…concerning language and action at this post at Patterico’s pontifications.
Of course you have to ignore the tone of voice since “Come here boy” to a dog is said in a different tone that any person would recognize. Base scenario:
A boy has a dog named Rover. At night, he typically calls the dog into the house from the field by either calling out: “Come here, boy!” or “Come here, Rover!” The dog responds to either; either is equally effective.
The boy learns at school that there is a racial history associated with the word “boy” such that black men are offended to be called “boy.” That night, he starts to call out: “Come here, boy!” when he sees Rover out in the field. But then, the boy sees a black man near Rover. The boy thinks to himself: if I yell out “Come here, boy!” that black man will be offended. But then the boy thinks: I don’t care. That’s his problem. And he yells, “Come here, boy!”
My answers to the questions are as follows:
1. The Boy has done nothing wrong and the Black man is not being unreasonable in being offended. There is clearly no racist intent but the Black Man has no way of knowing that.
2. The Father has not only done nothing wrong but has acted wisely. It is over little misunderstandings that many problems come from. He is teaching his son how to interact in society.
3. The boy has done nothing wrong because we clearly know intent. He should be prepared to defend his stance.
4. The boy is wrong. He is trying to make his friends laugh by appealing to their racism.
5. If he had not seen the friends laugh then it would be unreasonable to be offended, once he saw the friends laugh then it became reasonable.
6. The boy has done something wrong. The moment he said to his friends “Watch this” he had intent. The black man is correct in being offended. If the “watch this” was removed then they boy would be fine. Unless he sees the dog the black man is correct in being offended.
This would be an excellent classroom exercise.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 