P
Petergee
Guest
Yes, that’s the theory behind why some militant Black activists refer to themselves as “N****rs”, to “take back” the offensive expression. IMO this strategy rarely works. It doesn’t seem to have reduced prejudice against Black people.To be sure – but does it really matter? I mean, is it really an insult if we don’t care? There is nothing inherently offensive about the term, as there are with some racial epithets, so I see no reason not to adopt it as ours.
That’s how we beat 'em – say, “So what?”
Peace,
Dante
And there is nothing “inherently offensive” about “n****r”. After all it’s basically just the Latin word for “black” - a purely descriptive term. The offence comes from its historical cultural association with racism and racial slavery.
OTOH “Roman Catholic”, “Roman Catholic Church” and “Roman Catholicism”, are inherently offensive. They imply that the Catholic Church is not the real Catholic Church, or at best that it is only one of several “Catholic Churches” with different doctrines. And also that it has no rights, jurisdiction, or even right to exist outside the city of Rome and its immediate environs.
Yes I’m aware that some Catholics in the US have recently chosen to refer to themselves as “Roman Catholic”, some even seeing this as a better description than the simply true “Catholic”. IMO this is a mistake which can only cause confusion and offence.
If someone doesn’t understand what you mean when you say “Catholic”, then amplify it to “belonging to the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. Adding “Roman” is neither necessary nor desirable.
you find the very early church to be awfully catholic. So, since “this is my bible. I am who it says I am. I am not who it says I am not”, is Joel Osteen … incomplete? Apparently, his latest book is about denying self, picking up your cross and suffering unto death like Christ. It’s titled: “Being a better you”???
