 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Ma Rainey's Black Bottom
I have to admit to having been unfamiliar with the work of August Wilson. Yesterday we saw a performance of "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom" at the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester. It's a tribute to the quality of the largely British cast that the presence of Huggy Bear as "Toledo" seemed entirely unremarkable. Although to my mind, the performance of Wyllie Longmore as Cutler stood out from the rest. The play is set in Chicago in 1927 but the protagonists have come from all over the US. It seemed to me that the accents slipped a little from time to time, and tended to wander towards the Caribbean (which is a familiar accent for many British Black people). Would poor "jug band" musicians have had the same accents as those around them at this time? The play explores the place of black people in US society at that time, and much of the time is covered by the band members talking about their experiences with the white man. It's worth commenting on the use of "nigger". Each of the black performers used the word in a way we might now say "mate" or "chum", and also to refer to other black people. For stretches of the play, "nigger" appeared in every sentence. You can see some of the script in Google Books: http://www.amazon.com/Ma-Raineys-Black-Bottom-Play/dp/0452261139 and you'll see what I mean if you search the script. I'm curious about how this would go down elsewhere in the 21st Century. Would some societies find this too uncomfortable?  SignatureDavid ===== >It's worth commenting on the use of "nigger". Each of the black >performers used the word in a way we might now say "mate" or "chum", [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I'm curious about how this would go down elsewhere in the 21st >Century. Would some societies find this too uncomfortable? If black performers use the word today, it seems to be quite acceptable to black audiences. There are many comedy programs on HBO of the type where there is a host and several different comedians do a so-many minute performance. Take away the words "nigger" and "f.ck", and a three minute act could be delivered on a bicycle as the performer rides once across the stage. Rarely, though, will a white comedian use "nigger" in his/her act. It seems to be a case of "I can but you can't". White comedians can use "redneck", though. Indeed, Jeff Foxworthy has made a career out of it. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: > >It's worth commenting on the use of "nigger". Each of the black > >performers used the word in a way we might now say "mate" or "chum", [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "redneck", though. Indeed, Jeff Foxworthy has made a career out of > it. OK, but this wasn't a comedy act but a serious drama in front of a live Manchester audience. SignatureDavid ===== >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >OK, but this wasn't a comedy act but a serious drama in front of a >live Manchester audience. My point was that the word is usable if the speaker and the audience are black. It doesn't make a difference if the context is comedy or drama. If the speaker is black and the audience is white, the usage might make some in the audience uncomfortable. It doesn't make sense to me that black people can use a word that white people can't use, or that black people are not offended by a black person using a word that is offensive when a white person uses it, but that's the way it is. Wanda Sykes can say "The barbershop is the nigger's social club" and get a genuine laugh from black people and an embarrassed titter from a white member of the audience. If you're not familiar with Wanda, see her at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVA9hmGJlr4 or listen to her at: http://www.wandasykes.com/media.php Neither site uses "nigger", but Wanda often does in her act. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: > >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > are black. It doesn't make a difference if the context is comedy or > drama. The actors were black, portraying 1920s black people in Chicago. The audience was the rainbow nation which is Manchester, although it's fair to assume that it leant towards the middle classes, no matter what colour the skin. > If the speaker is black and the audience is white, the usage might > make some in the audience uncomfortable. It doesn't make sense to me > that black people can use a word that white people can't use, or that > black people are not offended by a black person using a word that is > offensive when a white person uses it, but that's the way it is. I doubt if anybody was offended, although it was slightly startling to hear the first 20 or so "nigger"s. After a couple of hundred times, it lost any power to shock which it might have had. SignatureDavid ===== the Omrud filted: >I doubt if anybody was offended, although it was slightly startling >to hear the first 20 or so "nigger"s. After a couple of hundred >times, it lost any power to shock which it might have had. So Lenny Bruce was right....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. >the Omrud filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So Lenny Bruce was right....r So was Mario Savio ... ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: >> My point was that the word is usable if the speaker and the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it's fair to assume that it leant towards the middle classes, no > matter what colour the skin. The audience for the person on stage speaking is the other people on stage. There's a polite fiction in most plays that the characters are unaware of the people sitting in the seats watching them. Today, and I'd guess in the '20s, (some) blacks (would) use the word among themselves. They wouldn't have used it around whites. I've always taken it to be something like "we're all just 'niggers' as far as whites are concerned. [snip] > I doubt if anybody was offended, although it was slightly startling > to hear the first 20 or so "nigger"s. After a couple of hundred > times, it lost any power to shock which it might have had. I suspect that that's not actually true. If a white character had called one of the black characters a "nigger", it would probably have been shocking again. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If we have to re-invent the wheel, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can we at least make it round this Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time? kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> had it: > > I doubt if anybody was offended, although it was slightly startling > > to hear the first 20 or so "nigger"s. After a couple of hundred [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > called one of the black characters a "nigger", it would probably have > been shocking again. I don't disagree, and I wondered about this myself. But my meaning was that the shock value was lost in the context of how the word was repeated by characters in the context of the characters' use. A different use might have brought it to the fore again. SignatureDavid ===== > ... It doesn't make sense to me > that black people can use a word that white people can't use ... For the longest time white people could use bathrooms that black people could not. How did that sit with you? SignatureGood luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare >> ... It doesn't make sense to me >> that black people can use a word that white people can't use ... > >For the longest time white people could use bathrooms that black people >could not. How did that sit with you? But they were allowed to use the word "bathroom". Even in the Deep South. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > ..... It doesn't make sense to me > that black people can use a word that white people can't use, or that > black people are not offended by a black person using a word that is > offensive when a white person uses it, but that's the way it is. ----------------- (First let me make it clear that I don't think *anyone* of any complexion should be using that word in 2006, and I'm old enough to remember the time when Richard Pryor announced, after a trip to Africa, that he wouldn't be using it in his act any more.) However, it occurred to me that there are words which adults can use but children cannot, so maybe that's a precedent. DianeE DianeE <TiredOfSpam@SorryFolks.com> had it: > > ..... It doesn't make sense to me > > that black people can use a word that white people can't use, or that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when Richard Pryor announced, after a trip to Africa, that he wouldn't be > using it in his act any more.) That's the sort of thing I was interested in. As I explained, a play is being performed in Manchester this month which was written by a US black man in the 1970s and which portrays black people in Chicago in 1927, talking in their common language in which (it seems) "nigger" was an everyday word. Is it your view that it is a) not acceptable to perform this play, b) that the word "nigger" should be expunged or replaced, or c) something else? In other words, what do you mean by "using"? SignatureDavid ===== > DianeE <TiredOfSpam@SorryFolks.com> had it: > > (First let me make it clear that I don't think *anyone* of any complexion [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > In other words, what do you mean by "using"? ------------- I don't believe in censorship except under extraordinary circumstances (that are tantamount to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater). Nevertheless I'm uncomfortable with the thought of young and/or impressionable people seeing anything that seems to legitimize the use of racial epithets. So the answer is "something else." Some sort of Black Box Warning or disclaimer, I suppose. DianeE DianeE <TiredOfSpam@SorryFolks.com> had it: > > DianeE <TiredOfSpam@SorryFolks.com> had it: > > > (First let me make it clear that I don't think *anyone* of any [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > is "something else." Some sort of Black Box Warning or disclaimer, I > suppose. Thanks. There were, as far as I noticed, no warnings on any of the publicity. SignatureDavid ===== >> DianeE <TiredOfSpam@SorryFolks.com> had it: >> > (First let me make it clear that I don't think *anyone* of any [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >is "something else." Some sort of Black Box Warning or disclaimer, I >suppose. As soon as "Ma Rainey's" cleaned-up version closes, the next play - "Kristallnacht Kapers" - will open. It's a play set in 1938 Germany about some disgruntled citizens who held a protest over shopkeeper's prices. That will be followed by "Cromwell's Day In Youghal"; the story of a military officer who fined all of the residents of an Irish town for not being hospitable to English tourists. History should never be ugly. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > >> DianeE <TiredOfSpam@SorryFolks.com> had it: > >> > (First let me make it clear that I don't think *anyone* of any [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > History should never be ugly. --------------- Were you addressing these sarcastic comments to me? They'd be apropos if I'd chosen option "(b)," but I didn't. DianeE > DianeE <TiredOfSpam@SorryFolks.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that the word "nigger" should be expunged or replaced, or c) > something else? I always figure you can, theoretically, *say* anything. But you should be prepared to be punched in the nose. > In other words, what do you mean by "using"? I think there is the historical exception -- you should be able to teach and perform works that use these words in a historical context. But not everyone agrees. There are those, I'm told, who have banned the book "Huck Finn" from schools because its plentiful use of the word "nigger". They figure they'll generate less trouble by banning it than by teaching it. This list of banned books gives only two instances of "Huck Finn" being banned -- I hope that is complete. http://banned-books.com/bblista-i.html I think there can be a sort of self-censorship where many English teachers and English departments decide avoid trouble and not to teach it this year. I just read "Heart of Darkness" -- there are at least a dozen uses of "nigger" there, too. The horror, the horror... SignatureBest - Donna Richoux Donna Richoux wrote, in <1hoqt27.to2zx619bjurkN%trio@euronet.nl> on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:45:13 +0100: > I just read "Heart of Darkness" -- there are at least a dozen uses of > "nigger" there, too. The horror, the horror... If you are going to bring in Conrad, how about "The Nigger of the Narcissus"? SignatureNick Spalding > Donna Richoux wrote, in <1hoqt27.to2zx619bjurkN%trio@euronet.nl> > on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:45:13 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you are going to bring in Conrad, how about "The Nigger of the > Narcissus"? I'm pretty sure that wasn't listed in our deck of "Authors" cards. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote [...] > My point was that the word is usable if the speaker and the > audience are black. It doesn't make a difference if the context [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > person using a word that is offensive when a white person uses > it, but that's the way it is. Some (I don't have quantitative data, only anecdotal evidence) black people are just as offended by that word no matter who uses it, but they are in the minority, and we know what kind of weight minorities have in all comnmunities everywhere in the world. In some, it is just enough to justify a gibbet. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." >> Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: >>> Rarely, though, will a white comedian use "nigger" in his/her act. It >>> seems to be a case of "I can but you can't". White comedians can use >>> "redneck", though. Indeed, Jeff Foxworthy has made a career out of >>> it. >> OK, but this wasn't a comedy act but a serious drama in front of a >> live Manchester audience. > My point was that the word is usable if the speaker and the audience > are black. It doesn't make a difference if the context is comedy or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > get a genuine laugh from black people and an embarrassed titter from a > white member of the audience. A staple of comedy in the past was comedy based on ethnic stereotypes. This is now considered offensive, but the jokes are still funny, so we get round the problem by allowing them so long as they are told by a person of the same ethnicity as the stereotype. So now only Irish people can tell Irish jokes, only Jewish people can tell Jewish jokes, etc. A black comedian can make remarks which play on stereotypical black situations, even using words which would be offensive if used by anyone else. Look, I even do it myself, I joke about myself being a "Papist", but I'd know it was meant to be offensive if Ian Paisley used the word. Matthew Huntbach } On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Tony Cooper wrote: ... }> My point was that the word is usable if the speaker and the audience }> are black. It doesn't make a difference if the context is comedy or }> drama. ... } A black comedian can make remarks which play on stereotypical black } situations, even using words which would be offensive if used by anyone } else. Look, I even do it myself, I joke about myself being a "Papist", } but I'd know it was meant to be offensive if Ian Paisley used the word. Good point. I'm guessing that you can appreciate now the application of the principle to the epithet "pro-abortionist". Myself, I only admit to being pro-death. Wasn't it someone who said, "Where there is death, there is hope"? Signaturerjv > } On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Tony Cooper wrote: > ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > } else. Look, I even do it myself, I joke about myself being a "Papist", > } but I'd know it was meant to be offensive if Ian Paisley used the word. > Good point. I'm guessing that you can appreciate now the application of > the principle to the epithet "pro-abortionist". So you were taking "pro-abortionist" to be a "nigger" word - a word whose usage has become so taken by those who mean to offend by it that even though it has a neutral origin, it could not possibly be used neutrally? If that was your point, we may have been arguing over a pondial difference. I don't think "pro-abortionist" is seen in such terms in the UK. Matthew Huntbach >So you were taking "pro-abortionist" to be a "nigger" word - a word whose usage >has become so taken by those who mean to offend by it that even though it >has a neutral origin, it could not possibly be used neutrally? > >If that was your point, we may have been arguing over a pondial difference. >I don't think "pro-abortionist" is seen in such terms in the UK. From the UK side myself, I think you're wrong about that. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> So you were taking "pro-abortionist" to be a "nigger" word - a word whose usage >> has become so taken by those who mean to offend by it that even though it >> has a neutral origin, it could not possibly be used neutrally? >> >> If that was your point, we may have been arguing over a pondial difference. >> I don't think "pro-abortionist" is seen in such terms in the UK. > From the UK side myself, I think you're wrong about that. Well, if you say so. If I wanted to talk neutrally about the abortion issue, what term should I use? I would avoid "pro-life" and "pro-choice", as these are obviously terms introduced by both sides to make their postion sound the more attractive. So you say I can't use "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion"? I found the argument that "pro-abortion" cannot be used because it suggests the person so described relished the idea of abortion to be ridiculous. Can I now not also say e.g. "pro-capital-punishment", because that suggests someone who relishes the idea of capital punishment rather than someone who believes it to be a sad necessity? Is your argument that "pro-abortion" has become a bad word because of the way it is used by people who are vocally opposed to abortion, or are you suggesting that it must imply (which I wouldn't thnbk it does) something different than "in favour of abortion being a legal and available service"? Matthew Huntbach >>> So you were taking "pro-abortionist" to be a "nigger" word - a >>> word whose usage has become so taken by those who mean to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > wouldn't thnbk it does) something different than "in favour of > abortion being a legal and available service"? Pro-choice and anti-choice are the only two neutral terms for the abortion question. I frankly don't consider capital punishment a "sad" necessity but a just punishment in cases where it seems necessary (but only if it's absolutely 100% certain that the perp committed the crime). I don't believe that it deters anybody not executed from committing similar crimes, though. Some criminals are worse than vermin with ebola. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." >>> So you were taking "pro-abortionist" to be a "nigger" word - a word whose usage >>> has become so taken by those who mean to offend by it that even though it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >postion sound the more attractive. So you say I can't use "pro-abortion" >and "anti-abortion"? I said (and hold) that "pro-abortionist" is unlikely to be used neutrally in the UK. It's that "-ist" on the end which makes the difference. "Pro-abortion" is potentially neutral, depending on who's saying it and in what context; "pro-abortionist" is amost certainly hostile. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>> So you were taking "pro-abortionist" to be a "nigger" word - a word whose usage >>>> has become so taken by those who mean to offend by it that even though it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >neutrally in the UK. It's that "-ist" on the end which makes the >difference. I share your view on this. >"Pro-abortion" is potentially neutral, depending on >who's saying it and in what context; I'm glad you included "potentially". It also depends on who is reading or hearing it. To a person totally opposed to abortion any name applied to those who accept abortion as a legitimate procedure is a label of immorality. Even having a neutral discussion can be seen by them as immoral. >"pro-abortionist" is amost >certainly hostile. Yes. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> Well, if you say so. If I wanted to talk neutrally about the abortion >>> issue, what term should I use? I would avoid "pro-life" and "pro-choice", >>> as these are obviously terms introduced by both sides to make their >>> postion sound the more attractive. So you say I can't use "pro-abortion" >>> and "anti-abortion"? >> I said (and hold) that "pro-abortionist" is unlikely to be used >> neutrally in the UK. It's that "-ist" on the end which makes the >> difference. > I share your view on this. A person who is pro-abortion is a ... ? My point is do the "pro-" prefix and "-ist" suffix really have the meanings which some have suggested makes these terms pejorative, or is it that the use of these terms by people who are anti-abortionists/pro-lifers/anti-choicers (please, someone suggest a genuinely neutral term) has turned them into pejorative words. What I objected to most strongly was the argument that "pro-abortion" could not possible have the meaning "someone who favours abortion being a legal and freely available service". I found the argument given to be daft. Had the argument instead been "this is a word whose neutrality has been compromised by its usage by people who despise those they are using it to refer to", I'd have been happy to agree to its *becoming* non-neutral, but still not to it being instrinsically non-neutral. >> "Pro-abortion" is potentially neutral, depending on >> who's saying it and in what context; > I'm glad you included "potentially". It also depends on who is > reading or hearing it. Yes, so you are accepting my argument that it's not the word itself that is at fault but rather the way some make use of it? > To a person totally opposed to abortion any name applied to those > who accept abortion as a legitimate procedure is a label of > immorality. Even having a neutral discussion can be seen by them as > immoral. Just as to some who are fully supportive of abortion, the issue is so obviously one of free choice that it's inherently immoral (not that they would use that term) to oppose it. Matthew Huntbach > My point is do the "pro-" prefix and "-ist" suffix really have the > meanings which some have suggested makes these terms pejorative, or > is it that the use of these terms by people who are > anti-abortionists/pro-lifers/anti-choicers (please, someone suggest a > genuinely neutral term) has turned them into pejorative words. The difficulty is that every one of these terms, and all of the others that have been proposed, are inherently ambiguous. To me, an outsider to this debate, "pro-life" implies a whole package of opinions (opposition to capital punishment, opposition to euthanasia, in favour of gun control, opposition to contraception, etc.); but for the people involved in the debate it probably means some subset of those opinions. "Anti-abortion" seems at first to be clear-cut, but it has at least two meanings: it could mean "I would never have an abortion", or it could mean "I would never allow anyone else to have an abortion". ("Anti-abortionist" is different again; that's opposition to the doctors who perform the operation.) "Pro-choice" is even vaguer: choice about what? No matter what term you pick, it's possible to pick holes in it. The only way out, it seems to me, is to accept that this is a political argument, and to accept that political labels are rarely accurate. Example: it's difficult to find anyone with liberal attitudes in the Australian Liberal Party, yet I still call them the Liberal Party because that's what they call themselves, and for me to change the name would be confusing. In the same way, all we can sensibly do in an abortion debate is to accept and use the labels that the protagonists themselves have chosen, even when we think that those labels are misleading. Those who have strong feelings about the matter will know who's who anyway. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > I said (and hold) that "pro-abortionist" is unlikely to be used > neutrally in the UK. Does it even make sense? I would think it meant that someone was in favor of doctors who perform abortions. Which I am, I suppose -- in favor of them, that is -- but it's a weird thing to say. SignatureSML In alt.usage.english, Sara Lorimer wrote: >> I said (and hold) that "pro-abortionist" is unlikely to be used >> neutrally in the UK. > >Does it even make sense? I would think it meant that someone was in >favor of doctors who perform abortions. You could parse it as pro-(abortionist) or (pro-abortion)ist. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, Sara Lorimer wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You could parse it as pro-(abortionist) or (pro-abortion)ist. The second possibility seems to require a second hyphen, or (better) the parentheses that you have used. It's a pity that standard English usage does not permit parentheses within a word. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >>> So you were taking "pro-abortionist" to be a "nigger" word - a word whose usage >>> has become so taken by those who mean to offend by it that even though it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >postion sound the more attractive. So you say I can't use "pro-abortion" >and "anti-abortion"? Those terms may not express someone's true feelings. I am, personally, opposed to abortion but I fully understand that sometimes it may be the best of a number of bad options. I would not consider myself "pro-abortion" since it sounds like I want all pregnant women to run out and have an abortion while I'd prefer that none of them did. On the other hand, I am not anti-abortion in all cases. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Well, if you say so. If I wanted to talk neutrally about the abortion >> issue, what term should I use? I would avoid "pro-life" and "pro-choice", >> as these are obviously terms introduced by both sides to make their >> postion sound the more attractive. So you say I can't use "pro-abortion" >> and "anti-abortion"? > Those terms may not express someone's true feelings. I am, > personally, opposed to abortion but I fully understand that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > prefer that none of them did. On the other hand, I am not > anti-abortion in all cases. Yes, that was the argument put previously, that "pro-abortion" was offensive since it implied the person so described wanted all pregnant women to have abortions. I found that a silly argument, since it was not a meaning I had intended, which I thought was obvious as there isn't a large group of people who are "pro-abortion" in that sense. I am pretty sure there are other cases where "pro-X" doesn't mean a belief that X is enjoyable and should be indulged in as often as possible, and does mean there are circumstancess where X is to be accepted, even though it would be better to avoid the things that lead to those circumstances. Matthew Huntbach >>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >Neither site uses "nigger", but Wanda often does in her act. Any number of blacks regularly address another as "nigger", but a white is advised to use the word with discretion, to put it mildly. But sometimes white friends of blacks will be allowed to occasionally join in, in my experience in America. I'd jocularly call one of my closer Navy work mates "nigger" at rare times, but he is the only person who comes to mind who'd let me. SignatureCharles Riggs > Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > OK, but this wasn't a comedy act but a serious drama in front of a > live Manchester audience. It's also used in non-performance social settings between members of the group. And to its appearance in drama and comedy, don't forget to add the lyrics of rap music. A seminal group in that genre was N.W.A.: Niggaz With Attitude, who were, well, straight outta Compton (California). SignatureBlinky RLU 297263 Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >OK, but this wasn't a comedy act but a serious drama in front of a >live Manchester audience. I juat saw Wilson'ts"Jitney" last weekend and he used "nigger" in it too. He's trying to use Black speech as spoken within the Black community. Context is everything. The first word the audience hears during the musical "Showboat" is "nigger", unless it's a sanitized version. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > I have to admit to having been unfamiliar with the work of August > Wilson. Yesterday we saw a performance of "Ma Rainey's Black [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > society at that time, and much of the time is covered by the band > members talking about their experiences with the white man. I don't think Chicago would have had any sizable West Indian population in those days; indeed, it doesn't today. New York is quite a contrast in that respect. Even in the 1920s New York had a large West Indian community. Indeed, when I resided in Chicago (TLCIA) one of the first things that struck me was how different the accents of black Chicagoans were from those of black New Yorkers. I had always been aware that many black New Yorkers with roots in the US South had Southern-influenced speech (for example, use of "y'all"), but I was amazed at how much more Southern Chicago's black speakers sounded. SignatureBuckwheat Soba the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> had it: > It's worth commenting on the use of "nigger". Each of the black > performers used the word in a way we might now say "mate" or "chum", [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm curious about how this would go down elsewhere in the 21st > Century. Would some societies find this too uncomfortable? Ha. There is currently a discussion on the PM programme about a show in the West End called "Pride And Prejudice And Niggas". Of course, this has got on national radio because it's in London. I have replied as much to the PM blog. SignatureDavid ===== In alt.usage.english, the Omrud wrote: >There is currently a discussion on the PM programme about a show >in the West End called "Pride And Prejudice And Niggas". Of course, >this has got on national radio because it's in London. I have >replied as much to the PM blog. A word appearing in the title of the show (and therefore widely seen in publicity, etc) trumps any number of occurrences of that word in the show itself. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England Mike Barnes <mikebarnes@bluebottle.com> had it: > In alt.usage.english, the Omrud wrote: > >There is currently a discussion on the PM programme about a show [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > publicity, etc) trumps any number of occurrences of that word in the > show itself. True. I scale down my protest. SignatureDavid ===== |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.