From: lichter@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Michael I. Lichter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re:  "if i was a ..." (was "asdf")
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:19:03 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

In article <1992Nov12.022604.22450@cs.ucla.edu> lichter@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Micha
el I. Lichter) writes:
>    I'm not blind to irony, but "nigger" carries some pretty heavy
>    baggage, and as a white person it's one that I steer well clear of
>    in my speech or writing.

	Why?  If it's so emotional, it seems like it might be a useful
	tool, eh?  And what difference does it make what your skin
	color is when you use the word -- isn't the *way* you use it a
	bit more important, or do you think that it's ok for an
	individual to make jokes or insults about themself, their
	clique, country, whatever, but not for others to do likewise?
	Why isn't truth truth, no matter who speaks it?

Tool for what?  Who does it have this emotional impact on?  Do you
think the impact would be different if you read it to a black audience
than to a white?  Would it matter to the audience in either case if the
poet was black or white?  As an exercise, be a straight male reading
the poem "if i was a fag i'd" for a gay audience or a Lutheran reading
"if i was a kike i'd" for a Jewish audience.  Even assuming that your
intent was not at all misconstrued, do you think any of these audiences
would cheer your sympathy for their problems?

When you speak or write, you speak or write yourself in addition to the
words you use.  This is inescapable.  Nothing is context free, not
natural language grammars, and certainly not people and the things they
create.  I don't know how "truth" came into this, but truth is as
contextual as anything else.  Is it true that tomorrow is Friday?  Only
if today is Thursday.

OK.  In this spirit, how does this particular poem mean differently
depending upon who is speaking?  We actually don't know d's race (or
sex or shoe size or any other vital statistics, for that matter).

When we interpret someone's work, we bring to bear what we know about
the context in which it is written.  If we read something about race in
contemporary American society, we bring to bear what we know about race
today, in American culture, and in American history.  Since the topic
is race, and since we know that race is a primary social divide in
American society, we expect that a writer of one race "is coming from"
"somewhere" different than a writer of another race.

Knowing that d is a white person, we might well interpret the poem
as an attack on "blame the victim" politics, and an argument that if
whites were treated as unfairly as blacks, they would be in just as bad
a condition.  This is an outsider commenting on a particular group of
people.

Knowing that d is a black person, the "if i was a nigger i'd" would
take on a new level of irony, commenting less on the situation of black
America and more on white stereotypes of blacks and on white liberal
ideas about social justice, as well as on the tendency of those
suffering from "white guilt" to envy or attempt to "be" black.  This is
an insider commenting on outsiders who comment on his or her group.

What if d was Asian or Latino, in an abstract sense urging blacks to
maul whites?  Wouldn't that mean something different as well?

The interpretations I mention are not the only possible.  Further, that
the author is taking on a persona and explicitly not representing dself
makes the interplay between content and context more problematic than
it otherwise might be.  However, even if the author is speaking with the
voice of someone else speaking with the voice of a third party, the
author's identity filters down through the chain of assumptions and
makes the end product what it is.

Getting back to what you specifically asked:

	And what difference does it make what your skin
	color is when you use the word -- isn't the *way* you use it a
	bit more important ...

Who you are is part of the way you use the word.
	
	or do you think that it's ok for an
	individual to make jokes or insults about themself, their
	clique, country, whatever, but not for others to do likewise?

You bet I do.  The ironic reuse of abuse is an important form of
resistance.  It doesn't mean the same thing coming from an outsider.

	Why isn't truth truth, no matter who speaks it?

Because no speech means the same thing regardless of who utters it.

Michael


P.S. To neuter personage Jagged: Jagged, bite thyself :-).
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems