Rachel’s Tavern- Shakesville Comment on Whiteness and Racial Awareness
- Arrested for BAHWB (Being at Home While Black)
- John Hope Franklin Has Died
- Bottles, Breasts, and Mothering “Choices”
- NAACP Class Action Lawsuit on Subprime Loans
- We Have a Future Blogger
- I’m Afraid President Obama, Himself, is a Bit of Coward on the Race Issue
- Highly Skilled US Immigrants are Emigrating: What’s the deal?
- Troll Comments Galore
- Mark’s Spinach Face
Feb
3
“What cracker is this?”
Filed Under Blackface Parties, Class Classism and Economic Inequality, Race and Racism by atlasien
(being a post by atlasien on the race and class dimensions of the word “cracker”)
In north Florida and south Georgia, the word cracker usually isnt used as a slur. In fact, it can be a point of ethnic, regional pride. You might hear, my family are real Florida crackers. It means theyre not newcomers; that theyre descended from Scots-Irish settlers and have roots in the region that are centuries old. It means their family had a poor rural background but pride in their history. In a bright-shiny-bring-on-the-new-and-pave-over-everything state like Florida, this is a fairly meaningful statement.
Theres a Florida Cracker Museum and a Cracker Heritage Festival.
Ive heard the story that many of the Crackers were muledrivers in the Civil War, and got the name from the crack of their whips. Another common claim is that crackers were plantation overseers and the crack of their whip was directed onto slaves. However, thats just pure wishful thinking by people who want to make the term simpler to use as a slur. The true origin of the word is mildly insulting but has nothing to do with whips.
From the New Georgia Encyclopedia:
Linguists now believe the original root to be the Gaelic craic, still used in Ireland (anglicized in spelling to crack) for “entertaining conversation.” The English meaning of cracker as a braggart appears by Elizabethan times, as, for example, in Shakespeare’s King John (1595): “What cracker is this . . . that deafes our ears / With this abundance of superfluous breath?”
By the 1760s the English, both at home and in colonial America, were applying the term to Scots-Irish settlers of the southern backcountry, as in this passage from a letter to the earl of Dartmouth: “I should explain to your Lordship what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode.” The word then came to be associated with the cowboys of Georgia and Florida, many of them descendants of those early frontiersmen.
The word cracker has had a second life as a racial slur. Its had more staying power than other attempts at racial slurs for white people. I believe the reason is that its not purely a racial slur. Its a classist insult in complicated disguise.
When used by a black person (or other person of color, but its most common among black people) against a white person, its meant as an insult, of course. The primary intent is to throw the persons whiteness in their face. But thats really no great accomplishment.
Racial slurs are powerful because they create a feedback loop of otherness and exclusion. A word like n***er or ch**k draws on a pre-established racial hierarchy to encapsulate a powerful message: you are different, you do not belong, Im on high and you are low, Im on the inside and you are on the outside, I matter and you dont. A slur against white people simply cant accomplish that. You might as well say, youre you’re… a white person! Yes, the white person is reminded that they belong to a race, and that youre trying to exclude them from something by insulting them. That racialization might hurt, but society as a whole doesnt reinforce racialization on white people, and theyre much more free to deny that their race matters. The exclusion might hurt, too. But the white person is being excluded from a specific place (the general vicinity of the person of color that called them a cracker) and not that extra level of exclusion, exclusion from an existence that matters.
This is why any racial slur against white people is never as powerful, in itself, as other kinds of racial slurs.
The word cracker has a little extra element, however, because of its class dimension. The person using the insult is really trying to say something like you, white person, who think you are so above me by being white, well youre not so smart and fresh and civilized as your whiteness would suggest, there are low class white people less civilized than I am, and you may as well be one of those lower class people!
The message is somewhat tortured, so its effectiveness is variable.
Like the term white trash, cracker has a parallel use by white people against other white people. In fact, this use might be the most common one. This way, its a pure class insult, and much more effective. A white person who comes from a poor rural background and moves to a different environment has to face a lot of judgments and maybe slurs of this nature. It can be psychologically devastating. When wielded by a person accepted to be of a higher social class, the effect is very similar to a racial slur: you are different, you do not belong, Im on high and you are low
I would hate to ever use the word cracker as an insult, primarily because I dont think its fair to those white working-class people. Some of them are good people, some of them are ignorant people, some of them are terrible people, some of them are racists and some of them are fairly enlightened. I dont think theyre the scum of the earth and Im sad that some people think they are.
Ive noticed that people protesting the loudest against use of the word cracker dont make class arguments. They also don’t protest against the use of the term “white trash”. Instead, they make racism-equivalence arguments to try and prove the people of color are persecuting them. Why dont I get to be a victim too, goddamnit!
I think these are the kind of people who watched the trailer for the movie White Chicks and thought hah, another stupid Wayans Brothers movie then instantly forgot about it, until years later when they heard about some white college students getting in trouble for a blackface party, and then decided that White Chicks was obviously the first offensive in an upcoming race war, a politically correct Triumph of the Will, and much more evil and terrible and cruel than anything a white person has ever done to a black person.
Then they complain about the word cracker and then they go have lunch at the Cracker Barrel.
Comments
14 Responses to ““What cracker is this?””
Leave a Reply
“Then they complain about the word cracker and then they go have lunch at the Cracker Barrel.”
Until there’s a professional football team named the Crackers, complete with a logo of a guy in a wife-beater Confederate battleflag t-shirt over a beer gut, then I won’t be very sympathetic.
More history:
“The Atlanta Crackers (distinct from the Atlanta Black Crackers) were minor league baseball teams based in Atlanta, Georgia between 1901 and 1965.”
The Atlanta Crackers (distinct from the Atlanta Black Crackers) were minor league baseball teams based in Atlanta, Georgia between 1901 and 1965.
*Hangs head in shame*
This reminds me of a minor kerfluffle on a message board a while back. People were upset during the Katrina migration because folks in Houston referred to the folk from Louisiana as ‘coon asses.’ They thought it was some type of racial slur. Anyone who has spent any time in the region knows that folks there routinely call themselves that. As I understand it, it’s a corruption of a French word and typically applies to those of Cajun (Acadian) extraction.
My father’s best friend routinely referred to himself as a ‘cracker,’ and I’ve heard other whites in my rural community use it as well. I’ve never used it as a racial slur, but then I’ve never used any racial slurs.
Oh, and I knew about the baseball teams. I was going to mention it if you didn’t.
I agree it’s ridiculous of white people to try to make themselves victims were they aren’t. But in my personal experience – from outside the USA – I’m often on field research in East Africa (I’m a linguist and speak several local languages) where one can never escape the Swahili word “mzungu” which means white person. There are two uses of this word a neutral one which is annoying but not victimizing – for example kids will scream mzungu whenever seeing a white person and their parents will often even tell them to come look at the “whitey” using that word! The word isn’t an insult, in fact if i have to describe myself i would also have to use it. But i’ve heard it shouted at me many times in nasty contexts – for example by children throwing rubbish at me, or screaming after me that the white girl is a slut (neither warranted by how i dress nor my behaviour…), or ugly, or unable to walk properly. Then i definitely feel the victim of racism. Although of course in most places/situations in East Africa (like everywhere else) there are many unfair privileges extended to whites (especially by other whites). Still i think racist slurs can easily be effective against anyone who happens to be the visibly different minority in any given situation.
That aside, I am currently living in a country where blackface is part of a nationally celebrated December holiday (for which shops get decorated with caricature dolls of africans) – the Netherlands. It’s very disturbing and if you challenge this you are also likely to hear people argue in similar ways to the “white chicks” pseudo-victim reasoning.
Remember the Fightin’ Whiteys? We can also be labeled as “peckerwoods”, “trailer-trash”, “po-whites”,”honkeys” and of course “hillbillys”. Those who see us as the other can trot out “gringo”, “goy”, and lately “kuffir”. In my view, how we regard things frequently depends upon whose ox is being gored.
Ah, wasn’t the “Fightin’ Whiteys” a response to offensive depictions of Native Americans as mascots — depictions that Americans chose to sully the new millenium with?
“In my view, how we regard things frequently depends upon whose ox is being gored.”
Explain, pls.
One way to look at racial/class slurs like this is to consider that there are LOTS of people (in fact, a whole culture in country music and comedy) built around whites who proudly self-proclaim themselves “redneck”, “white-trash”, “cracker”, “hillbilly”, “trailer-trash” etc. (And for the record, this self proclamation and pride is not limited to the South, and I have a huge chunk of Southern family so I don’t think of Southerners in those terms anyway.)
Yet, how many people of color do you know who would proudly proclaim “I’m a N*****” or “I’m a Prairie N*****” or “I’m a Towel-Head”, “I’m a wetback”, “I’m a S**c”, “I’m a C***k” and “damn proud of it!”?
What does it say about the terms as “derogatory” when they have been accepted as a non-derogatory term by the people themselves? And that they have the privelage to determine the term is non-derogatory and meaningless when a person of color tries to use the term against them in a derogatory manner?
You know this is the exact same argument used against black people for a certain subset’s reappropriation of the n-word, right, Aaminah? Those folks have a ton of pop culture exhibit A-Zs to reference, as well. I’ve never been in a situation where someone’s used the exact phrase “I’m a n****, and damn proud of it!”, but I do remember when another black person tried to come to me with that “What’s up my n****?” stuff, I told him not to call me that, and he then asserted that “You(‘re) a n****”, in a way that seemed to strongly suggest that there was no problem with being a n**** beyond the one in my head.
I think the difference is that there is no purely positive use of n*****. When a black person uses it, they’re referencing it as a slur in some way. The message is more like “we’re in this together — I’m like you — we both get the brunt of this”. I think it’s more similar to women calling each other “bitches” in a friendly way.
“Cracker” is both a true positive word AND a slur. So it’s actually a bit more complicated…
Dana, I’m not okay with how some Black people “reappropriate” the N word either, but as a non-Black person I’m careful about not getting into that argument with them. And I’m not okay with what atlasien mentions about women’s use of bitch either. Especially because I find it is extremely rare that it isn’t actually intended as an underhanded insult anyway. But you know what, those are still the only two groups who have done this “reappropriation”. I know alot of Mexicans and other Hispanic immigrants and none of them would ever refer to themselves as wetbacks and call it “reappropriation”. Same for any other group and the term used against them.
Either way, you totally missed my point. I wasn’t saying that it is okay for people to call white people cracker, redneck or anything else. I personally think resorting to name calling is juvenile and shows a lack of ability to intelligently convey one’s thoughts and feelings. What I was pointing out is the significant difference in the privelage to make the words relatively innocuous. See, a Black man may think he is “reappropriating” the term when he uses it, but he will still be offended if a white person used it. And rightfully so. But a white person is not hurt by that black man calling him anything, because as someone else mentioned, it doesn’t affect his view of himself and his world. The white man is still on top. We don’t have a whole host of white children dealing with the psychological damage of having been called a honkey or redneck (though I will say there is damage along class lines in relation to things like “trailer trash” and that shouldn’t be minimized, in the end they are still more privelaged by being white than their of color peers) but we do have generations of children of color who feel inadequate etc. because of the verbal beatings they have taken and the realization that this is how they will always and forever be viewed in society.
I wasn’t drawing a conclusion, I was offering questions. What does it mean that white people are able to completely turn around the value of the “derogatory” terms used about them and cause those terms to completely lose their effectiveness, but people of color cannot do the same? And I’m not suggesting that PoC should do that, should reappropriate those terms and make them harmless, because I don’t think we should. But I am questionning the inherent disparity in the fact that white people are able to do that for themselves and what that means on a larger level.
Dana – If memory serves, the “Fightin Whitey” brand was indeed developed as a response to names such as the “Redskins”, “Braves”, “Indians”,
“Warriors”, etc. used by professional, college and high school teams. I’m not certain if the intent was merely to draw attention to offensive depictions, inflict a little retaliatory pain on white folks, have a laff, or perhaps a bit of all 3. While I imagine very few whites were offended, many (myself included) got a kick out of the campaign and the products that were sold as an adjunct to it. My reference to oxen was meant to convey that we tend to be more sensitive to terms applied to our own group. Aaminah raises an interesting point about the relative potency of ethnic/racial /religious terminology when the putative target is not offended despite intent.
It was an attempt to call attention to offensive depictions by turning it on its head, and you’re right, it failed. Some white people thought it was funny and even put orders in for T-shirts.
Here’s an excerpt from a Tim Wise article about it. *I can has article reproduction?*
“Indian students at Northern Colorado University, fed up by the unwillingness of white school district administrators in Greeley to change the name and grotesque Indian caricature of the Eaton High School Reds, recently set out to flip the script on the common practice of mascot-oriented racism.
Thinking they would show white folks what its like to be in their shoes and experience the objectification of being a team icon, indigenous members of an intramural basketball team renamed themselves the Fightin Whiteys, and donned t-shirts with the team mascot: a 1950s-style caricature of a suburban, middle class white guy, next to the phrase every thangs gonna be all white.
Funny though the effort was, it has not only failed to make the point intended, but indeed has been met with laughter and even outright support by white folks. Rush Limbaugh actually advertised for the teams t-shirts on his radio program, and whites from coast to coast have been requesting team gear, thinking it funny to be turned into a mascot, as opposed to demeaning.
Of course the difference is that its tough to negatively objectify a group whose power and position allows them to define the meaning of another groups attempts at humor: in this case the attempt by Indians to teach them a lesson. Its tough to school the headmaster, in other words.
Objectification works against the disempowered because they are disempowered. The process doesnt work in reverse, or at least, making it work is a lot tougher than one might think.
Turning Indians into mascots has been offensive precisely because it is a continuation of the dehumanization of such persons over many centuries; the perpetuation of the mentality of colonization and conquest.
It is not as if one groupwhitesmerely chose to turn another groupIndiansinto mascots. Rather, it is that one group, whites, have consistently viewed Indians as less than fully human, as savage, as wild, and have been able to not merely portray such imagery on athletic banners and uniforms, but in history books and literature more crucially.
In the case of the students at Northern, they would need to be a lot more acerbic in their appraisal of whites, in order for their attempts at reverse racism to make the point intended. After all, fightin is not a negative trait in the eyes of most white folks, and the 1950s iconography chosen for the uniforms was unlikely to be seen as that big a deal.
Perhaps if they had settled on slave-owning whiteys, or murdering whiteys, or land-stealing whiteys, or smallpox-giving-on-purpose whiteys, or Native-people-butchering whiteys, or mass raping whiteys, the point would have been made.
And instead of a smiling company man logo, perhaps a Klansman, or skinhead as representative of the white race: now that would have been a nice functional equivalent of the screaming Indian warrior. But see, you gotta go strong to turn the tables on the man, and ironic sarcasm just aint gonna get it nine times out of ten.
Without the power to define another groups reality, Indian activists are simply incapable of turning the tables by way of well-placed humor.
Simply put, what separates white racism from any other form, and what makes anti-black, anti-brown, anti-yellow, or anti-red humor more biting and more dangerous than its anti-white equivalent is the ability of the former to become lodged in the minds of and perceptions of the citizenry.
White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say Indians are savages (be they of the noble or vicious type), then by God, theyll be seen as savages. If Indians say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell is going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating, after all.”