Skip to comments.Is The Term 'Chiraq' Offensive?
Posted on 06/10/2013 6:02:47 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The term "Chiraq" has been casually tossed around in recent years. We don't know the origin, but we know Urban Dictionary's definition was written in February 2012. Of course it references Chicago's violence epidemic, dubbing it a war zone similar to that of Iraq. The parallels are undeniable, but the term makes us queasy. Does it downplay the wars overseas? Is it just attaching a negative stigma to Chicago?
The HBO show VICE aired an episode on Friday of its documentary series titled "Chiraq" that explores street violence in Chicago. VICE writes:
The lethal combination of gangs and guns has turned Chicago into a war zone. To see why the Windy City, now dubbed "Chiraq," had the countrys highest homicide rate in 2012, VICE visits Chicago's most dangerous areas, where handguns are plentiful and the police and community leaders are fighting a losing battle against gang violence. In the neighborhood of Englewood, we patrol with police, visit with religious leaders, and hang out with members of gangs - soldiers in a turf war that has spread into new communities as projects are destroyed and residents are forced to move elsewhere.
Toward the end of VICE's segment on Chicago, the narrator says "younger kids in Chicago ... have so internalized their situation by proudly calling their city Chiraq and themselves soldiers or savages."
The narrator goes on to say "the South Side of Chicago is basically a failed state within the borders of the U.S."
We're not sure what it is about "Chiraq" that bothers us. Perhaps it's that it implies there are two sides to the war, both suffering fatalities. The last time we checked the innocent bystanders are not armed soldiers fighting a war, but neither are the civilians in Iraq. Perhaps "Chiraq" is oversimplifying the problem. There aren't two sides, and this isn't a war with a definitive end.
Watch a preview of the VICE episode below.
Chiraq Obama says it’s racist.
I thought it was a misspelling of that guy’s name, myself.
Reminds me of the Bugs Bunny cartoons. “Blaque Juaque Chiraque. (Sp)
nope, very appropo.
Any negative term that describes or includes the combinations of “Chi”, “Barack” and “Obama” Is a quite reasonable conclusion for a reasonable person.
I was using it back in 2002 when Jacques Chirac (Saddam’s old buddy) was promising the U.S. to support force against Iraq. Meanwhile, he sent his foreign minister to lobby Security Council nations, to vote against the resolution.
The author, like a typical MSM airhead, is far more concerned with the terminology than the people being killed.
To be a street thug and murder innocent people is fine. To use a term that has been declared politically incorrect is unforgivable.
(ironic isn’t it?)
Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq Baraq
These are turf wars, gone bad. Eventually, they will run out of gang bangers and the murder rates will drop to something more tolerable in the third world.
These days the truth is always offensive
i will tell you as soon as if i can get my panties pulled out of my sewat
The only solution to this problem is to STOP ARMING SYRIAN REBELS AND START ARMING THE CITIZENS OF CHIRAQ!!!!!!!
I just turned on the news to hear that there have been 10 shot and one killed here this evening. So Chiraq is about right.
didn’t Kirk once get hit on the head and start calling himself Chiraq?
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.