If I was being harsh, check this out:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/19/94330.shtml
I rest my case.
"Linda Hoskins of the NAACP's Madison branch said she could not comment on Sylvester's remarks until she had heard them in their entirety."
I have to agree with the above. I don't know if he was saying this out of the blue, or if he was commenting on Harry Belafonte's remarks made back in 2002 (which were even worse -- calling them both house negroes. See, he chose to substitute "negro").
Since John Sylvester is a white liberal commentator, this controvery will go no farther (unlike what happened to Mark Belling, a white conservative commentator).
There is a big double standard when it comes to the reaction to these epithets, no doubt. All we can do is keep pointing them out.
It's not that you were too harsh. The language you used may detract from your message, cuz rather than hearing the points you made, some people will lose their minds & get stuck on that word.
I think he's under the impression that people want all use of the n*word to go away.
Lefties want to strip the word of it's power to hurt, which is why they have brought it back into "controlled" use, PC use, where it's okay for a black guy to call his black bud by the term. In that PC world, it's never okay for any white person to use it.
You used it in the way I think it should be used, in all of it's harsh glory, as the language of bigotry. I used it myself in a similar way once. It caused quite a firestorm, specially since I'm white.