upworthy

oppression

Some black people use the n-word, so why the uproar when a white person says it?

Discussion of the term has peaked again with Papa John's founder John Schnatter resigning after Forbes reported he used the n-word during a media training. "Colonel Sanders called blacks n-----s," Schnatter said, complaining that the KFC founder never received backlash for it. He later issued an apology, but the damage was done.

The pizza tycoon is not alone in haphazardly wielding the n-word. Paula Deen, Madonna, Charlie Sheen, and others have faced scrutiny for using the term, in each case prompting some white people to start questioning who should and shouldn't use it.


Here are some explanations from black folks for why the n-word needs to be off the table for nonblack people.

Ta-Nehisi Coates explained how words can be appropriate or not depending on our relationships.

In 2017, a high school student asked Coates about her white friends singing the n-word as hip-hop lyrics. Coates explained that who you are matters, pointing out that even though his wife calls him "honey," it wouldn't be acceptable for a strange woman on the street to call him that. "The understanding is that I have some sort of a relationship with my wife," he said. "Hopefully, I don't have a relationship with this strange woman."

He also gave several examples of how certain words are used within groups that aren't appropriate for people outside the group. Sometimes his wife's friends will use the word "bitch" in a funny, ironic way toward one another, but Coates doesn't join in. "And perhaps more importantly, I don't have a desire to," he said.  

"We understand that it's normal, actually, for groups to use derogatory terms in an ironic fashion," he continued. "Why is there so much hand-wringing when black people do it?"

Franchesca Ramsey broke down the origin of the word and explained why the history of it matters.

"The n-word comes from the Spanish and Portuguese word for black — 'negro,'"Ramsey explained in a YouTube video:

"How do you take a completely benign word — the word for 'black'— and make it into a slur? Well, you have to look at the word's historical context. The n-word was used to describe black people as they were being stolen from Africa, put into slavery, chained, lynched, beaten, spit upon — so the word was created as a tool of oppression. Its historical context cannot be erased."

Ramsey also touched on how relationships give context for certain behaviors. Football players regularly swat one another on the butt on the field as a form of encouragement, she said, but doing the same to a random person on the street is never OK.

We apply different standards to different groups of people all the time — without claiming that it's unfair.

Franchesca Ramsey. Photo via Bennett Raglin/Getty Images.

Michael Harriot used the analogy of someone making themselves a little too "at home" in your house.

In a hypothetical conversation between two black people, Michael Harriot of The Root explained why the n-word is taken differently when white folks use it:

"But if white people are racist when they use it, then why isn’t it racist when we use it? Take the woman who was onstage with Kendrick Lamar. How can you call her a racist if she uses the n-word in the same exact context Lamar did? It’s just a song, right?

OK. Suppose you came home one day and found someone naked, asleep in your bed. Would you be OK with that?

Of course not.

What if they gained entry because you inadvertently left the door unlocked?

I still wouldn’t be cool with it.

OK. Let’s say you invited someone to your house to watch the game. Instead of knocking, they waltzed in the unlocked door, got naked, took a shit in your bathroom, and crawled in your bed. That would be OK, right?

Absolutely not. People really shit in other people’s houses? That’s nasty and disrespectful.

Why? I bet you’ve done it a million times. How are they being disrespectful if they are only doing the same thing you do all the time?

Because it’s my house. Every idiot knows that.

Exactly."

















Bottom line: As a white person, I don't have the right to use that word — nor do I have the right to tell black folks how to use it.

The n-word is a verbal weapon that was created by white people specifically to harm black people as part of their systematic oppression. That's its origin. We can't change that.

If a black person feels empowered in owning or reclaiming that weapon, it's not my place to say they shouldn't. But seeing that weapon displayed in the home of a white person would have an entirely different feel. One is the historical oppressor and the other is the historically oppressed, and that changes what's appropriate for each.

Some feel that no one should use the n-word, and there is ongoing debate among the black community about the word. But that's not a discussion for white people to insert ourselves into. We don't need to weigh in on this. It's not our debate to have.

The idea that some things don't belong to us is a weird thing for many white people to wrap our brains around.

Whether consciously or subconsciously, white folks tend to assume that we get to make the rules for everyone. We've always held that power, and we're used to having the final say. That's part of the legacy of white supremacy.

The sentiment "If we can't say it, nobody should be able to" is also an extension of white supremacy, and we need to let it go. When a word represents centuries of pain inflicted upon an entire group of people, let's be humble enough to acknowledge that our feelings and opinions are far less important than those directly affected by it.

That seems only fair.  

More

A European court's ruling about religious clothing could have unfortunate results.

Should an employer be allowed to ban an employee from wearing a hijab?

A European court recently issued a controversial ruling that effectively says employers can legally ban their employees from wearing religious symbols at work.

And while the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling doesn't single out any one religion, the cases in question involved Samira Achbita, a Muslim woman who was fired from her job as a receptionist for wearing a hijab to work, and Asma Bougnaoui, a design engineer at an IT consultancy firm fired after a customer complained about her headscarf.

Photo by Robertus Pudyanto/Getty Images.


In its ruling, the ECJ stated that companies are allowed to institute in-house rules prohibiting employees from wearing political, philosophical, or religious symbols, in order to project a neutral public image. And while it seems fair enough that a private company may not want to come off as endorsing the political or religious views of its employees, it comes at a time when anti-Muslim sentiment is reaching a fever pitch across Europe and North America.

This ruling will almost certainly not help.

This ruling, while non-binding, sends a discouraging message that may come off as legitimizing anti-Muslim views.

"It will lead to Muslim women being discriminated in the workplace, but also Jewish men who wear kippas, Sikh men who wear turbans, people who wear crosses. It affects all of them, but disproportionately Muslim women," Maryam H'madoun of the Open Society Justice Initiative told The Guardian.

Others are worried this ruling will encourage more companies to adopt bans on religious wear, effectively banning hijabis from the workforce.

"I am a top performer at my company and headscarf doesn't make difference to my talent, my skills, my performance or my work but then I could be kicked out from my job because I wear a scarf," said one woman in an interview with the BBC. "If I have to choose between my head scarf and job, I will definitely choose my head scarf."

A young woman in London wearing a hijab. Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images.

Those of us who aren't Muslim need to take a long look at ourselves and question why this matters to us. Because it really shouldn't.

In a statement to The Guardian, right-wing German politician Georg Pazderski lauded the ECJ's decision, calling the hijab "much more than a religious symbol" and "a political statement of oppression."

It's not an uncommon argument either. In support of various bans on Muslim headwear, many non-Muslims suggest that these are oppressive pieces of clothing that nobody should be forced to wear. On Twitter, Zainab Akhtar shot that argument down, writing, "There is NO difference between forcing a Muslim woman to wear a hijab and forcing her to remove it."

If non-Muslims actually care about oppression, it's time we stopped denying people the right to express their religious beliefs through what they wear. There is nothing "liberating" about this disturbing trend of banning religious garb.

Learn more about today's ruling — and what you can do about it — at Amnesty International and Open Society Foundations.

More

Prince Charles opened up about the era he was born into — and why we should never go back.

"All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s."

With Christmas just days away Charles, the prince of Wales, appeared on BBC Radio 4 to deliver a holiday-inspired "thought for the day" that came with a dire warning about the state of world politics.

The Christmas story — the Nativity story — is in many ways a story about a family fleeing religious persecution; it's a story about refugees. While it's easy for that portion to get overshadowed by things like angels, virgin births, wise men, and mangers, Prince Charles thought it appropriate in our current political climate to draw attention to the holy family's refugee status.

All GIFs from BBC Radio 4/Facebook.


Prince Charles described a conversation he had recently with a Jesuit priest in Syria and how it reminded him that religious persecution is not limited to faraway lands.

Even as people flee lands in which their lives are put on the line due to religious persecution, the world political climate is making it harder for would-be refugees to find safety and acceptance anywhere.

"We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive towards those who adhere to a minority faith."
— Prince Charles

"The suffering doesn’t end when [refugees] arrive seeking refuge in a foreign land," he said. "We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive towards those who adhere to a minority faith."

"All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s," Charles said.

He invoked his own memories of growing up in post-World War II Europe as a reminder that we can't let a fear of people who are different from us lead us back down that dark road.

"I was born in 1948 — just after the end of World War II, in which my parents' generation had fought and died in a battle against intolerance, monstrous extremism, and an inhuman attempt to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe," he recalled. "That, nearly 70 years later, we should still be seeing such evil persecution is, to me, beyond all belief. We owe it to those who suffered and died so horribly not to repeat the horrors of the past."

Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or something else entirely, there's a deeper human message we can and should take away from this particular story: respecting and valuing others.

We can fight back against the impulse to close off people who don't look like us, think like us, pray like us, eat like us, date like us, and so on. We can fight back against the popularity of far-right isolationist policies. We can value the humanity of all, and if Christmas is what it takes to inspire that within us, then so be it.

Watch a portion of Price Charles' speech below, and check out the full transcript at the BBC website:

The Prince of Wales delivers his Thought for the Day

"Whichever religious path we follow, the destination is the same: to value and respect the other person, accepting their right to live out their peaceful response to the love of God. That’s what I saw when attending the consecration of the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral in London recently. Here were a people persecuted for their religion in their own country, but finding refuge in another land and freedom to practice their faith according to their conscience. It is an example to inspire us all this Christmas time."The Prince of Wales delivers his Thought for the Day.

Posted by BBC Radio 4 on Thursday, December 22, 2016
More

What Ethiopian runner Feyisa Lilesa risked with his Olympic protest.

Feyisa Lilesa used his global platform to call for an end to oppression.

Just as the Rio Olympics were coming to a close after two weeks of memorable moments, one athlete's political protest may go down as the most historically significant of them all.

It's not soon that anyone will forget the performances of Simone Biles, Katie Ledecky, Simone Manuel, or Michael Phelps. Nor will the Olympic firsts for countries like Kosovo and Fiji become diminished victories lost to time. The same goes for the inspiring display of sportsmanship between New Zealand's Nikki Hamblin and the U.S.'s Abbey D'Agostino.

It's the action that Feyisa Lilesa, an Ethiopian runner, took that may have the largest impact outside the sporting world.


Photo by Ian Walton/Getty Images.

During Sunday's men's marathon, as Lilesa crossed the finish line, he held his arms crossed over his head. For much of the audience, this symbol likely didn't mean much. For the men and women of his home country, however, it was a rallying cry.

In Ethiopia, the sign made by Lilesa is a show of solidarity for the Oromo people, the country's largest ethnic group, of which Lilesa is a member.

Lilesa's protest against the Ethiopian government's crackdown on political dissent. Photo by Oliver Morin/AFP/Getty Images.

His protest was meant to draw attention to some of the atrocities being committed against the Oromo by the Ethiopian government.

Since November 2015, an estimated 400 Oromo have been killed by the Ethiopian government. Many more have been injured or arrested.

Human Rights Watch issued a report in June detailing the state-sanctioned atrocities in Ethiopia, which stemmed from last year's decision by the government to seize a section of Ginchi, a town roughly 50 miles southwest of the country's capital.

What was a forest and football field would be razed in favor of a government-sponsored investment project. In response, the Oromo people rose up in protest, which was followed by swift violence.

Photo by Gulshan Khan/AFP/Getty Images.

By participating in such a high-profile act of protest at the Olympics, Lilesa's life may now be in danger.

"If I go back to Ethiopia, the government will kill me," he told reporters after the race. "If not, they will charge me. After that, if they not charge, they will block in the airport in immigration. I want to move to another country and try to go to another country."

He hopes that he can obtain a visa to stay in Brazil and eventually find passage to Kenya or the U.S.

Lilesa, gold medallist Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya, and bronze medallist Galen Rupp of the U.S. Photo by Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images.

Whether or not you're an expert on the oppression facing the Oromo people or the situation in Ethiopia, a man risked his life to draw attention to this issue.

Lilesa could have run the race, accepted his silver medal, and returned home hoping that his status as a sports hero would provide him relative safety. But for the sake of his people, he took action. If his action doesn't bring attention to what is seemingly a horrific abuse of human rights, is it all for naught?

Hopefully, this action, performed before a global audience, will inspire support for his cause.

As for what needs to happen in Ethiopia, HRW has some strong suggestions:

"Ethiopia’s brutal crackdown also warrants a much stronger, united response from the international community. While the European Parliament has passed a strong resolution condemning the crackdown and another resolution has been introduced in the United States Senate, these are exceptions in an otherwise severely muted international response to the crackdown in Oromia. Ethiopian repression poses a serious threat to the country’s long-term stability and economic ambitions. Concerted international pressure on the Ethiopian government to support a credible and independent investigation is essential. Given that a national process is unlikely to be viewed as sufficiently independent of the government, the inquiry should have an international component. Finally, Ethiopia’s international development partners should also reassess their development programming in Oromia to ensure that aid is not being used – directly, indirectly or inadvertently – to facilitate the forced displacement of populations in violation of Ethiopian and international law."

Additionally, HRW urges the country to drop charges against detained protesters, support an independent and transparent investigation into the government's use of force, prosecute those responsible for abuse, and work to restore trust between the Oromo people and the government.

Photo by Oliver Morin/AFP/Getty Images.

You can help ensure that Lilesa's message doesn't go unheard.

You can learn more about what's happening in Ethiopia; you can share your findings; you can write your representatives in Congress to let them know this matters to you. You can help ensure that his actions weren't in vain.