Talk:Cracker (pejorative)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cracker (pejorative) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Old discussion archived

Old discussion has been archived and may be accessed in the box at the right. -THB 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced info

Moving to talk page until its sourced:

Other possible theories include references to cracking a whip over oxen when driving to market, the 18th century practice of cracking corn to make liquor, or to poor whites having had to crack their grain because they couldn't afford to take it to the local mill to have it ground.[citation needed]

A popular etymology claims the term cracker originated from piney-woods Georgia and Florida pastoral yeomen's use of whips to drive cattle. The word then came to be associated with the cattlemen of Georgia and Florida. Cattlemen of the state of Florida (and some native born Floridians) take pride in being called "crackers", "Florida Crackers", or "Cracker Cowboys". The Cracker culture included using the bullwhip as a form of communication between cattle drivers, using "Cracks" and pauses to send messages.[citation needed]

A false or folk etymology claims the term dates back to slavery in the antebellum South. Many slaver foremen used bullwhips to terrorize African slaves, and the sound the whip made when it was used as a weapon was called 'cracking' the whip. The foremen who cracked these whips were thus known as 'crackers'. [1]

ThanksJasper23 09:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourced material/Harold Ford Sr.

Properly sourced material should not be removed without discussion. -THB 02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The first source is from an opinion page. Sure, whatever. Put someones opinion in as a cite. However, the you tube cite just wont fly. Its more than likely that he said tracker and not cracker. Otherwise its original research and pov. This is an attack on a living person without substantiated proof, just conjecture.

In October 2006, a Fox news camera captured Harold Ford, Sr. using the term on a cellphone outside the Senatorial campaign headquarters of his son, Harold Ford, Jr. (Video)

Jasper23 02:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you are correct and I apologize. Even the man he said it to said he said "tracker". The two videos are here: [2] -THB 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we say "whitewash?" Dubc0724 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we say "fact checking?" You should give it a try sometime and then retract your whitewash statement. I would venture to guess that you probably wont. Jasper23 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
At the time, nobody was backing up his "tracker" claim. I still don't buy it (kinda like "botched joke") having listened to the clip. But it's really inconsequential at this point. Moving on... Dubc0724 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. Did you read the article linked above? Did you read how all the news networks retracted their claims and how the original instigator of the claim admitted that he was wrong? Probably not. But you still chose to be rude anyway. Great job there. Jasper23 16:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Dubc0724 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't buying it either. But there is a link above in my apology post that even shows the tracker/cracker guy saying that Ford Sr. said "tracker". -THB 19:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British(?) usage

"Crackers" (always in the plural) is a fairly common, though perhaps now slightly old-fashioned, insult in British English, meaning something close to "loony", and with the same level of usually quite mild insult. For example: "He wants to walk to London? The man's clearly crackers!" I have no idea of the etymology, but it has no racist overtones whatever, the racist term being unknown in the UK except where imported from America. Loganberry (Talk) 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is understood, but not often used, in the U.S. in the same manner. -THB 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations missing tag

User THB and I have recently disagreed on whether this article has sufficient references. I've read through the article, and it appears editors have made a successful effort to make sure that majority of the content is scrupulously sourced.

According to THB's recent edit summary, the article "still has many controversial unsourced statements." Many? Really? Besides the lone statement curently marked with the "fact" tag (the part about cracker being similar to redneck, which hardly strikes me as controversial, or even debatable), what specifically are the unsourced statements that we must correct before the tag can be removed? I would love to address "the underlying problem," but I need help identifying precisely what the problem is.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -THB 15:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cracker Party

Rather than cluttering up the article any more than it already is, please see the two references which clearly identify Roy Harris as both the leader of the Augusta "Cracker Party", former speaker of the house for the State of Georgia, and a former state Democratic Convention floor leader. He was also a well known segregationalist.

http://www.stetsonkennedy.com/jim_crow_guide/chapter7_2.htm

http://www.amazon.com/phrase/Roy-Harris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omnivore Oprah (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

You have violated the 3rr rule and will be reported. Your argument on the talk page makes little sense. Jasper23 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It only fails to make sense to you. --REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACK-- Omnivore Oprah 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was very rude. Jasper23 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What are "niggorz" please?

The text reads: "Crackin' Good Snacks (a division of Winn Dixie, a Southern grocery chain) has sold niggorz similar to Ritz crackers under the name "Georgia Crackers"."

I see plurals changed all the time in this manner by kids on the internet or playing gamez(!). Quite obviously this 'usage' of English does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Mal 11:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, the only thing you see wrong was the plural? It was a bit of childish racist vandalism; I've reverted it, and blocked the idiot who did it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I thought...

I thought the term came from the fact that white people's skins was similar in color to saltines, hence the name crackers. Adamv88 02:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was taught. I'll have to look for some sources before including it in the article. Alatari (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Etymology and Folk Etymology

Ok, I'm game let's discuss. Bierstube Katzen Keller 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whipping

I highly doubt the term cracker has anythign to do with whipping. Does it really make sense to insult someone by calling them something that still puts you in an inferior position? That defies all the rules of name calling, insulting and hatred. Historically, it refers to poor whites in the south who could only afford to eat crackers. Same as lintheads or clay-eaters. Rich whites used cracker as well as blacks who were in a better economic position than the poor whites. I will look into those 3 seemingly bogus references listed because I HIGHLY doubt that slavemaster stuff is the correct etymology. research time! --Yellowfiver 09:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that after posting this you must have found issue with the references, because you deleted large passages of the text. For reference, here are the passages from the books used as reference there:
  • Smitherman: "possibly derived from the sound of the master's whip during enslavement."
  • Herbst: "It has been said to derive ... from the whip-cracking done by slaveholders."
  • Major: "..a reference to the whip-cracking slaveholder..
How did you find these lacking to support the existence of this theory? - O^O 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure, there just seems to be an inherent contradiction in that etymology of the word. I'm at my school's library so I'll check these sources. If they match up, I guess i won't have a case. I had always been under the impression lintheads, clayeaters, and crackers were from around the same time period. --Yellowfiver 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing I didn't write above; this doesn't appear to be a case where the etymology is known with certainty, instead there are multiple theories. I want to make sure that section represents all the theories, I'm not claiming that one in particular is correct. - O^O 05:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironic

I wish we could say something in here about how blacks take offense at someone even uttering the word "nigger", even if used in a non-offensive way, yet white people are considered "easily offended" or "sensitive" if they take offense to the word "cracker" in modern America, thus forming a searious double standard. DurotarLord 13:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We can say something about that if someone else has said something about that in a reliable source. We're just here to report. -Will Beback · † · 20:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism is a bit tricky. Those in the minority culture tend to feel defined by members of the majority against their will. Derogatory terms, like the N-word, can feel far more offensive to someone who deals with the effects of blatant and institutional racism every day. I suppose one way to put it is that calling a white person a "cracker" assumes they've done something despicable (i.e. - they've committed a racist act). Calling an African America the N-word implies that they are dispicable. Using either of these terms to describe someone in a perjorative fashion is unacceptable. But I couldn't say that there is a double standard in place here. Thoughts? Sjmcd13 22:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit I say, there will never be an article or reliable source on how its acceptable for whites to be called crackers but "disgusting" to use that old "N-Word". It's becaue all this crap about whats racist is making powerful people fearful to address it. You can't whisper nigger nowadays without being stomped on, nor can you refuse a person whos in a minority nowadays because of all this racial-fear, its intimidating. I remember a year or two ago in school, I had my usual seat in English class (with a free desk/chair next to me which I refused to let anyone sit at as I liked the space for books and to just relax and put my legs up) when the filipino in my class walked up and asked to sit there. He said it with one of those smiles you use when you try to get something you want. If it was anyone else I would have casually said "ehh.. no! fuck of man there's a two free seats over there! (which there was)" In this case I felt I had to politely say with a smile "there's two seats over there which are free" reply - "No, I want to sit here near the window", I had to give in out of fear of being thought of as racist. They have more fucking rights than us its a joke, and don't give me bullshit about "thats called karma" fuck karma. Whites don't have to be intimidated because of fear of being racist. Next thing they'll let fuckin arabs walk past metal detectors instead of through.

That's partially your fault —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.36.5 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What's ironic is that niggers call themselves "niggers" are are cool with it, but when a whitey calls a nigger "nigger", he's a big bad racist. And just who the hell came up with this "cracker" stuff? Come on, even "whitey" is more offensive than "cracker" - and I don't feel offended by "whitey" a tiniest bit. "Nigger" can be viewed as offensive, because it is heavily and intentionally deformed "Negro", but "whitey"? I think that something derived from "Caucasian" would be more suitable, by an analogy. Anyway, I would only feel offended by "cracker" if I were s proud hacker. M3n747 12:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Because Cracker isn't in any way offensive. Think about it, I mean come on if cracker is the best insult someone can come up with then that person is pretty much insulting himself or herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.29.125 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "examples of usage"

One of the links in that section, [The Crescent], leads to an article about a department store rather than the plantation house referred to in the sentence. I don't know if there's an article for the real thing or not, or else I'd just change it. 71.37.22.24 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture section removal

I am thinking about removing the pop-culture section as an non-encyclopedic section. It is also unsourced. What do other people think?Turtlescrubber 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If someone uses the term in passing without it generating any controversy or comment then the usage is non-notable. If there are cultural uses of the term that are significant and sourced we can add them to the main body of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Photo

It's not clear to me that anyone has a good idea of what kind of photo they'd like to see here, so I've removed the {{reqphoto}} template from this page. If you put the tag back, please consider describing specifically what kind of picture you think would benefit this article in the of= parameter to the template. Tim Pierce 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-pejorative term

Does anyone know if there is a non-pejorative term for the descendants of indentured servants and transported prisoners? --The Four Deuces 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Georgia cracker peaches.jpg

Image:Georgia cracker peaches.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)