<[Event "3rd West Suburban Winter Grand Prix"] [Site "Framingham Mass"]
[Date "1986.02.01"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Fang, Joseph"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A80"]
[WhiteElo "2403"]
[BlackElo "2238"]

<Peanut gallery

The expression “no more comments from the peanut gallery” is often used to signify that the speaker has had enough of hecklers or unwelcome commentary. But it’s actually a Civil War-era racist expression referring to the cheapest seats in an auditorium, where cheap peanuts were sold as snacks and black people were required to sit.

Uppity

These days many people seem to think the word “uppity” just indicates someone who’s snobby, but in fact it is a racist expression that was historically used by people in the southern U.S. to refer to a black person who didn’t know their place in society (which was considered to be below that of any white person).

Hooligan

Now understood to mean “troublemaker” (especially applied to rowdy European football fans), the word hooligan is believed to come from an Irish surname, either Houlihan or O'Hooligan, and was used by the British in the Victorian era as slang for a disreputable Irishman who caused trouble. Characters named Hooligan were stereotypically portrayed in vaudeville shows as drunken, quarreling Irish ruffians.

Gringo

This word is used by people in Latin America to refer to white people or foreigners, and not always in a nice way. While opinions differ on whether the word is truly offensive, it can certainly be taken as such, and shouldn’t be used in casual conversation.

Gyp/gypsy

Gypsy is not an ethnic group but rather a racist slur for people of Romani origin. It originated when white Europeans mistook the Romani people for Egyptians because of their darker colouring. They have been discriminated against for centuries (and still are) and are often unfairly labelled thieves, hence the racist expression “getting gypped” to refer to being cheated.

Sold down the river

People now say this to mean that they feel betrayed or cheated, but it’s actually a racist expression stemming from the fact that in the 19th century, American slave owners would often sell “troublesome” or “misbehaving” slaves to another plantation located further down the Mississippi river, where the living conditions were harsher.>

<Eeenie, meenie, miney, moe

The children’s rhyming song containing this line has an ugly history you may not know about: in the next line, “catch a tiger by the toe,” the word “tiger” used to be an extremely racist slur. The song may refer to the process of selecting a slave or what was done to punish one who ran away.

Long time no see

Similar to “no can do” and its mocking of Chinese immigrants’ English, the phrase “long time no see” as an alternative to “I haven’t seen you in a long time” began as a racist expression making fun of the pidgin English spoken by native Americans. So classy, right?

No can do

This short, snappy phrase, often used as a lighthearted negative response to a request, originated as a racist way for people to mock the broken English spoken by Chinese immigrants to America in the early 20th century. So maybe take the extra second and say “I’m sorry, I can’t do that” instead.

Eskimo

The actual meaning of esquimaux is “one who nets snowshoes,” an accurate way to describe people living in the Arctic region, but many of them consider Eskimo a derogatory term that racist colonizers translated as “eaters of raw meat” (basically, barbarians) or “excommunicati” (the excommunicated, or people who’ve been removed from the Catholic church).

Mumbo jumbo

This expression derives from the name of Maamajomboo, a character often portrayed by a male dancer in West African Mandinka cultural ceremonies. British explorers in the 1730s got his name wrong and found him terrifying and grotesque and the rituals meaningless, hence the derogatory use of the name to indicate that something is “unintelligible nonsense.”

Off the reservation

Used to imply that someone is out of line or not adhering to the rules of a group to which they belong (like a political party), this expression comes from the fact that Native Americans were confined to reservations (parcels of land allocated to them) and their movements restricted by the U.S. government against their will.>

<Chinese whispers

This phrase, more common in the U.K., refers to inaccurate gossip or rumors, and is often applied to the children’s game we also know as Telephone. It probably got its name from the idea that Chinese was a difficult language to understand or translate. It’s not particularly malicious, but it’s not necessarily nice, either.

Grandfather clause

The term “grandfather clause” means an old law continues to apply in certain situations instead of the new law. Unfortunately, the original grandfather clause was used in the American South to deny black people the right to vote, stating that only people who could vote before 1866 and their descendants were exempt from educational, property, or tax requirements for voting.

Ghetto

In ancient Venice, the ghetto was the area where Jewish people lived, so using this word to describe a neighbourhood or area as poor, low-class, or dangerous implies that the speaker thinks the minorities or racialized groups living there are all of those things as well.

Thug

Although this word originated in India and meant “ruffian” or “troublemaker,” it’s now used primarily in a negative context by white people to label younger black people, particularly men, as violent, irrational, untrustworthy, or gang members. The label is often applied based on how the person dresses, looks, or speaks, rather than by their actions.

Fuzzy wuzzy

Sounds cute and cuddly, like the teddy bear in the nursery rhyme, right? Not so fast: British colonial soldiers in the 1800s used this racist expression to refer mockingly to East African nomads, who had curly hair and dark skin, and its use later expanded to describe people from other areas, such as Papua New Guinea and Sudan.

Inner city

It may sound like a simple geographic reference—“he’s from the inner city”—but in America, this phrase is often used as coded language to describe African-Americans, with the implication of laziness, poverty, criminality, and dependence on welfare. In other words, it’s racist, judgmental, and unkind.>

<Tipping point

Though it began as a phrase that meant what it said—the point at which something began to tip—in 1950s America it took on a new, racist meaning: the point at which a certain percentage of black families moved into a neighbourhood, thereby initiating the departure of white families to other areas.

Jew him down

Anti-Semitism, unfortunately, certainly hasn’t disappeared since the horrific events of the Second World War. The phrase “Jew (him or her) down” is still used to refer to bargaining with someone for a lower price; it comes from very old, offensive stereotypes of Jewish people as shrewd moneylenders who always haggled over the cost of something.

Oriental

The word itself means “Eastern,” but the problem with referring to people from East Asia as “Oriental” is that it implies that they are different: not Western, not white, and somehow “lesser than.” East Asians have never referred to themselves as Orientals: nor should anyone, when it’s just as simple to say Asian or their specific nationality.

Cotton-picking

“Just a cotton-picking minute!” Even Bugs Bunny used this expression, but its history is bleak. Because cotton was picked almost exclusively by black slaves in the southern United States, many people believe it to be a derogatory term. It may or may not be, but enough people consider it offensive that it’s best not to use it.

Chop chop!

This phrase, meaning “hurry up!” comes from the Cantonese word kap, or “make haste.” It is generally used condescendingly to someone the speaker considers to be below them in status, which only worsens the fact that it’s making fun of the pidgin English spoken by Chinese immigrants.

Indian giver

<[Event "39th New Hampshire Open"] [Site "Manchester NH"]
[Date "1989.07.30"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Jellison, David"]
[Black "Terrie, Henry L"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D07"]
[WhiteElo "2285"]
[BlackElo "2239"]

<[Event "60th Mass Open"] [Site "Marlborough Mass"]
[Date "1991.05.26"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Colding, Ernest"]
[Black "Plum, Marc"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C30"]
[WhiteElo "2315"]
[BlackElo "2275"]

<[Event "Northeast Chess League"] [Site "?"]
[Date "1991.10.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Johnson, Joel"]
[Black "Terrie, Henry L"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B07"]
[WhiteElo "2311"]
[BlackElo "2255"]

<Special counsel Jack Smith invoked Robert Hur’s report on President Biden’s handling of classified material in court documents filed Monday in former President Trump’s federal classified documents case.

Smith’s filing comes in opposition to Trump’s attorneys claiming the former president is being selectively prosecuted. Smith invoked Hur, who was appointed as special counsel to oversee an investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents, to argue that the two cases are practically incomparable in scope.

“Most notably, Trump, unlike Biden, is alleged to have engaged in extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents bearing classification markings. And the evidence concerning the two men’s intent—whether they knowingly possessed and willfully retained such documents—is also starkly different, as reflected in the Hur Report’s conclusion.”

Biden was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by Hur, who determined that the president’s keeping of classified information in his home and office was against procedure, but not illegal. The most damning aspects of Hur’s report were descriptions of Biden’s well-being, in which he was described as an elderly man with poor recall. Hur cited those descriptions as a reason why he didn’t believe a jury could convict Biden.

Biden, along with the White House and his 2024 campaign, have strongly pushed back against the characterization.

Smith, who like Hur was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland — chosen to lead the Justice Department by Biden — argued that Trump’s violations were willing and intentional and included sharing classified information with unauthorized people. Trump’s willful retention, federal prosecutors argue, is the reason his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida had to be searched by the FBI, where it discovered boxes of non-secured classified materials in various parts of the complex.

Biden’s team, on the other hand, said they fully cooperated with investigators when the classified materials — dating back to his time as vice president and senator — were found at his home in Delaware and an old office in Washington.

Smith argued in his filing that Trump’s comparison of the two cases failed to identify someone else who faced a similar legal predicament.

“The defendants have not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted. Nor could they,” Smith wrote in the filing. “Indeed, the comparators on which they rely are readily distinguishable.”>

<Special counsel Jack Smith ridiculed a “conspiracy theory” recently advanced by former President Donald Trump about the genesis of the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case in a Monday court filing.

Earlier this month, the 45th president filed a motion requesting “discovery and a hearing concerning selective and vindictive prosecution.” Trump’s attorneys argue that a separate special counsel’s decision not to indict President Joe Biden over his own retention of classified documents shows the Department of Justice is discriminating against their client and acting with “political animus.”

On Monday, in a filing stylized as a surreply, Smith also referenced special counsel Robert Hur’s decision not to indict Biden.

“They contend that the incumbent president has secretly directed this prosecution — using the Special Counsel as a ‘puppet’ or ‘stalking horse,'” the filing reads. “In order to retaliate against Trump for exercising his right to criticize him and run against him.”

To hear Trump tell it, such allegations necessitate the production of discovery that will help the defense claim that the entire prosecution is corrupt and the case should be dismissed.

Smith’s office says there isn’t anything like that to discover.

“[T]he sources on which they rely, even if taken at face value, undercut rather than support this conspiracy theory, as they repeatedly emphasize that the prosecutorial decisions made by the Department of Justice generally, and the Special Counsel specifically, have been made on the basis of the facts and the law, not political considerations,” the filing reads. “The defendants offer no evidence to the contrary, because there is no such evidence.”

And, the government argues, the defense is also confused about where the relevant alleged bias comes from in the first place.

“[T]he defendants’ baseless theory that the prosecutorial decisions in this case have been made by the incumbent president, communicating his direction via the news media, is inconsistent with their requests for discovery,” the filing goes on.

The latest discovery requests lodged by Trump following the decision not to charge Biden are a “fishing expedition” and should be denied by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, Smith’s office says.

“[T]he defendants have not, and cannot, satisfy the requirements for discovery on a claim of either selective or vindictive prosecution,” the government’s 12-page Monday filing argues.

In order to sustain a claim of selective prosecution, a criminal defendant has to show that someone “similarly situated” was not prosecuted — but could have been prosecuted because the evidence against the non-prosecuted person was the same or better than the prosecuted person making the selective prosecution claim....>

<....And here, Smith says, the ex-president and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta, Trump’s longtime butler, and Carlos De Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s property manager, have failed to identify any such person.

“[T]here has never been a case in American history in which a former official has engaged in conduct remotely similar to Trump’s,” the government’s filing argues. “He intentionally took possession of a vast trove of some of the nation’s most sensitive documents — documents so sensitive that they were presented to the President — and stored them in unsecured locations at his heavily trafficked social club.”

The filing then offers a thorough rundown of the allegations:

When the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) initially sought their return (before learning that they contained classified national defense information), Trump delayed, obfuscated, and dissembled. Faced with the possibility of legal action, he ostensibly agreed to comply with NARA’s requests but in fact engaged in additional deception, returning only a fraction of the documents in his possession while claiming that his production was complete. Then, when presented with a grand jury subpoena demanding the return of the remaining documents bearing classification markings, Trump attempted to enlist his own attorney in the corrupt endeavor, suggesting that he falsely tell the FBI and grand jury that Trump did not have any documents, and suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents rather than produce them to the government. Failing in his effort to corrupt the attorney, Trump enlisted his trusted body man, codefendant Waltine Nauta, in a scheme to deceive the attorney by moving boxes to conceal his (Trump’s) continued possession of classified documents. As a result, Trump, through his attorney, again returned only a portion of the classified documents in his possession while falsely claiming that his production was complete. The obstructive conduct even persisted from there. In June 2022, knowing that he had arranged for Nauta to move boxes to conceal them from Trump’s attorney, and knowing that the government had subpoenaed the security video footage that would reveal that surreptitious box movement, Trump, now joined by not only Nauta but also codefendant Carlos De Oliveira, attempted to have the information-technology manager at Mar-a-Lago delete the video footage that would show the movement of boxes.

“The defendants have not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted,” assistant special counsel David Harbach writes in the filing. “Nor could they.”

Citing Biden as the defendants’ “primary comparator,” the government argues the cases are completely different.

“Trump, unlike Biden, is alleged to have engaged in extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents bearing classification markings,” the filing goes on. “And the evidence concerning the two men’s intent — whether they knowingly possessed and willfully retained such documents — is also starkly different.”

Last week, Trump again lashed out at Smith — directly calling the prosecutor an arm of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign.

Smith has yet to reply to that missive.>

<As the Republican primaries slog toward the climax of a likely Trump nomination, I can’t help thinking that we as a country are still dramatically underreacting to the MAGA threat. The fact that Trump has even made it this far is proof of that.

When will we wake up?

I’ll say this: One thing that wakes you up is seeing your name on an enemies list.

When I was 12, the Columbine High School massacre happened. A troubled kid in my upstate New York school was apparently influenced by the shooting and decided to make his own list of kids he wanted to shoot, with a rifle he already owned.

I was “the Black kid” at school and I was first on his list. Fortunately, administrators found out before anything could happen. I don’t know what ultimately happened to that boy later in life, but I do know he was taken out of our school. Meanwhile, I found out how scary it felt to have my name on a list like that. It took racial hatred out of the realm of the theoretical and into the practical, really fast.

So, I wonder, how many Americans realize they are on Trump’s enemies list? And I wonder if our collective response would be different if more people knew they could be targeted and their lives upended.

To find out who’s targeted, all you have to do is refer to a 900-page “Mandate for Leadership” produced for Project 2025, the effort led by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and supported by almost 100 Trump-supporting groups. It’s a blueprint for the authoritarian Republican administration they hope is coming next.

The project, “backed by a multimillion-dollar war chest,” has been described as a plan that “would enable Trump to wield virtually unchecked power over the executive branch of the federal government and allow him to use it as a weapon against personal enemies, political opponents and the media.”

And while it’s starting to get more attention, I’m surprised at how little everyday Americans know about it — even in well-informed circles.

Certainly, Trump’s highest-profile political opponents know. They would be in the crosshairs of a weaponized Department of Justice because the plan’s call for total presidential control of executive departments would end 50 years of an independent Department of Justice.

Journalists know too, for the same reason and because a top Trump advisor openly says they would be prosecuted.

But how about the nonpartisan civil servants who make our government tick, who would be slated for firing and replacement by people chosen for their loyalty to Trump? By some estimates, 50,000 employees could be purged.

What about millions of people, many of whom must have voted for Trump, who want access to no-fault divorce, birth control or fertility care such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF)? All these things — and of course, abortion (with 199 negative mentions in the Mandate for Leadership) — could be off the table under a Project 2025 that explicitly calls for government power to be deployed to “restore the American family.”

This is before we even get to immigrants, at risk of mass internment and deportation, and peaceful protesters, at risk of being crushed by military forces under the Insurrection Act.

It’s before we get to LGBTQ Americans, who would be living in a country where trans people “should be expelled from military service” and religious business owners should be able to ignore nondiscrimination laws.

The harm to all kinds of people could seep into every corner of society. Attacks on schools and colleges are part of the plan, and not just because of overt conservative Republican support for book banning. One of the most chilling proposals comes from another document, Trump’s “Agenda 47.” That plan actually calls for “taxing, fining and suing” the endowments of top universities (you read that right) and using the money to build a sprawling “American Academy” offering online education with “no wokeness” included.

Astounding, but true.

The New York Times recently published results of a focus group in which 11 out of 13 undecided voters said they would vote for Trump, seemingly because they “didn’t blame Trump for things he was responsible or accountable for.”

For example, they were upset about losing abortion rights but didn’t connect the dots to Trump’s Supreme Court appointments. New York Magazine picked up the survey and warned that “Trump Is Preying on Low-Information Voters.”

I’m afraid that could be true. We might have too many people who think Trump’s agenda for a second term is “build the wall” and “drill, drill, drill.” It’s not.