Cracker is Not on Equal Terms with the N-Bomb

Onyx Contributor:  Johnny Silvercloud (@JohnnySilverclo)

In March 2015, a Fraternity chapter in Oklahoma called Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) found themselves under fire for their racist chant, claiming that “there never will be a nigger SAE,” all while proudly boasting that “you can hang them from a tree”.  Wow.

With racism denial and weapons of mass deflection deployed to comfort the average white person from shame or guilt, an interesting question came up:  Would a black fraternity get punished or expelled had they have chanted a parallel using a word such as “cracker”?  From a superficial basis this is a very stupid question, but unwittingly provides the basis of this article.  This smoke screen implies a huge detachment from reality:  people genuinely think that the word cracker is on equal terms with the word nigger.  So from here I must explain to everyone, specifically whites, how privilege/status systems work and how and why two epithets are not equal.  Equating cracker inflicted upon whites with nigger inflicted upon blacks (or non-whites with its associated variants) is like comparing, not without irony, Skittles to a hand gun.

To the Question

First and foremost, with black males with no criminal record getting default treatment as white criminals when applying for a job, it’s safe to say that the negative sentiment override America suffers from would infinitely punish a set of black fraternity members had they’ve been busted with a video chanting cracker.  The Afrophobia would most certainly be augmented with Hannity’s fear-pushing on Fox News similar to the nonexistent “knock-out game” scare.  All of the men would then be deemed criminal, thugs (which is White America’s polite euphemism for the n-word anyway) and subsequently punished ruthlessly.  So far as the bread of the question, all in it’s obliviousness with reality, the question is answered here.  Just in case you were born yesterday, um, yes… a black fraternity would be punished.  If unarmed, innocent black children such as Tamir Rice can be killed with Emmett Till-like impunity, yes actual deviant black men would be punished, suffering punishment 3-5 times more severe than a group of white males doing the same infraction, statistically speaking.

 To the Flawed Implication

To all those who are on the privilege spectrum of whiteness:  Cracker is in no shape, way or form equal to the n-word.  It is not.  Nor will it ever will be.  Stop playing.  Stop with the delusion.  Unless the moon explodes and aliens take over what’s left of the planet, you will NEVER be oppressed, suppressed, or persecuted just because you are white.  Nonwhites do not have the sociopolitical power to oppress you as you do nonwhites.  Nor do we have the stomach for it, in a collective sense.

Yeah, I get it; being of the privileged on any social spectrum shields you from the realities of the minorities; understood.  But that doesn’t mean that being sociologically dense is a permanent thing.  As a black male Christian heterosexual (9/12 points based on the graphic above), I am completely aware of the following:  male privilege, Christian dominance and heterosexual privilege.  You don’t have to be a woman to understand or exercise empathy towards women, for example.  You don’t have to be a Muslim or Atheist in America to understand the preference for anything that’s remotely Christian.  You don’t have to be gay to realize that gays are not out to “recruit” you or your children into homosexuality.  You don’t have to be black to understand institutional racism.

Whites have more control over American society in comparison to nonwhites.  Males have more sociological capital than females do in America.  Christians have more socio-politcal power than any other religious or nonreligious group in America.  Heterosexuals overwhelmingly have more social power and authority over gays in America.

With that said, epithets from the nonwhite, the female, the non-Christian, and the homosexual HAVE NO POWER.  With a gay guy informing me that their slur for heterosexuals is “breeder”, it would be silly to equate that word to the f-word, faggot.  It just simply doesn’t work, and anyone acting like they are upset are only imitating behavior of the oppressed, suppressed, persecuted.

Words:  Definition and Cause

The first thing about the word nigger over cracker is the fact that nigger was specifically invented to demonize human beings, while the word cracker was invented to facilitate a specific type of food.  The problem blacks and whites alike have with the n-word is the fact that it’s so crude and disgusting of a word that it offends to tongue; it’s referred to as the “n-word”.  There’s no campaign to remove the word cracker from American vernacular.  No one goes to the grocery store and refers to crackers as “c-words” because the word causes so much pain.  Any positive or neutral concept of the n-word is slang, connotative definitions.  The neutral, positive definition of the word cracker is a denotative definition, meaning it’s the original intent of the word that doesn’t get removed without making the whole word archaic.

Even further is the fact that the n-word is an ideology.  The n-word isn’t just a word, it’s a way of thinking about people while robbing them of their humanity and individualism on an institutional, systematic level.  The n-word’s use has long been the key identifier of an overt racist, and with that said bigots have learned to NOT use the word, with many people in power positions are trained by lawyers to NOT use the word.  From there, our modern racial bigots have learned how to BEHAVE appropriately.  This means that the word nigger as an ideology is more likely to manifest in euphemistic language, forms of nonverbal language, and actions such as support of unfair practices in the public and private sector, law enforcement, and legislative voting processes.  With context, the word “thug” becomes the go-to word for the modern day politically correct racist.

So no, let’s stop pretending that the word cracker is on the same playing field as the n-word.  To do so is to be intellectually dishonest, and we’re all tired of that.

Articles submitted by freelance writers. If you would like to submit an article to the Onyx Truth, please click on the SUBMISSIONS link at the very top of the site for more info.


  1. NeverSkurred

    March 11, 2015 at 2:08 pm

    “The first thing about the word nigger over cracker is the fact that nigger was specifically invented to demonize human beings, while the word cracker was invented to facilitate a specific type of food.”

    Actually, the term “cracker” in this particular context refers to both the sound of the overseer’s whip and the individual who wields said whip.

    So, the fact that the use of the term is from the oppressed to the oppressor further negates the equality of the two terms.

    • Johnny Silvercloud

      March 12, 2015 at 3:51 am

      That is understood NeverSkurred, but I was more so talking about the fact of original (denotative function) definitions:

      Cracker = is NOT an offensive word that has an offensive value added (which is what you speak of), versus;

      Nigger = a word that was born to be offensive towards people, with people struggling to add a positive spin on it (which by the way, doesn’t work). No one needs to add an offensive value to it, because that’s the SOLE INTENT of the this word.

      ^That, is the point. Still, thanks for adding value to the article with your participation.

  2. Mitch Hunter

    March 11, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    Wow you don’t even know that cracker is a reference to the crackers that whipped the niggers. It’s not a food term but how am I not shocked your such a fucking idot.

    • Johnny Silvercloud

      March 12, 2015 at 3:20 am

      First off, you misspelled the word idiot as “idot”. One cannot insult someone by misspelling the five letter word idiot.

      Second, I’m talking about the ORIGINAL DEFINITION OF WORDS. Cracker’s FIRST definition is NOT a pejorative, it’s a snack food. The n-word’s FIRST definition is nothing neutral, nothing okay, nothing light-hearted, nothing easy to fall back on.

      I’m talking about the objective, PRIMARY FUNCTION of two words.

      Any attempt to make the n-word something positive is effectively trying to polish a turd. No one has to try to spin the word “cracker” into anything positive because…. it’s a word with an actual PRIMARY definition that has nothing to do with people.

      Am I clear? I get it, Mitch Hunter — you’re dense. I don’t see how I can make this any more clearer without using graphs and charts. Do I need to break this down any further? Here’s a task: read a dictionary and find out the order at which these definition arrive. I guarantee you, the first and primary function of the word cracker is to define “a thin, crisp wafer or biscuit, usually made of unsweetened dough”. First, Uno, Primary, Number one definition.

      • Mitch Hunter

        March 12, 2015 at 11:45 am

        First definition was of he who cracked the whip you big fucking idot.

    • Johnny Silvercloud

      March 12, 2015 at 3:25 am

      And cracker is NOT a food term? Really? Then how do you describe these?

      ^Is English not your first language? Most people learn what crackers are by the time they are fed soup.

      • Mitch Hunter

        March 12, 2015 at 11:44 am

        It’s not in the context of which you are using it dumb ass.

        • Johnny Silvercloud

          March 12, 2015 at 10:02 pm

          Read a dictionary and you’ll find that that definition comes up third of fourth. It’s NOT the first definition, thus, it’s NOT the first intent of the word.

          Look up the n-word in a dictionary. Case Closed.

%d bloggers like this: