nigger, spic or ginny because one has no control over his skin color or nationality, however, being an illegal alien is something that requires affirmative steps to accomplish. You're not born into illegal alien status with no control over it.

[Ayatollahgondola]

You're not born into illegal alien status with no control over it.
While that may be true in its' lawful sense, there is some legitmacy to claims made by children who were brought here illegally when they were babies or very young kids. They had little or no control. I'm not advocating for their right to stay mind you, but they fall into a category that is a little difficult to have disdain for. Well, until they start taking up with La Raza and such. And speaking of that, is there a name other than illegal alien for those who arrived here illegally by means other than their own willing participation?

[Rim05]

Further, it does not fall into the same objectional category as nigger, spic or ginny because one has no control over his skin color or nationality

I have never been one to use 'nick names' for any one or group. I do wonder how many think about the above names given to others. I have heard Hispanic use some of those names but they can complain to high heaven to about anything that does not have sugar sprinkled on it. I still prefer INVADERS. I don't see how they can complain about that but I am sure they can/will. This is my first time to even hear the word ginny

[Jeanfromfillmore]

I have never been one to use 'nick names' for any one or group. I do wonder how many think about the above names given to others. I have heard Hispanic use some of those names but they can complain to high heaven to about anything that does not have sugar sprinkled on it. I still prefer INVADERS. I don't see how they can complain about that but I am sure they can/will. This is my first time to even hear the word ginny
Oh Rimo, you didn't have a parent from New York as I did. My mother knew every name for everybody. New Yorkers would use those names quite often years ago, or at least they used to before political correctness. We here in the west used those terms or names only when we were referring to someone in a derogatory terms, but in New York, at least years ago, those terms were used when someone was just referring to someone, kind of like we would say ‘Hay you guys’ but addressing a group of your friends who might all be women or women and men. Guys, was just referring to people not exactly males. It was just a name tag, as all those ethnic name tags were years ago in New York, but are now considered ethnic slurs. That's political correctness.

I caught someone about a month ago making a joke about Polish people, and he was Hispanic. I pointed out to him that I was part Polish and that political correctness wouldn't allow me to make the same disparaging remarks about Hispanics, but it seems completely acceptable to do it about Polish people. I also noted to him that I was not offended by what he had said, but just pointing out the double standard.

[LAPhil]

ginny
When I saw this, I thought "what's a ginny?" Did you mean "guinea", as in Italian? And how did we get to the point where the term "wetback" has become has politically incorrect as n****er? (notice how politically correct I was, using the asterisks?) Like you said, DA, if it refers to someone's actions rather than an accident of birth, I don't see why it should be taboo.

[Rim05]

Oh Rimo, you didn't have a parent from New York as I did.

No, I don't even know anyone who is from NY. They do seem to be different. Maybe it is because most from Europe came to NY first (Ellis Island).

[Ayatollahgondola]

When I saw this, I thought "what's a ginny?" Did you mean "guinea", as in Italian? And how did we get to the point where the term "wetback" has become has politically incorrect as n****er? (notice how politically correct I was, using the asterisks?) Like you said, DA, if it refers to someone's actions rather than an accident of birth, I don't see why it should be taboo.
A little opinion here,

I think words in the categories as mentioned above take on a different meaning when used to offend as opposed to reference. So it matters a little on why someone is using them. Unfortunately we have lawmakers and others wanting to eliminate their' use entirely, even as reference, and that appears a bit of an infringement on the first amendment to me. Not that I condone, support, or use some of these terms and words; I never cared at all for some of them. But I do care a lot for the first amendment.

[Twoller]

I'm out of fashion. I think people should use the term. A pejorative is appropriate for someone who engages in improper or unlawful behavior. I realize this is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the perspective of folks who get upset when you call someone an illegal immigrant because a person can't be illegal.

I think wetback has utility and connotes a particular type of disdain for people in the country unlawfully. Further, it does not fall into the same objectional category as nigger, spic or ginny because one has no control over his skin color or nationality, however, being an illegal alien is something that requires affirmative steps to accomplish. You're not born into illegal alien status with no control over it.

I agree 100%. In no way does the term "wetback" denote any kind of racial stereotyping. It refers precisely to an illegal activity and all of its implications. The children of wetbacks are not wetbacks, they are "anchor babies", another entirely appropriate pejorative.

The victims here are not the people who fit the terms, but the people who use the words to show their entirely justified contempt.

[LAPhil]

I agree 100%. In no way does the term "wetback" denote any kind of racial stereotyping. It refers precisely to an illegal activity and all of its implications. The children of wetbacks are not wetbacks, they are "anchor babies", another entirely appropriate pejorative.

The victims here are not the people who fit the terms, but the people who use the words to show their entirely justified contempt.
I hate to bring this argument up with you again, Twoller, but although we agree on the first point, the children of illegals are not responsible for their actions and don't deserve to be labelled with a pejorative term. However I don't really think "anchor babies" is all that bad.

[Ayatollahgondola]

I hate to bring this argument up with you again, Twoller, but although we agree on the first point, the children of illegals are not responsible for their actions and don't deserve to be labelled with a pejorative term. However I don't really think "anchor babies" is all that bad.

In my opinion Phil, it would depend upon the politics of the individual. children of illegals that subscribe to the open borders/Aztlan crowd beliefs or openly declare allegiances to other countries might very well deserve a label. On the other hand, there could be a few examples where they reject that philosophy entirely, and want to be, or exhibit an America first attitude. But we hardly hear from, or see the latter, do we? Is that because there are none, or another example of our agenda driven mainstream media?

[LAPhil]

In my opinion Phil, it would depend upon the politics of the individual. children of illegals that subscribe to the open borders/Aztlan crowd beliefs or openly declare allegiances to other countries might very well deserve a label. On the other hand, there could be a few examples where they reject that philosophy entirely, and want to be, or exhibit an America first attitude. But we hardly hear from, or see the latter, do we? Is that because there are none, or another example of our agenda driven mainstream media?
So what would be an appropriate nickname for those who don't want to be Americans first? Maybe there is one but I can't just think of what it would be.

[Twoller]

... On the other hand, there could be a few examples where they ... want to be, or exhibit an America first attitude. ...

If anchor babies want to exhibit an America first attitude, then should we accept their birthright citizenship? I don't think so. Anchor babies know who they are and many of them are grown up already and have falsely assumed the role of US citizens. So what if they exhibit an "America first" attitude? It contradicts the corrupted institution that they have assumed membership in.

If anchor babies want to honestly embrace US citizenship and confront the corrupted system that has made them US citizens -- as any US citizen should -- then they should reject their US citizenship and reintroduce themselves as struggling to become naturalized. They should attempt to become US citizens as if they were foreign nationals.

[Ayatollahgondola]

If anchor babies want to exhibit an America first attitude, then should we accept their birthright citizenship? I don't think so. .

We were talking about the labels we give them, not the actual legalization of them

[ilbegone]

The term "anchor baby" is an overused and over broad in its usual application.

My Elena is firstborn in America from Mexican born parents, there would be people over eager to incorrectly apply the term "anchor baby" to her.

However, it is her son who is the Aztlanista in the family, and he was educated into it at school. He didn't learn to be a racist from any of his older relatives.

You have to place credit where credit is due.

[Twoller]

If you are not a US citizen, then your children born in the US are not US citizens. This is by law, of course, not practice. This is what we should be struggling against. If you are not a citizen and your children born in the US claim US citizenship, then they are "anchor babies".

[ilbegone]

We have to disagree.

An "anchor baby" is a child who's purpose is to legitimize illegality.

You might be making judgments within a vacuum of information concerning other people who were not of that "persuasion" and erroneously calling into question their Americanism.

It's not a "brown and white" slate, there are shades of gray everywhere.

By the way, refer to me which law and the background discussion of that law of which you speak which denies citizenship to American born children of non citizens.

Verifiable information only. US code, Congressional record, anything else which may legitimately apply. No "everyone has one" opinion.

[LAPhil]

We have to disagree.

An "anchor baby" is a child who's purpose is to legitimize illegality.

You might be making judgments within a vacuum of information concerning other people who were not of that "persuasion" and erroneously calling into question their Americanism.

It's not a "brown and white" slate, there are shades of gray everywhere.

By the way, refer to me which law and the background discussion of that law of which you speak which denies citizenship to American born children of non citizens.

Verifiable information only. US code, Congressional record, anything else which may legitimately apply. No "everyone has one" opinion.
(deleted)

[DerailAmnesty.com]

...is there a name other than illegal alien for those who arrived here illegally by means other than their own willing participation?



Yes, Tax Burden.

[ilbegone]

My Elena was a child from an earlier migration. There was no such thing as welfare, and while her father worked for a multi-century pioneer in exploitation of south of the border labor, they did such things as scour the old time burn dumps for cast off furniture, housewares, and toys that white people tossed for use in their household. They were friggin' poor.

They ate meat once a month.

No government entitlements.

Lots of rice and beans, the depression in the barrio didn't end in 1941 with WWII and older relatives who were a part of that war, it went through into the 1960's.

And, while it didn't apply to everyone from the barrio south of the tracks, there was a general pre 1960 requirement to be back before dark.

And get this, no hard feelings, that's just the way things were back then, doesn't apply now.

So, when her older brother was sick and in the hospital not too long ago, I made a joke about how he would soon be out and playing soccer, he said that he played football, baseball, and basketball in high school, that soccer was something the Mexicans brought when they came - even though his parents were both Mexican born.

Be careful of who and how people with south of the border ancestry are talked about, because it may work against the quest for enforcement of American immigration laws.

For what it's worth.