Potential racism of "auction block"

[James A. Landau]

In a message dated 8/2/02 12:43:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dave at WILTON.NET
writes:

> I don't know about supposed overtones. It certainly is possible that
>  somewhere, sometime back in the 19th century someone used "picnic" as a
>  synonym for lynching. But no one uses it with racist overtones today and it
>  was never widely used as a racist term. Those who object to it don't even
>  claim that people are using it in an offensive manner; rather they claim
>  that the (supposed) origin is what makes it offensive, that people are
>  innocently using an evil word.
>
>  Another term that doesn't seem to raise racial ire is "grandfather clause"
>  (at least I've never heard of anyone objecting to use of the term). This
has
>  a distinct racist origin--the original grandfather clauses were laws in the
>  Southern states that exempted people from such restrictions on suffrage,
>  such as literacy tests and poll taxes, if their grandfather had the right
to
>  vote. This meant that these measures excluded African-Americans, but not
>  whites, even if the whites were illiterate and too poor to pay the poll
tax.
>
>  I am of the mind people postulate origins based on phonetic and
orthographic
>  similarities. Both "picnic" and "nitty-gritty" have syllables that begin
>  with "ni-." And of course mistakes and confusion over "spade" and
>  "niggardly" are legion. But terms like "auction block" and "grandfather
>  clause" don't raise any red flags in this regard.

I pretty much agree with you but I wish to comment that things are more
tangled than you indicate.

It is difficult to use the phrase "auction block" without stating or at least
implying what it is that is being auctioned.  Let me try:  "Nathan Bedford
Forrest had an auction-block mentality."  You will completely miss my meaning
unless you happen to know that Forrest, before he became a general and than a
Ku Klux Klanner, was a slave dealer.

Auctions are such common occurrences that even people who are in the habit of
looking for racial overtones will think "used cars" or "postage stamps"
first.  As for "putting an African-American-owned company on the auction
block", that's not racist, that's a left-handed compliment that said company
is being compared to Enron.

"Grandfather clause" is a rather technical expression that, despite its
origin (I'll take your word for it) as a Segrationist tactic, is used in
enough situations that very few people will automatically think of voting
rights (wrongs?).  E.g. in nursing you sometimes hear that "x nurses have
been grandmothered."  Or several states that have raised the minimum drinking
age from 18 to 21 have "grandfathered" those below 21 when the law was passed
(hence creating a legall class of 18-year-old grandfathers---does Fred
Shapiro have that one in his collection.)

So...context protects all such phrases?  Definitely not.  Consider the word
"spade", which is most often used to mean either a "gravedigger's
bloodstained shovel" or a suit of cards.  However, all you have to do is say
"A spade walked..." and it is obvious you are starting an ethnic slur.  So
context does NOT protect.

Lets try the following:  Begin the sentence "I used a spade to..."  Before
you can get out enough of the rest of the sentence to establish the context,
even a thick-skinned listener is likely to wonder whether you employed a
shovel or are sneering at an African-American.

Or the following: "The picnic grounds at..."  Again, before you establish a
context, the listener might wonder whether the location is a place popular
for outdoor lunches or notorious for having been the site of several
lynchings.

I remember the reaction of a black co-worker when he heard someone refer to a
US Army base in New Jersey known as "Pickatinny Arsenal".  We had to explain
to him that the name was "Pickatinny" and not "Pickaninny Arsenal."  No, he
was not outraged or insulted, but he was most definitely disconcerted.

I think this was the same man who told me the reason "behind the eight ball"
meant trouble was because the eight-ball was black.  (Although neither of us
played pool, we frequently found ourselves near the pool table in the
dayroom.)

I suggest that blacks who dislike the word "picnic" are thinking of
"pickaninny" rather than "lynching."

Then there is the word "n...ardly" which I find embarrassing just to see in
print, and I'm aware of its true etymology.

I have cited my data, now it's up to me to draw conclusions.

OK.  My theory is that whether a pontentially ambiguous word or phrase is
interpreted as an insult depends on whether its insulting meaning is obvious
when it is used shorn of context.

Examples:  say just the words "grandfather clause".  Even if you do so in the
middle of a group of civil rights historians, your listeners are going to
think of their pension plans.  Similarly for "auction block".  Your listeners
will automatically think of how much spare cash they have on them to bid with.

Now say just the word "spade".  Are you surprised that the more thin-skinned
people present will NOT think of shovels?  (This is disregarding the man in
the front row who thinks you said "spayed".)

Now say "n...ardly" and even the visiting Scotsmen aren't going to think you
meant "penurious".

Of course the preceding four examples are clear-cut.  It's anybody's guess
what the reaction would be to "eight ball".

In other words, the reaction to a term depends not on the context it is used
in but rather on the connotations of the term when used standalone.    Some
terms such as 'eight-ball" have a wide variety of connotations to different
people.  Others such the N-word have pretty much a single connotation across
the US.  "N...ardly", which is not a widely used word (probably because of
its too-close similarity to the N-word), is phonetically too close to the
N-word to be used safely.

Have I made myself clear?  I'm not sure I understand what I'm saying here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------

I have this image in my mind of a member of the PC Police walking past a
grocery store and seeing a sign reading "Smoked Picnics"...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------

OT but suggested by the above:  Some time ago it was discussed on the list
why "National Association of Colored People" and "United Negro College Fund"
are acceptable, although certain component parts of their names are not.

The answer is simple:  a GRANDFATHER CLAUSE applies here.  IF the
organization has a proud history for African-Americans, AND the name dates
back to a time when such phrasing was acceptable, than the name remains
acceptable today.  Until the late 1960's "Negro" (spelled with a capital
letter) was the proper term to be used.  Then very suddenly (my recollection,
which may be totally haywire, is that the change came out of nowhere and
became complete within the calendar year 1968) "Negro" was OUT and "black"
was in.  Yet the UNCF is not about to change its name, and nobody is
suggesting that Cooperstown change the title of its extensive exhibits on the
Negro Leagues.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------

I may be imagining things here, but my recollection from growing up in
Kentucky is that the phrase "colored man" did NOT mean "African-American
male" but rather  the much more specific "African-American male employed as a
personal attendant."
What do I mean by "personal attendant"?  A man who is an employee not of a
business but of an individual and who works in the individual's household.  A
male personal servant such as Jack Benny's supposed valet Rochester would
qualify.  But there is also the implication that the employee is rather
highly skilled, e.g. a handyman, a gardener, or a chauffer/mechanic..

I was reminded of this by the movie "Fried Green Tomatoes" in which the
murder victim has an African-American employee who is referred to several
times simply as "his man".

"Colored woman", unlike "colored man", meant simply a "maid" (that is, a
woman who cleans houses) and had the implication of being an UNskilled worker.

        - Jim Landau