Pam has a post up referring to the decision of the governor of Missouri to fly the Confederate Flag today. In the caption of the photo of the governor, Pam refers to him as “Missouri cracker Gov. Matt Blunt”. One of the comments on the post says:

Your use of the term “cracker” to describe Governor Matt Blunt is racist. How would you like me to use the term “nigger” to describe you, Pam? You can’t have it both ways.

To which Pam replies:

You must be kidding. Equating those two words is laughable. That’s like saying redneck is a racist word. Please.

So I had to chime in:

OK, is “cracker” racist? Technically, yes. You are using a term to refer to someone based on their race (“cracker” being the white color of skin similar in shade to a saltine cracker.) But is it derogatory? Harder to judge. No one in history was ever beating, whipping, and enslaving the “crackers”. “Cracker” in and of itself implies no loathing, dehumanization, or sense of superiority by the speaker like “nigger” does, or for that matter, “wop”, “spic”, “faggot”, or “kike”.

Is “redneck” racist? No. It’s more classist and elitist; you’re referring to one particular subgroup of “crackers” there. All “rednecks” are “crackers”; not all “crackers” are “rednecks”.

Personally, as a “cracker”, I’m not offended in the least by the use of the term, because it carries no oppressive baggage with it. It’s somewhere in the “nerd” / “stoner” / “hippie” / “moonbat” area of nomenclature. All these terms just signify a particular group you belong to, and any offense taken is brought by the listener not the speaker (e.g., calling me a “hippie nerd stoner cracker moonbat” doesn’t bother me, because I am, and I take pride in so being.)

Could some “crackers” be offended by the term? Sure. Does context, both historical and rhetorical, make a difference? Absolutely. In your post it seems “cracker” is used to be derogatory. Should we progressive bloggers be using such a term? Eh, I dunno, you’d have to be a pretty thin-skinned person to get offended by it, but if we want to be consistent, we should avoid it (which is in no way saying that “cracker” = “nigger”). Do I ask a lot of rhetorical questions in a futile attempt to meander about my point? Absolutely.

(Like I’m one to talk, with my references to “Repugnicans”, “Christinsanity”, “hypoChristians”, “Theocons”, George W. “Dumbya / Shrub / Smirking Chimp / Chimpy / Commander-In-Thief” Bush, and “Kindasleezzy Lies”.)