Posted on 01/03/2007 9:27:34 AM PST by mngran
Actually, since you are the one making the affirmative claim (that the term in question is racial in nature), the production of a reputable source for that claim is your burden. Happy hunting.
"rag-head N. Amer. slang, one who wears a turban or cloth about the hair"
"1921 Dialect Notes V. 111 *Raghead, a Hindu; any Asiatic. From the turbanned Asiatics who are common on the campus [of the University of California]. 1970 C. MAJOR Dict. Afro-Amer. Slang 96 Raghead, black male who wears a scarf tied around his head to protect an expensive hairdo. 1975 Canadian Mag. 8 Mar. 6/1 East Indians are called ‘rag-heads’ if they continue to wear the traditional turban of the Sikh religion."
I don't see any refernce to Islam there, although there are several references to race. But then again, it's only the most authoritative source of the history of the English language, so what does it know?
Your understanding of "race" is unsurprisingly confused. A race is an anthropological classification of heredity - like black, caucasian, arab etc.
Aside from the "black male" reference, which is to an antiquated and unrelated use of the rerm "raghead," the terms quoted in that definition are not races. They are references to national origins (East Indians), religious groups (Hindus, Sikhs), and geographical populations (Asiatics).
The unifying point of the definition is its reference to the cloth headgarb connoted in the term itself. As that headgarb has, in recent decades, become increasingly associated with the mahometan religion, the term has taken on the characteristic of an anti-mahometan remark regardless of the mahometan's race.
Lessee, now: of course the danger in question would have to be "eminent" as opposed to "imminent," because "imminent" means "about to happen, like, right about now" rather than "later in time" (which, judging from how the principle of al-Taquiyya appears to be applied, covers everything from ten minutes out to the coming of the 12th Camel or whatever).
I would say the same of yours.
A race is an anthropological classification of heredity - like black, caucasian, arab etc.
And like all anthropological classifications, it is contingent on cultural assumptions. You, for example, assume that "arab" is a "separate race" even though Linnaeus and many after him considered the inhabitants of southwest Asia and North Africa to be members of the "Caucasoid" group.
They are references to national origins (East Indians), religious groups (Hindus, Sikhs), and geographical populations (Asiatics).
And no mention of Islam at all. Please note that "Asiatic" is used as a "race" in that is describes a supranational group of people living on the continent of Asia but distinct from Mongoloids (another geographical population, yet somehow more commonly known as a racial category), Orientals (ditto), and Caucasians (same thing).
The unifying point of the definition is its reference to the cloth headgarb connoted in the term itself.
It actually refers to people or peoples who characteristically wear such headgarb. The definition "a Hindu; any Asiatic." is the most apt. Note that "Asiatic" is defined separately from "Hindu".
As that headgarb has, in recent decades, become increasingly associated with the mahometan religion, the term has taken on the characteristic of an anti-mahometan remark regardless of the mahometan's race.
Take it up with the editors of the online OED, whose entry for "rag" (which contains the term in question) was updated in 1993. I will remind you that not a single definition on urbandictionary.com supports your claim that the term is question is exclusively a religious slur. I will also remind you that the moderators seemed to agree, as the post is question was pulled.
Hehehe...that's the idea behind those back-stabbing bastards and their "philosophy"!
The biggest conspiracy-theorist-maniacs to have ever enjoyed existing, to the detriment of more... much, much more deserving candidates to life.
Will the OED suffice?
LOL. Well found, sir.
Thank you sir.
If what you say is true, you'll have no problem finding sources that are considered more reliable than the OED (or at least reliable by any academic standard) and support your claim that the term is question no longer has any racist connotations, but is instead is used exclusively as a religiously bigoted slur.
Well of course Jefferson had a Koran! He needed documented evidence as to why he was going to send our Marines to Northern Africa and slaughter muslims who had enslaved American sailors.
But what if the taking of the office leads to our inability to choose our own religion? The Muslims have shown they are a danger to this country and the world. They are treasonous. They must be stopped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.