Monthly Archives: January 2010

I think this is hilarious.

In yet another ironic series of postings (pair this one with the entry directly before it, I’ve managed to seem contradictory.)

But I’m not.  I’m a progressive thinker.

It’s that time again, the beginning of a new year & a new decade always signals these folks to come out.

As reported by The New York Daily News, the 2010 census wants to know if there are still

Niggers

Niggaz

Moolies

Coloreds

Blacks who still live in the U.S.A.

As if this were not problematic enough, run your eyeballs over this excerpt from the paper:

As Reported by The New York Daily News ,

The census form for 2010 features a word more often heard in 1966: Negro.

For many New York blacks, the word conjures visions of Jim Crow and segregation – even if the Census Bureau says it’s included to ensure an accurate count of the nation’s minority residents.

“For New York Blacks, this particular word brings back memories of picking cotton and a time they weren’t allowed to do stuff like everyone else.”

I don’t see a difference between the two sentences.

Personally, the word Negro  does not literally conjure visions of Jim Crow when I hear it.  Due in part to the fact that I’m not nearly old enough to remember when the laws were still legally in practice.

What it does remind me of is the foolishness I encountered during one class I had @ Northeastern University, ironically called Ethics, Values & Criminal Justice (one of those 100 level classes I had like, Freshman year) where I encountered one of the stupidest people I’d ever met in my life.

We had a group activity where we had to assemble and talk about cases where Blacks were treated unfairly in the justice system.  The first words out of this dumbasses mouth were “Well, I think…” after much hesitation and stuttering she blurted out

“…Coloreds…” and that’s all I heard.

All heads tilted toward me as the raisin in the milk, I respond:

“You can say Black, even African American. No one’s gonna lynch you.”

Yet there is a bigger issue here that in this introductory paragraph The New York Daily News seems to miss.

The 2010 census shouldn’t have the f*ckin word in it period.

Do I still use it? “When appropriate”.  Like a “Use Sparingly” area on a food pyramid.  But mammy images don’t come to mind when I do.

In the previous entry I used it as an adjective, to describe unquestionably retarded behavior that does nothing else but set Black folks back as a whole.

But I somewhat digress.  Let me get back to this article, I am not done shredding it yet.

It goes on to say:

Question No. 9 on this year’s census form asks about race, with one of the answers listed as “Black, African-Am. or Negro.”

Census Bureau spokesman Jack Martin said the use of “Negro” was intended as a term of inclusion.

“Many older African-Americans identified themselves that way, and many still do,” he said. “Those who identify themselves as Negroes need to be included.”

Remind me, exactly, what it is that the word Negro catches that Black or African-American leaves out?

Perhaps we, as Black people can answer some of the questions as to why congress needs the word “Negro” as an all-encompassing theme on these documents:

1.  Obviously “Negro” is a fusion of the words “Cherokee” and “Black”.

2. Because the “politically correct” African- American is not enough of a reminder that Black folks “indigenous” (I use that word lightly here) to this country are just kinda African.

3. Just in case you weren’t sure about where you really came from & absolutely wanted to trace your roots back to “Roots”.

More than 50 years removed from the repeal of Jim Crow laws, into an era where it was thought we’d look like The Jetsons, humans have yet again proved just how blissfully ignorant they really are.   Until we knock it off with this crap,

this will remain a distant memory (or dream).

Ah,

Love,

*Ms. Officer