Ho, Ho, Ho: The End of Racism and Sexism

The twin specters of racism and sexism have plagued mankind, uh,
humanity since caveman, uh, caveperson days. Just when we
thought we might have to endure another forty or fifty thousand years of
patriarchal white supremacy, along comes the visionaries our planet has
yearned for: Russell Simmons and Benjamin Chavis.

Leaders of the influential Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, Simmons and Chavis have put forth a solution so simple even a cracker, oops, an uneducated white person might understand it. If a word offends you or anyone you know, ban it. (Man, why didn’t Malcolm X and Gloria Steinem think of that?) In particular, our hip-hop heroes are targeting three specific words. I’ll write them now before they’re outlawed: bitch, ho, and nigger (a.k.a. the N-Word). Go ahead, beyotches, yell ’em long and loud now because if society follows the sage advice of Messrs. Simmons and Chavis, the next “ho” out of your mouth might get you a taste of the Don Imus treatment.

“These three words should be considered with the same objections to
obscenity as ‘extreme curse words,’ ” say Simmons and Chavis but, in
fairness, these two philosophers can’t take all the credit. The New York
City Council, in its infinite wisdom, recently conjured up a plan to end
racism as we know it: ban niggers. I mean: ban “nigger.” (My bad.) What
better way for elected officials to spread democracy than to forbid the use
of certain words? “Our internal discussions with industry leaders are not
about censorship,” Simmons and Chavis assure us.

I say, why stop with bitches, ho’s, and niggers? Let’s take this strategy to
its natural conclusion and ban “war” and “poverty” and “rape” and “genocide” and “oppression,” We’ll even ban “global warming” if Al Gore promises to finally shut his redneck mouth (all right, perhaps we’ll ban “redneck,” too). Shit, after only an hour or so of work, the planet will be a goddamned equalitarian paradise and we can all get back to our couches, our flat-screens, and our remote controls.

Of course, it’s not all good news. Like most prophets, Simmons and Chavis are facing resistance. Dog breeders are really bitching, Samuel L. Jackson is petitioning for a “nigga” exemption, and insiders are expecting to hear from lawyers at the North Pole. It appears banning “ho” just might present some copyright issues with a certain fat man in a red suit. Oops, can I still say “fat”?

Mickey Z. is the creator of a podcast called Post-Woke. You can subscribe here. He is also the founder of Helping Homeless Women - NYC, offering direct relief to women on New York City streets. Spread the word. Read other articles by Mickey.

11 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. H. Lewis Smith said on May 1st, 2007 at 11:38am #

    Hey Mickey, you over-looked the NAACP’s mock burial of the n-word funeral that’s coming up this summer. You also allowed United Voices for a Common Cause, Inc. to slip under the radar screen as well. Stay tuned my friend, this thing hasn’t even got started yet…the best is yet to come.

  2. Adonis Tate said on May 3rd, 2007 at 12:02am #

    Yes! If a discernable backlash from Black people follows any utterance of these slurs by Black celebrities, then I’ll abhor future Imuses. Death to the double standards!

  3. Janus said on May 17th, 2007 at 3:44am #

    So if nigger, ho, and bitch are banned, can I still use jigaboo and slut? Oh and has honky been banned?

  4. Daniel said on June 9th, 2007 at 4:04pm #

    This polemic by Mickey Z must be listed under the term “racism” because it is a classic example thereof. Or does Dissident Voice actually expect reader to take this ignorant and immature rant by a privileged white-male as a serious critique?

    This is really the sort of thing I’d expect from one of those right-wing, libertarian websites. The ones that are always ranting about how affirmative action is discrimination against white-male and other backlash BS. But, hey, here it is on a self-proclaimed radical left website, an article by a white-male embracing and safeguarding his status as a member of that privileged group.

    To me, the practical effect of this article is that the author is ensuring that white-males like him retain the authority to name Blacks and women. After all, white-males created niggers, bitches and hoes. These are their words. It is repugnant that Mickey Z would pen an article defending his use of these slurs.

    Equally offensive, of course, are the three comments following the article. First, an attack on those Black organizations organizing resistance to the oppressive names assigned to them by the privilege group. Then, an obtuse comment that uses the term “backlash” in furtherance of true backlash, with some BS about “double standards.” And a third person who just can’t resist an opportunity to throw in a few more epithet.

    The article and comments trivialize both racism and sexism. As if terms like “cracker” and “honky” have any real power. How easy it is for people with male bodies and white skin to refuse to listen to women and people of color. How hard it is for those same folks to give up their self-defined authority to name the “other.”

    And, no, I’m not missing the point. Don’t give me that bullshit about freedom of speech and the First Amendment. We all know that shit never included women and people of color. This article’s real message is white-male supremacy.

  5. constintina said on June 9th, 2007 at 5:39pm #

    2nd what Daniel said.

    This sounds like xeroxed Rush Limbaugh. Why is this on a website called “Dissident Voices”? Is it a parody?

    Why is anyone even excited? Dude didn’t even lay out some thrilling craszyass apocalyptic shit like the Xian right would in their bizarre, paranoid rantings. The “Don Imus treatment”? What, you scared “they” are gonna take away your radio show?

  6. Catherine said on June 9th, 2007 at 7:24pm #

    The Don Imus treatment? Give me a break! If a person can’t express their viewpoints without using those words, why exactly should that person be guaranteed employment? That’s what this is about after all. It’s not like someone is going to be thrown in jail for saying “nigger”, “bitch,” or “ho.” The issue at hand is whether or not a person who throws those words around should be given a platform to do so. You can say whatever you please, but no one is obligated to provide you with your own radio show or a recording contract.

  7. Mickey Z. said on June 9th, 2007 at 7:55pm #

    Wassup, niggaz?

  8. Anna said on June 10th, 2007 at 3:10am #

    Oh wow, the sky is falling! The sky is falling! Why, if we let gay people marry, people will be marrying their *dogs* next!

    That is the sort of analogy you were making, right? Because gosh darn it, if we say you can’t call people racist slurs anymore, next thing you know, people won’t be able to go around talking about important social issues using words that aren’t demeaning! Oh no!

  9. shewhohashope said on June 15th, 2007 at 7:10am #

    “Wassup, niggaz?”

    It’s admirable that you respond to well-reasoned comments with such flair and intelligence.


  10. rafter said on June 17th, 2007 at 1:19pm #

    This site is clearly a biting satire of the hopelessly blindered white left – like a more pointed version of blackpeopleloveus.com.

    Thank goodness that my first visit to the site was to see this piece by “Mickey Z,” such an absurd parody of the entitlement issues, and poor critical thinking that attend them, of the white “progressive” community. If I had stumbled on to some less obviously satirical piece, I might have gotten my hopes up for a second that I had found a source for some real insight and critical analysis. Imagine the let down of discovering it was really all a cruel joke! No such danger now!

  11. futurebird said on June 23rd, 2007 at 5:48pm #

    “It is repugnant that Mickey Z would pen an article defending his use of these slurs.”

    I agree. People can (and will) say what they want, but the words you choose have meaning and weight, and you must deal with the response other people have to the words you use. Here is my response.

    It’s really hard to turn the tide on these words in the black community– youth enjoy the power these words have to shock and scare people for some it’s the only “power” they have. But they really are degrading and I think that we should support the movement that has been building up in the black community for ***years*** to make these words unacceptable.

    I’m asking you now: Please stop tossing this ugly word around. It’s not funny. It’s insulting. It’s a bad way to make your point. Okay? Do you get it?

    It’s not even that I don’t agree with the point you’re making about the uselessness of banning words. I do agree. What offends me is the way that you have chosen to make your point.

    You’ve proved you have “freedom” with this post, but do you posses the responsibility and intelligence to use the freedom?