The comments discussion on the topic leaves me sad. And puzzled. There seem to be a lot of whites who are really annoyed that black people are telling them not to use the word. There is another, somewhat overlapping, group of whites who believe it isn't fair that blacks get to use it when they don't. There is a third group, related to the second group, who think the word should be banned, but are mad that blacks aren't setting a good example for the rest of us.
I don't understand this. What makes the word so appealing that removing it from your vocabulary constitutes a major hardship? It's not as if the word itself is so lovely that I long to say it aloud for the sheer joy of its short i's and gutteral g's. I do not think that I have ever found myself saying "digger" or "tigger" aloud over and over so that I could enjoy their sonorous music.
The basic social rule seems to be fairly easy to follow: black people get upset when white people use that word. I am well warned that this is so. Therefore, I do not use that word. I follow exactly the same practice with "dyke", "spic", "guinea", and so forth. And I do not feel that my life has been any less rich because of this forbearance.
If you cannot be happy without a more complex rule, here it is: society has decided that it is a bad thing to denigrate people for their race, gender, religions, etc. Let us assume, arguendo, that society is right about this. Well, when a black person uses that word, it is reasonably obvious that he is not saying "You know what's wrong with you? You're black, that's what's wrong with you". Whereas, given its history, that's a fairly reasonable inference when a white person directs that particular epithet at someone.
Therefore, the answer to "how come it's not banned by blacks" is "because when blacks use it, it is inherently stripped of its historical message of racial prejudice". Doesn't work for whites. Maybe we'll get to the point where the word has as much emotional content as "dumb mick" does today, and then your grandchildren can throw it around to their heart's content. (Though they won't bother). But sadly, we aren't there yet.
And many would say that for historically oppressed communities, taking ownership of the epithets that were used against them is a way of saying "to hel with you--that's my word now". And you know what? I think that giving black people the "n word" to have for their very own is the very least America could do after several hundred years of slavery, and another hundred of Jim Crow. It's all very well to urge that they should be colorblind, but it's a bit rich when the rest of society isn't.
Oddest of all to me is the suggestion that black people should be out there setting a good example for whites on the word. I'm in my thirties. I don't need people to set a good example for me. And if I had told my mother that I refused to practice the elementary courtesy of not using deliberately offensive language until an entire ethnic group met a long list of my demands . . . well, frankly, my imagination fails me. But I suspect the slap for that piece of sophistry would have put my head into at least Low Earth Orbit.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I follow exactly the same practice with "dyke", "spic", "guinea"
I've never heard of a coin being offended...
I agree entirely that the word should not be used regularly by whites, basically not at all unless having a scholarly discussion about the word or whatever. I think it's ridiculous to make "n-word" equally off limits because it's too "cutesy".
By doing that your not only saying that you can't use the word because of its inherently harmful connotations and the freight that comes with it coming out of a white person's mouth that is, I agree, absent when a black person uses it, you're going further to say that white people basically have to pretend that the word doesn't exist. That they should have no way to even refer to it. That's what I was objecting to in the previous thread, not that I was feeling down that I couldn't use the word for its "short i's and guttural g's".
Additionally, it would be nice if it were just limited to those obviously offensive words of the like you mentioned ("dyke", "spic", "guinea", "n-word", etc.), but it's just not. Now that we live in a world in which the "n-word" (sorry for being so cutesy!) is pretty much universally avoided by white people and is completely unacceptable in polite conversation, the goal-posts seem to have moved.
Now we have people getting fired because they used the word "niggardly" which of course has no etymological relationship to that other n-word, but bears an unfortunately similar sound.
Then we have people getting offended by old phrases like "the pot calling the kettle black", which also has no racist baggage but has the word "black" in it, so who cares what the actual meaning is, it's all about what the listener might have thought. So that one's out too.
Basically, there is no logical end point to this. If white people stopped using the word "black" entirely, for any purpose no matter how non-racist, (which I hope we can agree would be utterly ridiculous) the goal posts would no doubt just shift to some new set of words or phrases that a hyper-vigilante, very "victimized" person could take offense at.
That's what I, at least, was objecting to. I'm fine not using the word. And never would, as I try to avoid gratuitously offending people. I find it mildly puzzling that the word has become such a staple of popular black culture but there is much about popular black culture that I find somewhat mystifying. And that's fine by me, it's not my culture so it makes sense that I won't "get" all of it all the time.
But that's not what your prev. post was entirely about. Rather it was also about how the phrase "n-word" should be similarly avoided, which brought to mind the weird shifting of standards about what's acceptable into places where formerly innocuous words and phrases were now being deemed "off-limits" because offense could or was taken by people who didn't know what the phrase or word meant, didn't know it's history, but knew their feelings had -- or might have been -- hurt. And that's an awfully slippery slope that has no end. Once we decide that acceptable language gets to be set by the most ignorant and sensitive person in the world, there's nothing we can say.
It's not that the word is so appealing that we want to use it. It's the principle. I've never told someone what they can or cannot say, for any reason, and I do not appreciate when someone tries to control my vocabulary. I have no desire to say it aside from referring to it in conversation, because it IS offensive. But what I will or will not do isn't the point - it shouldn't be limited to groups. If someone white wants to call someone a nigger in their own home, they have that right, just as someone black has the right to call someone as nigger in their own home. In public, retribution for saying it is fair, in the same way it is if you use any other offensive words.
"...the answer to "how come it's not banned by blacks" is "because when blacks use it, it is inherently stripped of its historical message of racial prejudice"."
The above would be true, except that 'blackness' isn't a club. There is no unanimous agreement about the use of the word. There are plenty of black people who would slap another black person for using it toward them. They do count as part of the group.
Why can't anyone use any word? Freedom of speech/expression and all that good stuff; there is no freedom from offense. I'm a white guy who does not use the word, and I cringe when I hear it from any mouth. but nobody has a right to dictate speech. It is a slippery slope, as we see in Canada and throughout the EU as they fumble with the Muslim sensitivities. I am surprised that a libertarian would take this position, and more so that you reference the word in "n word" fashion. People need to grow up and deal, the black race is perfectly capable of thriving without white coddling. Catholics dealt with Piss Christ, Muslims need to learn to deal with cartoons and Blacks can live with that word. Enough with the k-12 crap, it's like that and that's the way it is.
I think that giving black people the "n word" to have for their very own is the very least America could do after several hundred years of slavery, and another hundred of Jim Crow.
The argument can be made that the "atonement" process has already been completed, what with affirmative action and political correctness.
The argument can be made that the "atonement" process has already been completed, what with affirmative action and political correctness.
No way.
A number of white people think the process will be complete with the election of Barack Obama. I think they will be disappointed.
"saying "digger" or "tigger" aloud over and over so that I could enjoy their sonorous music."
That may be true, but when I saw a can of OFF bug spray in the store that keeps "chiggers" away, I bought it and was elated to tell all my friends that I was chigger free.
I dunno why the word chigger seems so funny to me. Perhaps its because I've never seen a chigger or had one bite/nest/crawl on me.
Indeed, if you do a google images search for chigger you'd be pretty happy your bug spray kept the chiggers away too!
black use of the N word is not "inherently stripped of its historical message." without the historical message, blacks would not use it at all. rather, black use of it imposes a certain irony that is, for some, grimly empowering, and for others, faintly liberating. But for most people it's just ugly. Point is, black people have, at the very, very least, earned a right o use that word as they see fit. White people do not have that right. A notably minor injustice in the wake of a notably major one.
Nothing to add except to say that's as fine a piece on this topic as I've ever read -- Well-done, McArdle, and Thanks.
"Oddest of all to me is the suggestion that black people should be out there setting a good example for whites on the word."
Except that they are keeping the word alive by making it "cool" (sorry, I'm old, insert appropriate term of your own). I hear American Indian kids in our small Alaskan town say to each other "what's up nigga" or "he's my nigger" because they have been taught by black recording artists and movie/tv stars that it's cool. If black america is truly offended by this word and want others not to use it, don't teach young people that it's hip to do so. The nuances you've discusses are lost on the majority of them.
What if a poster on a blog says nigger and no one can tell what race he or she is? Is that or or is that not ok?
What if a quadroon says 'nigger'? Is it 25% incorrect, 75% acceptable?
Is Schroedinger's Cat alive or dead?
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
This is really an academic debate, with no bearing on the real world.
Just try not to be an asshole, and the rest will take care of itself.
I have no need to use that word. I am uncomfortable with the fact that a large subculture within the African American community seems to think it's cool to use that word among themselves. I'm not sure they are taking ownership in the way we took over "Yankee Doodle" in the late 1700s. I think it's yet another way black kids drag each other down.
Although, if we point out to our kids that they cannot be part of that ultra-cool-attitude subculture, because that subculture won't accept their use of that word, maybe we'll cut off the rap revenue stream. The gangsta subculture will die on the vine without suburban dollars to fund it.
"I do not think that I have ever found myself saying "digger" or "tigger" aloud over and over so that I could enjoy their sonorous music."
That must be because you don't know the song. After all, they're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy Fun! Fun! Fun! Fun! Fun!
You say: "because when blacks use it, it is inherently stripped of its historical message of racial prejudice".
If this is true, than we should be seeing campaign ads for Obama clearly using that word to describe him PROUDLY. Is that going to happen any time soon? Somehow, I don't think so. You statement is not true.
The comments discussion on the topic leaves me sad. And puzzled. There seem to be a lot of whites who are really annoyed that black people are telling them not to use the word.
Do you think there should be a commotion every time a person uses the word "niggardly?" Remember the DC mayor's aide who used the word? He had to resign from his job.
Do you think the use of a phrase like "black hole" or "devil's food cake" should be controversial?
I think the problem is the blanket assumption black use is good and white use is evil is where it is flawed.
Certainly the majority of times it is used by a black it may not be meant as a disparaging remark. What exactly is a 'black' and what is a 'white' person. What skin tone is the cutoff? Do people who are Arabic count as white or black? I remember the term 'sand-nigger' from when I was growing up so can they say that? but not 'nigger'? How about a white child who was adopted by blacks?
I would have no real problem with a dual meaning of the word judged by its use in context but saying that skin tone is how you are measuring that context is racist. Race relation problems will continue to exist until ALL racial profiling is seen as a bad thing. This is a minor example of black racism which leads to more racial tension. As you already pointed out it has led to that in the comments here and on the other thread.
Personally I'd prefer it never to be used and let the word die and become a part of history. However it's not my generation that controls the language, its future generations. Your right your in your 30's and certainly don't need a good example for what is acceptable behaviour. It is your children and thier children that need an example. In my neighborhood the only time I see the word nigger it is not used as deliberate racial slur. So a child growing up here does not have the same mindset that you or I do.
Yeah, whites shouldn't use n-word, but blacks should just shut up. Whites don't think they have anything to learn on matters of race; don't have to change, improve their racial attitudes, become better people, none of that. When it comes to improving the lives of black people, the ball lies squarely in black race’s court. They are the ones who need to change.
I am disappointed you repeat yourself; I will not do so except to say that due to the nature of the word in question discussion of it divides people into groups which are hostile to each other as you are showing.
I think the premise that there's a double standard here at all is overblown. I guess there is a double standard on hit records, but for the day to day? Anyone is free to use the n word in front of their racist friends and relatives without ill effect, and not even black people can use it in earshot of children at the mall or their colleagues at IBM without upsetting people.
I was taught to not use "white trash" when I was a kid because the implication is that the default nature of "trash" is not white (ie, black). OK, so we take it as an axiom that people avoid redundancies whenever possible.
But I recently read about the coach of Spain's soccer team who got in trouble for calling a player a "black shit." Presumably this was a slur against black players, but in light of my understanding of language, it was actually a slur against the coach's own race.
Any linguists around to sort this out for me?
I really don't get what the problem is here. Angry white people, you can use the n-word all you want. No one's going to throw you in jail. Just don't act surprised when other people think you are a bigot or your boss fires you for creating a hostile work environment. Otherwise, knock yourselves out.
Matt B. Aragones (the Spanish coach) was referring to Thierry Henry when he made his "black shit" comment. It happened during the run-up to world cup 2006. I don't think he really got in trouble. According to wikipedia, the Spanish football federation was fined by UEFA, but Aragones got to keep his job and go on to glory this year by leading the Spaniards to victory in the EUROs. (I know that's not the question you asked. Just filling in some of the background.)
I do not have a problem with religious people as long as they do not tell non-religious people that they cannot be as moral as themselves are.
I do understand when non-religious people argue amongst each other who is less or more moral - it is called the legal court system. But I do not understand how this applies to cross-religious arguments that involve the supernatural as an ethical guiding force?
This, I guess, was why the separation of state&church as well as the right to practice your religion freely are two distinctively different rights and arguments? The founding fathers had it right and I am surprised to see that hundreds of years later - Christians feel the urge to add an amendment to stress that the US is a religious, Christian, nation? Isn't the right to practice your religion or non-religion freely enough?
Again - I do not think that non-religious people have any problems with religious people as long as the latter does not claim that atheists cannot be (as) moral and as long as we are taking the separation of state& church seriously (in doubt as literally as possible...).
ooppps... wrong thread - the previous post obviously belonged in another thread. Here I merely wanted to post what Mr X had to say on this matter. He explains why Barak H Obama is NOT a n-name name...
"The basic social rule seems to be fairly easy to follow: black people get upset when white people use that word. I am well warned that this is so. Therefore, I do not use that word."
Let's extrapolate from that logic and see where it leads us.
- Black people get upset at the phrase "you people". Therefore, we shouldn't use that phrase.
- Black people get upset when so few black applicants score well on the FDNY written test. Therefore, we should make the test easier, even if that means it no longer selects for firefighters intelligent enough to perform a life-and-death job competently.
- Black people get upset when there's aggressive policing in their neighborhoods. Therefore, we should tell the police to back off (even if it leads to more blacks being victimized by criminals).
- Ta-Nahesi gets upset when whites use the phrase "the N-word". Megan, were you trying to deliberately upset Ta-Nehisi with this post? How are you going to make it up to him? Maybe bring him over a tray of your fancy mac & cheese -- and hope he doesn't interpret that as a form of anti-black mockery, since mac & cheese is a soul food staple.
The moon is full tonight.
Could it be that every month at this time, Steve Sailer grows fangs and long hairy ears and turns into Juan?
I don't see a problem. I have a few close friends that I can call "fuckers". To their face. No, it isn't mean or cruel. I think most folks can understand this.
But to think that I can call some random guy at the supermarket checkout stand the same thing without repercussions would be a ridiculously stupid extrapolation from my experience. Why do folks have a problem understanding this concept?
I'm also baffled by the rage and resentment in the comments on this subject. So there's a word I don't get to use. So what?
I'm confused by Coates' resentment of whites saying "the n-word," however -- what does Ta-Nehesi think we are supposed to say?
You're still using the phrase "N-word." I thought we were going to learn a good alternative.
rather, black use of it imposes a certain irony that is, for some, grimly empowering, and for others, faintly liberating
I don't quite understand what is empowering or liberating about using a term of hate and abuse.
Matt M -
No one's going to throw you in jail. Just don't act surprised when other people think you are a bigot or your boss fires you for creating a hostile work environment.
This seems like a contradiction to me. If a boss doesn't prevent a guy from creating a hostile work environment, the boss can be sued. So no, noone's going to throw a person into jail for saying the n-word. The justice department has contracted punishment for racism out to corporate America.
I'm not saying that this is good or bad. But we might as well admit that we have a de facto government enforced speech code, even if the mechanism of government is indirect.
There's a slippery-slope problem here. No sensible white person will use the word as an epithet. But once you make that a "rule," there will be demands for taking "Huckleberry Finn" out of the libraries, for firing people who say "niggardly" or "picnic" or "handicapped," or who refer to a "rule of thumb" or complain about someone's having "welshed" on a bet. The eagerness of many people to make up lies about the origins of harmless words and phrases--like all those I've listed (no, "welsh on a bet" is not a put down of southwest British people)--shows that some people like to bully others about the way they speak. The history of the constantly changing names for people who have been discriminated against--"Negro" to "black" to "African-American" or "handicapped" to "disabled" to "differently abled"--is a history of political hacks trying to trick people into using the "wrong" word, so they can be denounced. Small wonder that some of us get annoyed at the whole enterprise.
Well Megan, you said "denigrate" which means "to blacken."
So why are you associating being black with being bad? Huh?
This is just one more piece of evidence that our entire culture is hopelessly racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic and tied to violent religious extremism.
We must forthwith proceed to destroy our culture and replace it with something designed by a coalition of academic professionals and morally pure marginalized groups.
Sometimes I really wonder about Megan. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. N***** is not like darling. It is an ugly word with a long and terrible history. Now, there are two ways to deal with the word. One way is to just ban the word. Just take it completely out of polite conversation at all levels. That is difficult to do when black people are using it continuously in popular music and conversation.
The other method to deal with the word is to devalue its pejorative context and give it new meaning. You do that by confronting the word and using it in other context to give it new meaning. That is the idea behind black people using the word. It is an attempt to rob the word of its power. It is of course silly to think that if the word has truly has changed that it has only changed if black people use it but not white people. Are there any other "secret terms of endearment" that only members of a race can use to each other but not outsiders? There are none that I can think of. It would be an entirely new category of word. That seems to be a difficult thing to accomplish. Further, to address Megan's example of calling her boyfriend darling, it would be a word that is negative in one sense but somehow positive in the other. When someone calls your boyfriend "darling" they it is still a positive term just made by someone who you don't want saying it. The meaning doesn't change, just the use is inappropriate. In this case the meaning of the word would change. That seems very nonsensical.
The bottom-line is that it is difficult for black people on the one hand to claim, rightfully I think, that the word is a nasty piece of language that is not fit for use in most contexts while on the other hand claiming that it has lost its pejorative context when they use it. Is it that hard to say that no one should use this demeaning and awful word?
I am about to stop reading this blog. Megan seems to spend more and more time writing about tired subject and substituting warmed over politically conventional wisdom for original thinking and writing.
Alan Gunn has nailed it.
Look, no one is stopping you from using the word. You won't go to jail for it or lose the right to speak. What will happen is that you'll likely be branded as being racist and be ostracized for it by polite society. Chances are if you have a burning desire to use the word, you probably already are and the social stigma preventing you from using the word is protecting you. I say, go ahead, use the word, it better helps me identify you and lets me know not to take you seriously.
Ryan W.-
It may be that the boss is worried about a lawsuit when an employee uses the word. Or maybe the boss doesn't want racist jackasses interacting with clients and generally dragging the place down. Don't assume that it's really the fault of The Authorities.
Ryan W.-
It may be that the boss is worried about a lawsuit when an employee uses the word. Or maybe the boss doesn't want racist jackasses interacting with clients and generally dragging the place down. Don't assume that it's really the fault of The Authorities.
I would recommend Randall Kennedy's Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. It details the usage and etymology of the word.
Whites shouldn't say the n-word. However, there should be a "Mel Brooks exception" to the rule:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw
I don't think that people should hurl racial epithets at people. And I can't imagine a situation in which I would call my black friends "nigger". But then, they don't use the term around me either. If in my social circle the black people regularly referred to one another as "nigger", I could see how I might come to use it.
I am a woman, and if most men called me a bitch... well, they'd find out the meaning of the word. But then, I have close friends of both genders who will lightheartedly call me a bitch in certain contexts because they know that I will understand that they didn't really mean it. But they understand that if they called their mother or colleague or the vast majority of women a bitch the reaction would not be the same, and that if another woman who wasn't in our social circle overheard them refer to me as a bitch that they might not take it as a joke.
I have used what would generally be considered homophobic slurs with gay and lesbian friends -- but only those that I knew would be comfortable with it because they themselves use the terms very lightly. I would not use these terms with other gay people because I assume that they would be offended.
You are right that context matters. But context is not just about the race or gender or sexual orientation of the person using the word. It is about the social circle and your intent.
Having said that, unless you can be 100% that it will be well received, it's probably best that you find another word.
What makes the word so appealing that removing it from your vocabulary constitutes a major hardship?
This is utterly idiotic. It is removed from the vocabulary of whites. What many people want is for it to be removed from the vocabulary of blacks as well.
The main question is, is there to be a single standard for everyone with regards to using this word or one rule for whites and another for blacks?
What makes the word so appealing that removing it from your vocabulary constitutes a major hardship?
1. As far as I can remember not a single commenter actually wrote that they want to usse the word.
2. What makes the word so appealing that removing it from their vocabulary constitutes a major hardship for black people?
You're still using the phrase "N-word." I thought we were going to learn a good alternative.
I recommend "the enn-word". The more you drag out and emphasize the letter, both in speech and prose, the more ridiculous both the original word and the workaround become, making for a delicious dose of double irony. Note that this also works with other popular forms of mental linguistic sloth, e.g. "the eff-word" or "the ess-word". And if you're having a really bad day, add another syllable to the letter and truncate that one sharply. Now it's "the enn-uh! word", etc.
Use it wisely.
Well Megan, you said "denigrate" which means "to blacken."
So why are you associating being black with being bad? Huh?
This is just one more piece of evidence that our entire culture is hopelessly racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic and tied to violent religious extremism.
We must forthwith proceed to destroy our culture and replace it with something designed by a coalition of academic professionals and morally pure marginalized groups.
But once you make that a "rule," there will be demands for taking "Huckleberry Finn" out of the libraries, for firing people who say "niggardly" or "picnic" or "handicapped," or who refer to a "rule of thumb" or complain about someone's having "welshed" on a bet. The eagerness of many people to make up lies about the origins of harmless words and phrases...shows that some people like to bully others about the way they speak.
Exactly. My kid had a teacher this year rip on him for using the expression 'rule of thumb' ... based on the 'fact' that it derives from the thickness of the stick used to beat your wife. But that 'fact' is pure, invented BS, and her actions were pure bullying.
So should he submit and never use that again and in the future be deferential (Oh, I'm so sorry!) and proceed gingerly lest he get in trouble? Or should his attitude be -- f**k off, I'm not going to be bullied into submission by the phony PC linguistic landmines that are being planted all over?
Paraphrasing a comment I left on Coates' blog: OK, take ownership, say it, but say it in private. When I am on the NYC subway, and I see black kids saying nigger every ten seconds, it just makes me feel lonely. They are drawing themselves apart. They are saying something that I, a white person, cannot repeat or respond to and that I certainly can't join in with. It slams down a divide between us. Saying nigger in such a public place celebrates the divide and reinforces it. Do we need to be further balkanized? So maybe it is OK for black people to say between friends in private. But not in public. It coarsens our world and divides us.
Now, there are two ways to deal with the word. One way is to just ban the word. Just take it completely out of polite conversation at all levels. That is difficult to do when black people are using it continuously in popular music and conversation.
The other method to deal with the word is to devalue its pejorative context and give it new meaning. You do that by confronting the word and using it in other context to give it new meaning. That is the idea behind black people using the word. It is an attempt to rob the word of its power. It is of course silly to think that if the word has truly has changed that it has only changed if black people use it but not white people. Are there any other "secret terms of endearment" that only members of a race can use to each other but not outsiders? There are none that I can think of. It would be an entirely new category of word. That seems to be a difficult thing to accomplish.
What he said.
Paris made an excellent point. Hearing the word used in public makes me feel lonely as well. How can I try to join in, or be friendly, when I'm being alienated?
Brittany,
The whole point is for you to be alienated.
When I am on the NYC subway, and I see black kids saying nigger every ten seconds, it just makes me feel lonely. They are drawing themselves apart. They are saying something that I, a white person, cannot repeat or respond to and that I certainly can't join in with. It slams down a divide between us.
Posted by Paris | July 21, 2008 9:21 PM
Reading through this thread provides evidences a lot intellectual dishonesty, flippancy and just general stupidity---but this statement is really the most honest critique on this situation. Kudos.
I never thought I'd have anything nice to say about Megan McCardle, but this is about the most sensible piece I've ever read on the issue, and well-written.
What people can't stand is the complete stupidity of some people to immediately assume the worst when such words are used. I think it is okay to say nigger, just like it is okay to say blackhole. The problem people have is with people who lack the ability to recognize context in speech. These days you can't even say niggardly without people getting nervous. This also seems to be true with words like dyke, spic, queer, raghead, frenchy, etc.... I used the word dyke one time in law school and somebody freaked out, as if I my life was void of intimate contact with lesbians. My use of the word wasn't the problem or wrong, it was the person who was sensitive to the word who was wrong. THEY assumed I was a bigot just because I said dyke. Nobody should ever have to apologize for not being a bigot, just cause they say dyke, nigger, or whatever.
It is just anti-intellectual to give a race or class of people carte blanche over a word just because of the word' historical offensiveness. It is more important for people to listen and understand the context in which the word is spoken before getting bent out of shape. Putting a black person down by calling them a nigger is one thing, but just saying "what's up nigger?" to a black friend of yours who gets it isn't wrong; irregardless of the NAACP "burying" the word or whatever the dominant social mores are.
Furthermore my friends in college, who happened to be black, hated the use of the "n-word" and told me just to say nigger. There is just something laughable about saying the "n-word". It's particularly embarassing when it is used an intellectual discussion, much like this blog. Personally, I think the use of "n-word" instead of nigger reveals a subtle lack of intellectual integrity by whoever uses it.
What people can't stand is the complete stupidity of some people to immediately assume the worst when such words are used. I think it is okay to say nigger, just like it is okay to say blackhole. The problem people have is with people who lack the ability to recognize context in speech. These days you can't even say niggardly without people getting nervous. This also seems to be true with words like dyke, spic, queer, raghead, frenchy, etc.... I used the word dyke one time in law school and somebody freaked out, as if I my life was void of intimate contact with lesbians. My use of the word wasn't the problem or wrong, it was the person who was sensitive to the word who was wrong. THEY assumed I was a bigot just because I said dyke. Nobody should ever have to apologize for not being a bigot, just cause they say dyke, nigger, or whatever.
It is just anti-intellectual to give a race or class of people carte blanche over a word just because of the word' historical offensiveness. It is more important for people to listen and understand the context in which the word is spoken before getting bent out of shape. Putting a black person down by calling them a nigger is one thing, but just saying "what's up nigger?" to a black friend of yours who gets it isn't wrong; irregardless of the NAACP "burying" the word or whatever the dominant social mores are.
Furthermore my friends in college, who happened to be black, hated the use of the "n-word" and told me just to say nigger. There is just something laughable about saying the "n-word". It's particularly embarassing when it is used an intellectual discussion, much like this blog. Personally, I think the use of "n-word" instead of nigger reveals a subtle lack of intellectual integrity by whoever uses it.
What people can't stand is the complete stupidity of some people to immediately assume the worst when such words are used. I think it is okay to say nigger, just like it is okay to say blackhole. The problem people have is with people who lack the ability to recognize context in speech. These days you can't even say niggardly without people getting nervous. This also seems to be true with words like dyke, spic, queer, raghead, frenchy, etc.... I used the word dyke one time in law school and somebody freaked out, as if I my life was void of intimate contact with lesbians. My use of the word wasn't the problem or wrong, it was the person who was sensitive to the word who was wrong. THEY assumed I was a bigot just because I said dyke. Nobody should ever have to apologize for not being a bigot, just cause they say dyke, nigger, or whatever.
It is just anti-intellectual to give a race or class of people carte blanche over a word just because of the word' historical offensiveness. It is more important for people to listen and understand the context in which the word is spoken before getting bent out of shape. Putting a black person down by calling them a nigger is one thing, but just saying "what's up nigger?" to a black friend of yours who gets it isn't wrong; irregardless of the NAACP "burying" the word or whatever the dominant social mores are.
Furthermore my friends in college, who happened to be black, hated the use of the "n-word" and told me just to say nigger. There is just something laughable about saying the "n-word". It's particularly embarassing when it is used an intellectual discussion, much like this blog. Personally, I think the use of "n-word" instead of nigger reveals a subtle lack of intellectual integrity by whoever uses it.
One small nit to pick, Megan. "I follow exactly the same practice with "dyke", "spic", "guinea", and so forth.". In fact, no you don't, inasmuch as you feel free to actually type those words, whereas you (and everyone else) writes "N-word" instead of the actual word. Not that I'm saying we should type it with free abandon, nor am I saying I know what the correct answer is, I'm just saying is all...
"society has decided..."
Wrong right there. Society is a collection of individuals within a given geographical area. Unanimity is so rare as to be a meaningless goal, so "society" decides nothing. Anyone claiming to speak for society is telling falsehoods, as he can speak only in the interests of some against the interests of others. It is a spurious claim, intended to assert moral superiority on the part of the speaker.
Certainly, one might take a shortcut and claim that the majority point of view represents society--a claim that often eliminates the rights and interests of as much as 49% of the citizenry. In that case, one is not speaking for society, but promoting the tyranny of the majority.
Democratic tyranny remains tyranny. Evil means do not become good simply because they are popular.
I have a longer post about this over on my blog, but I think my conclusion is fairly stand alone:
This is, in fact, a lot like the "Affirmative Action" debate. Once you decide it's ok to judge people based on the color of their skin, you've forfeited all right to complain about others doing the same. Having a different skin color from the majority of Americans doesn't give you special rights, and thinking it does marks you as just as racist as the creators and enforcers of Jim Crow.
You can have issues of right and wrong, or you can have questions about "whose ox is getting gored?" Once you've switched over to the latter, you've forfeited any special claim on the rest of us, any claim to special consideration. Because when it comes down to "whose ox is getting gored?", my ox is just as valuable is yours. Actually, it's more valuable, because it's mine.
Now, am I going to go out tomorrow and call a black guy a "n!gger" just because other black people do it? No.
But am I going to waste much care, concern, or consideration when some other person does that? No. Why should I? It's merely a question of whose ox is getting gored, and I don't have an ox in that fight.
Finally, would I like to live in a society where people don't use racial epithets? Absolutely. But according to Megan and Ta-Nehisi, not only is that not going to happen, but I'm wrong for even wanting it to happen. So long as that remains the case, it's not worth my time to care. And that's why it's wrong for blacks to use the "n word". Because every time they do it, they tell the rest of us that using it is no big deal.