• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

What does redneck refer to


  • Total voters
    75
The context of the word is not determined by other people but the person using the word. If context was determined by other people instead of the person using the word then Media Matters would be right about every conservative talk show host or talk show host perceived to be a conservative. A black person who uses the word nigger or any form of that word or tolerates others using that word has absolutely no room to bitch about people of other races using that word.

Black people use it to take power away from the word when speaking to one another. One day this girl in my college class said about me, "That's my nigga, IT2002". I wasn't offended. I took it as a compliment. Context is important. She was paying me a compliment saying I was one of her peeps. I would still never call her "nigga" because I'm not stupid. I know it may be offensive to her or someone who may overhear it. It stings to hear that come from a white person's mouth. It's not hard to understand. If it's a choice between slavery and not being able to use a slur, I'll take not being able to use the slur.

White people usually do not go around calling each other cracker.The only time I seen white people call each other cracker is because they were mocking black people calling each other nigga.

Yeah, that's because white people weren't oppressed like the darker shades of people were. There's nothing to take back.

What matters is how and why someone is using a particular word in whether or not that word being used a insult. Saying I get offended when white people use the word niggar but not black people is like saying I get offended when I see white people rap or black people date white people.

After all they've been through, they can have exclusive license to the word for all I care. Richard Prior should have Trademarked it.

I wouldn't care.


That's ironic considering earlier in this post you said context and intent was important. I agree it is important.
 
Y'all can call me a redneck. I'll get over it. It doesn't particularly offend me.
 
What's really funny is that the Stormfronters can't even spell "Tea Partiers" properly. :doh

Well, that's what happens when illegal immigrants to America don't learn the indigenous language and assimilate.
 
There seems to be some confusion about this word. I tend to use it to refer to a culture, where others seem to want to use it to refer to a race.

Do you also dignify the term 'white trash', by considering its cultural or racial aspects?
 
Lincoln sought to preserve the Union. Slavery had nothing to with it. not to mention that Lincoln was a racist and didn't wants whites and blacks living among each other. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until two years after the war began; plus it only applied to Confederate held territory. Places like Kentucky, Maryland and New Orleans were exempt, because they weren't Confederate held territories.

But do you know WHY he did that? Not because he was racist. It was completely political. He felt that if he "freed" the slaves in the border states, those states would seceed to the Confederacy. It was a completely political move. Lincoln was probably one of the most consumate politicians this country has ever seen.
 
Lincoln wanted war which is why he had the Star of the West, flying US Navy colors invade South Carolina's waters to resupply Fort Sumter in January of 1861. Fort Sumter was the result of Captain Anderson, US Army, invading South Carolina when he moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter on December 25, 1860. On April 13, 1861 there was a fleet of US Navy ships entering the harbor that consisted of 2 ships of the line, a sloop of war, and a troop transport to resupply Fort Sumter. Brig. General Beauregard had sent the third and final request for surrender to Captain Anderson after the US navy fleet entered Charleston Harbor at about 4 AM. Anderson refused and hoped for the navy fleet would reach his position before day break. Beauregard ordered the defenses of Charleston to open fire in defense of a naval fleet that was under orders to resupply the fort or to invade Charleston and secure it. Lincoln always wanted war.

This is a groos misinterpretation. Captain Anderson could not have "invaded" South Carolina by moving his troops to Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was a US military installation, and therefore US military property. He has every right to move his troops there.
 
I've done a ton of reading on the Civil War and took many classes on the time period in college. It's the most interesting time period in history, to me. The Civil War was NOT primarily about slavery. Slavery was a secondary force. The primary issues were regional diversity both in economics and in culture, political power differentials, and states rights. Ultimately, I always see the Civil War as a war between those that believe in a strong federal government and those who believe in strong states' rights.

As far as Lincoln goes, I always consider each and every action he made, and every word he said, that of the greatest politician we ever had. His primary goal was to keep the Union in tact and pretty much everything he said and did filtered from that. The Emancipation Proclamation was political, an effort to garner support for the war (which was already 3 years old and taking a major toll on the country) and to keep the Union in tact. Lincoln was a great President, and I admire his dedication to the country, but make no mistake. He was a politician through and through... and a great one. HE is more responsible, with his political maneuvering of keeping the border states from seceding than anything else.

Slavery was an ancillary issue.

Also, for those who are interested. secession is illegal (though revolution may not be). Madison himself, considered "The Father of the Constitution" agreed that secession was not a constitutional right in a letter to Daniel Webster, and the fact that the language of the Constitution differed from the language of the Articled of Confederation in the US NOT being a "confederation" "a league" or "a contract". with phrases like "in perpetuity" added. The Supreme Court agreed, and validated that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White.
 
I'm guessing you didn't see "Tropical Thunder".

I haven't seen the movie.
However, I have seen all the youtube outrage vidoes, articles, etc on the 'racist' nature of the movie.

Probably doesn't make it racist though.... you know them race baiters...
 
Last edited:
I'm having trouble with tryin to take someone seriously that continually and repeatedly links to Stormfront as if they're somehow a representation and demonstrative proof of anything other than idiotic white surpremists that are an tiny minority within the Tea Party momvenet and the Republican Party let alone the south and America as a whole.

Go to the forums of extremists of just about any particular mindset and you're going to find outrageous and idiotic comments.
 
Black people use it to take power away from the word when speaking to one another. .

Its seems funny that most black do not use the word and the only ones who mostly seem to be using that word are the youth who didn't went through racial segregation, slavery, race riots and other racial oppression. Yeah there are a few exceptions and are a some old people who use the word.


One day this girl in my college class said about me, "That's my nigga, IT2002". I wasn't offended. I took it as a compliment. Context is important. She was paying me a compliment saying I was one of her peeps. I would still never call her "nigga" because I'm not stupid

Why did you take it as a compliment? Was it the context how she was using the word or the fact she is a black person using the word?

Would you have taken it as a compliment if she was white and called you "her nigga" or would you have acted like a hypocrite and got onto her for using the word nigga regardless of the fact she meant no disrespect?

I know it may be offensive to her or someone who may overhear it. It stings to hear that come from a white person's mouth. It's not hard to understand. If it's a choice between slavery and not being able to use a slur, I'll take not being able to use the slur.
I am sure it stings some people to see white people dating black people, but in today's society ignorant racist are ignored.Just as ignorant racist should not be tolerated ignorant racial double standards should not be tolerated as well.

Yeah, that's because white people weren't oppressed like the darker shades of people were. There's nothing to take back.

Irrelevant. A racial slur is still a racial slur.

After all they've been through,

Unless "they've" grew up during when this country had racial segregation and when this country was forcing integration , they haven't been through ****. Just because someone has a ancestor,grandfather, or father that went through some horrible times does not mean that individual has.

they can have exclusive license to the word for all I care. Richard Prior should have Trademarked it.

No one can have an exclusive license over a word.If a word is truly offensive and hurtful then no one should say it regardless if how they are using that word. If nigger or nigga is offensive when a white person says it regardless of the context that individual is using those words, then it should be just as equally offensive when a black person says those words. Because you have no room to bitch when someone else uses that word if you yourself use that word or are tolerant of someone else using that word. This is why that race parasite who feeds of the color of his skin to remain relevant Al Sharpton got ignored and why others pointed out what a hypocrite he is when he came out against Don Imus.

That's ironic considering earlier in this post you said context and intent was important. I agree it is important.
Intent is important. However I am grown man with better things to do than worry about what some stranger on the street says.
 
I don't equate the confederate flag with being redneck. Or being racist.

Rednecks are by and large blue collar rural folks. My dad is one. I certainly have some redneck tendencies myself. I don't see it as a particularly perjorative term, but then, I look down on people who put on airs. Some of my good friends are redneck as hell.

Ditto that. My entire family is redneck, all the way back as far as I am aware of.

While I was in college, I had the confederate flag on my dorm wall along with the stars and stripes. (and oddly, none of the black guys I brought back there to **** seemed bothered by it... but then again, maybe they had more important things on their minds. ;) )

Redeck Woman - Gretchen Wilson
And I LOVE that song. ;) My sis and I sing that together sometimes. LOL
 
I've done a ton of reading on the Civil War and took many classes on the time period in college. It's the most interesting time period in history, to me. The Civil War was NOT primarily about slavery. Slavery was a secondary force. The primary issues were regional diversity both in economics and in culture, political power differentials, and states rights. Ultimately, I always see the Civil War as a war between those that believe in a strong federal government and those who believe in strong states' rights.

As far as Lincoln goes, I always consider each and every action he made, and every word he said, that of the greatest politician we ever had. His primary goal was to keep the Union in tact and pretty much everything he said and did filtered from that. The Emancipation Proclamation was political, an effort to garner support for the war (which was already 3 years old and taking a major toll on the country) and to keep the Union in tact. Lincoln was a great President, and I admire his dedication to the country, but make no mistake. He was a politician through and through... and a great one. HE is more responsible, with his political maneuvering of keeping the border states from seceding than anything else.

Slavery was an ancillary issue.

Also, for those who are interested. secession is illegal (though revolution may not be). Madison himself, considered "The Father of the Constitution" agreed that secession was not a constitutional right in a letter to Daniel Webster, and the fact that the language of the Constitution differed from the language of the Articled of Confederation in the US NOT being a "confederation" "a league" or "a contract". with phrases like "in perpetuity" added. The Supreme Court agreed, and validated that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White.

The fighting began in April of 1861. The Emancipation Proclamation was given in September 1862. That was almost 18 months, not 3 years.
 
Its seems funny that most black do not use the word and the only ones who mostly seem to be using that word are the youth who didn't went through racial segregation, slavery, race riots and other racial oppression. Yeah there are a few exceptions and are a some old people who use the word.

While the things your mention were not experienced by the youth, that doesn't mean they haven't experienced any racism.


Why did you take it as a compliment? Was it the context how she was using the word or the fact she is a black person using the word?

I already told you why I took it as a compliment. She was using it in the context of me being cool with her. It's still possible for a black person to use it in an insulting way.

Would you have taken it as a compliment if she was white and called you "her nigga" or would you have acted like a hypocrite and got onto her for using the word nigga regardless of the fact she meant no disrespect?

While it would have been a compliment still, I personally would have been uncomfortable with her using it. IMO it's poor taste for white people to use it.

I am sure it stings some people to see white people dating black people, but in today's society ignorant racist are ignored.Just as ignorant racist should not be tolerated ignorant racial double standards should not be tolerated as well.

Racial double standards do not equate to racism. Racism is about one race being superior to another. The double standard is blowback from previous unequal treatment.

Irrelevant. A racial slur is still a racial slur.

In a vacuum yes. However there are other conditions that add to the insult. White people haven't been oppressed by black people here in America like vice versa.

Unless "they've" grew up during when this country had racial segregation and when this country was forcing integration , they haven't been through ****. Just because someone has a ancestor,grandfather, or father that went through some horrible times does not mean that individual has.

It also doesn't mean that they haven't experienced racism firsthand.

No one can have an exclusive license over a word.If a word is truly offensive and hurtful then no one should say it regardless if how they are using that word. If nigger or nigga is offensive when a white person says it regardless of the context that individual is using those words, then it should be just as equally offensive when a black person says those words. Because you have no room to bitch when someone else uses that word if you yourself use that word or are tolerant of someone else using that word. This is why that race parasite who feeds of the color of his skin to remain relevant Al Sharpton got ignored and why others pointed out what a hypocrite he is when he came out against Don Imus.

If all things were equal historically you would be correct. You can't ignore history.

Al Sharpton is irrelevant. Don Imus was wrong in what he said.

Intent is important. However I am grown man with better things to do than worry about what some stranger on the street says.

You don't care yet the double standard bothers you?
 
Even if it is use primarily against white people. Do you feel that the aim of the insult is against their race or culture?
It depends. I cannot generalize how the term is used like that. Some people may use it honestly as a culture, but others in a more racist way. The term "redneck" however is clearly meant to be a "jab" at people who have that culture, not just a "reference."
 
I'm having trouble with tryin to take someone seriously that continually and repeatedly links to Stormfront as if they're somehow a representation and demonstrative proof of anything other than idiotic white surpremists that are an tiny minority within the Tea Party momvenet and the Republican Party let alone the south and America as a whole.

Go to the forums of extremists of just about any particular mindset and you're going to find outrageous and idiotic comments.

Except that what Cochise is showing are exact parallels between what self-proclaimed "white nationalist" psychos on Stormfront are saying, and what some posters here are saying.

Did you even bother to read the links, in conjunction with the quotes in Cochise's post?
 
I'm having trouble with tryin to take someone seriously that continually and repeatedly links to Stormfront as if they're somehow a representation and demonstrative proof of anything other than idiotic white surpremists that are an tiny minority within the Tea Party momvenet and the Republican Party let alone the south and America as a whole.

Go to the forums of extremists of just about any particular mindset and you're going to find outrageous and idiotic comments.

I said that "the foundations for white populism do exist in the social conservative mindset, though the transformation to explicitly racist beliefs is relatively uncommon." I never said that social conservatives were generally white supremacists. But the large majority of white supremacists are social/cultural conservatives, because the axiomatic foundations for white supremacist beliefs are there.

The similarities between the rhetoric of white supremacists and those of social conservatives are not incidental correlations. White supremacists that did not start that way generally began with the social/cultural conservative opposition to "entitlements" such as welfare, affirmative action, and immigrant amnesty. The human tendency to generalize simply caused them to subconsciously associate these entitlements with non-whites, and eventually convert that into a conscious association.

The major difference is that white supremacists are ultimately less inclined to support unrestricted capitalism. Mainline social conservatives do, because they see it as a means of rewarding the hard-working productive and punishing the lazy unproductive, motivating them to change their ways. But since white supremacists have come to consciously associate laziness and non-productivity with non-whites, they believe that separatism will be a relatively effective solution.
 
Except that what Cochise is showing are exact parallels between what self-proclaimed "white nationalist" psychos on Stormfront are saying, and what some posters here are saying.

Did you even bother to read the links, in conjunction with the quotes in Cochise's post?

So because Stormfront people say something Im not supposed to agree with it, even if I do?

I don't agree with everything they say, but upon occasion they actually get a few things right.... like almost everyone.

What is that saying... "Even a broken clock is right twice per day" or something like that.
 
There seems to be some confusion about this word. I tend to use it to refer to a culture, where others seem to want to use it to refer to a race.

I don't really think there's a redneck culture let alone race. The term redneck describes an anomaly within white rural culture to me.
 
So because Stormfront people say something Im not supposed to agree with it, even if I do?

I don't agree with everything they say, but upon occasion they actually get a few things right.... like almost everyone.

What is that saying... "Even a broken clock is right twice per day" or something like that.

As I said, it's not an incidental correlation, but a matter of shared axiomatic values. It's the difference between "You have a mustache; you must have something in common with Hitler and Stalin" and "You advocate totalitarian government rule; you must have something in common with Hitler and Stalin." I'm not pointing out that you share the same favorite color; I'm pointing out that you share a lot of the same rhetoric based on your mutually shared axiomatic values. I'm also not saying that you're a white supremacist, but that you're more inclined to become one than a bleeding-heart ACLU member.
 
People need not to be ashamed to be called rednecks. I live in another country but I respect them and understand that they are the backbone of the American society and without them America would not be able to exist economically or otherwise. I do not mean that everybody can or should become a redneck but they deserve respect. The meaning of this word cannot be disclosed in a short defenition but the thread is a useful means.
 
As I said, it's not an incidental correlation, but a matter of shared axiomatic values. It's the difference between "You have a mustache; you must have something in common with Hitler and Stalin" and "You advocate totalitarian government rule; you must have something in common with Hitler and Stalin." I'm not pointing out that you share the same favorite color; I'm pointing out that you share a lot of the same rhetoric based on your mutually shared axiomatic values. I'm also not saying that you're a white supremacist, but that you're more inclined to become one than a bleeding-heart ACLU member.

I think you have little idea of what I am likely to become.
 
No response to the actual argument, then.

Umm, because its a BS argument.

You are classifying me as something I am not because Stormfront happens to agree with me on a thing or two.

Your argument is crap, there is no way to 'respond' to someone attempting to accuse you of being "more likely to be something that I will not be"

Your pompous attitude is ridiculous.
 
Except that what Cochise is showing are exact parallels between what self-proclaimed "white nationalist" psychos on Stormfront are saying, and what some posters here are saying.

Did you even bother to read the links, in conjunction with the quotes in Cochise's post?

First, no, sorry...not going to give any additional hits to the filth peddler that is stormfront nor am I going to go into the links on a work computer.

Second, whether or not people on stormfront are saying similiar things is relatively irrelevant and doesn't prove anything other than some may share broad line views with each other which speaks nothing to their motivations behind said views or the extent they think it should go to fix it as is the implication by him.

This is like saying that we should quote Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members whenever someone said we should pull out of Iraq early or end the War on Terrorism or criticize Israel because obviously if they're saying the same things as terrorists we need to highlight it...I mean, for completely legitimate reasons that are in no way trying to imply that by making similar arguments that the people must be similar in all things.

Or perhaps it needs to be put in terms that actually affects you to realize why its an idiotic and rather transparently dishonest debate tactic. We could always shove it into an Israel thread where you and others are advocating for Israel to give its land over to the Palestinians and show where terrorists have said similar things.

You see, it's not an incidental correlation, but a matter of shared axiomatic values. It's the difference between "[Person X] dislike rock music; they must have something in common with the terrorist shooting at the Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan" and "[Person X] advocates Israel simply giving its land over to the Palestinians; they must have something in common with the terrorist shooting at the Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I'm not pointing out that they share the same favorite color; I'm pointing out that they share a lot of the same rhetoric based on your mutually shared axiomatic values. I'm also not saying that [person x] is a terrorist, but that they're more inclined to become one of those people shooting at our Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan than to become a Tea Party member.

:roll:

Its an invalid tactic meant to do nothing but smear and discredit through associated views
 
Last edited:
I've done a ton of reading on the Civil War and took many classes on the time period in college. It's the most interesting time period in history, to me. The Civil War was NOT primarily about slavery. Slavery was a secondary force. The primary issues were regional diversity both in economics and in culture, political power differentials, and states rights. Ultimately, I always see the Civil War as a war between those that believe in a strong federal government and those who believe in strong states' rights.

As far as Lincoln goes, I always consider each and every action he made, and every word he said, that of the greatest politician we ever had. His primary goal was to keep the Union in tact and pretty much everything he said and did filtered from that. The Emancipation Proclamation was political, an effort to garner support for the war (which was already 3 years old and taking a major toll on the country) and to keep the Union in tact. Lincoln was a great President, and I admire his dedication to the country, but make no mistake. He was a politician through and through... and a great one. HE is more responsible, with his political maneuvering of keeping the border states from seceding than anything else.

Slavery was an ancillary issue.

Also, for those who are interested. secession is illegal (though revolution may not be). Madison himself, considered "The Father of the Constitution" agreed that secession was not a constitutional right in a letter to Daniel Webster, and the fact that the language of the Constitution differed from the language of the Articled of Confederation in the US NOT being a "confederation" "a league" or "a contract". with phrases like "in perpetuity" added. The Supreme Court agreed, and validated that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White.

I agree with you on almost every point here with the exception of Lincoln's motivations. I don't think Lincoln was as dedicated to the whole country as much as he was dedicated to Northern industrial interests. The tariffs he pushed on the South to help prop up Northern prosperity almost speak of a contempt for the Southern states.

However, you are spot on in your assessment that slavery was a secondary issue to the war.
 
Back
Top Bottom