Old people & Racism

Lets go about this line by line: RE: "My opponent suggests, that referring to black people as darkies, and coloured was acceptable because it was used in a different time generation." To extent, but not entirely. The point of my contention was to argue that these words were culturally (or should I say socially?) relative RE: "When infact saying someone is " coloured" is racist because it groups together all non whites, My opponent acts as if this is a problem. In all honesty, it isn't. Human language itself consist of generalizing. "and it was used during segregation." It was used before segregation as well. In fact, a description used during the Europeans earliest encounters with nations of people with different skin pigmentation. My opponent's case's greatness weakness is it's inability to grasp the purpose of words in the first place, which is to express and describe things. Not all blades of grass are the same, yet they are commonly all called blades of grass. Not all fires are the same, yet they are all called fires. Not all grains of sand are the same, yet they are all called sand. To quote Nietzsche: "Every word instantly becomes a concept precisely insofar as it is not supposed to serve as a reminder of the unique and entirely individual original experience to which it owes its origin; but rather, a word becomes a concept insofar as it simultaneously has to fit countless more or less similar cases — which means, purely and simply, cases which are never equal and thus altogether unequal. Every concept arises from the equation of unequal things. Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally the same as another, so it is certain that the concept "leaf" is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting the distinguishing aspects." Case and point: Unless my opponent is attacking the concept of language itself, she really has no grounds to be arguing usage of the word coloured is racist/wrong merely on the grounds that that it groups together all non whites. Generalization is the heart of human communication. Here's something else you might find interesting: Not every "black" person has the same skin pigmentation. In fact, there are many different blends of "black"; they don't all look the same. I'd even go as far to say that every individual has something unique about them. Take a look at these pictures: 1: http://www.nova.edu... 2: http://alayadawnjohnson.com... Both of these people are considered "black" yet their skin color is clearly not identical. Based on my opponents own reasoning, she ought to be considered racist for grouping together black people with such a word rather than acknowledging the differences. :D RE:"But the main thing to understand is the intent of the person saying it" I agree wholeheartedly. Intent is a different matter. However, the fact of the matter is that my opponent has made her case on the grounds of the word alone being racist, thus intent is irrelevant. What my opponent misunderstands is that positive/negative intent can exist behind ANY word or message when used by an individual. For instance, I could walk up to my opponent and tell her that she is in great physical shape. I could also walk up to her and tell her the same thing sarcastically. Same words, different intent behind each. RE: to elaborate more Civil rights leader "Martin Luther King " told the public of that time that " coloured" " darkie" IS racist and that people should understand, calling someone coloured is a racist and a deragotry offence. Appeal to Authority. I'm pretty sure Mr. King isn't an expert in the field Etymology. Though even if he were, what I've said regarding the nature of human communication makes his comments irrelevant. Certain people will use this word with a negative connotation and it just so happens that a lot of people used the word offensively during the era of segregation and slavery. Heck, a lot of black people currently go around using the word "n!gger" as a way to greet each other. Words can have different intents; the message they are designed to have can easily change. RE: "When in fact its the complete opposite the young people today have learnt the true termonology of how to adress someone of a different race." Like I've already insisted, there is no "true" terminology. Language will keep changing and there are likely to be different "true terminologies over time. RE: "My opponent also goes on to say that when I am older the term " black" would be offensive, when in fact adressing somene as black has been accepted for generations, and so it can be seen that it will always be used as a correct termonolgy, as opposed to "darkies" and coloured" which has never been accepted and will always be known as bieng an offensive term of words." That's interesting. Lets take a quick peek at the same wiki article my opponent just cited: http://en.wikipedia.org... "The terms mulatto and colored were widely used until the second quarter of the 20th century, when they were considered outmoded and generally gave way to the use of negro. By the 1940s, the term commonly was capitalized, but by the mid 1960s, it had acquired negative connotations" The term colored was considered socially acceptable up until the 1960s. In other words, it had been accepted for "generations." Based on my opponent's reasoning, one could have argued the term colored "will always be used as a correct termonolgy (sic)" at that point in time. RE: "Coloured is projected as calling someone who is black a different type of colour, where it can be said " white people are coloured people too then!" Such descriptions still end up grouping people who don't look the same; it still generalizes, which is what my opponent's problem was in the first place. You call an individual coloured or black and you'd still be grouping people with differences together. "darkies: ( speaks for itself ) A deragotry slang coloquial phrase, which is just calling someone casually "dark"" Again, I perfectly understand how the word is socially defined at this point in time. Words will always keep having different social connotations. It's just like the use of the word African American right now. This is the politically correct way to refer to a "black" person. The reason such a word was coined is simply because there are more and more people finding the word black as "offensive." My opponent is merely part of a never ending chain of change. CONCLUSION: 1) Language itself is generalization. As I've shown, regardless of what words my opponent uses to describe black people, one can conclude that it's racist (even "black people" itself :D). 2) Language isn't objective. I've demonstrated that words and socially acceptable meanings change over time. 3) Most importantly, my opponent herself has pointed out that intent behind words is where the racism is at. However, as I've shown, any word can have a positive or negative intent based on the very nature of our language. Given that this debate is about words themselves rather than intent (as I don't see evidence of ever old person who uses these words as having racist intent), thus such is not only irrelevant to CON's case, but beneficial to mine. Thus, I ask that you vote PRO. Thanks for the debate. :D