The -N- Word

With the latest RIDICULOUS distortion of Huck Finn, I think it's a good time to have this discussion. There was already a thread about Huck Finn, and I'd like this thread to be about the N word in all its uses, real-life, fiction, music, you name it.

I ask the question: should the word die? if people will not use it, it will die eventually. It will still have its place in history, but everyday people will not have it in their lexicon.

HOWEVER - it is not going to die anytime soon. Because it's mostly used by afro-americans these days, and in a very different sense than its original historical meaning. It became a word similar to "brothers" "guys" "dudes", even bearing a positive meaning at times, depending on its use.

So my second question is: is there anything wrong about using this word in such manner? would you say that afro-americans are hurting themselves by keeping this word alive?

What about white guys using it, and not in offensive manner, but in the same way black guys are using it? is that where you draw the line and say "no! white men should never use it!" -- when a white man says it, it surely becomes offensive / awkward / doesn't feel right. And declaring that whites are not allowed to use it -- is that in itself a racist declaration?

My third question is therefore: can white people use it with their afro-american friends, or would you say that it's best if whites will not use it at all?

Now, about literature: people speak against changing Huck Finn saying that "at the time of writing, it was a common word" -- but what about current fiction? if someone decides now to write an afro-american novel, or a novel which features afro-american characters -- the novel could have these characters using this word in their dialogue, and you can't argue that it's untrue to our times, because like it or not, the word is still in use.

So my fourth and final question -- is there anything wrong about using this word in current/future literature? I think most people agree that past literature should be untouched.

In the bigger sense - should fiction even be subordinate to realism?

And finally, should writers refrain from using all sorts of "bad words" - should certain words be banned, or is there total freedom in writing?

Thanx for reading

Good post. I will try to limit my comments b/c I could write a treatise on this. First off I don't believe in censorship. So any writer or musician or filmmaker or whoever should feel free to use whatever profanity that they need to in order to get their point across.

There is a huge difference between someone who has characters that use profanity that is appropriate for that time or milieu and someone who actually quietly or proudly endorses such attitudes themselves. This is the difference between a writer like Robert E. Howard or HP Lovecraft on the one hand and someone like Stephen King on the other. I very much enjoy REH but some of his work is essentially unreadable for me and his private letters were even worse. (I need to write something about that one day.)

This difference can not be easily delineated but on the other hand every artist or consumer of art knows the difference.

I don't think anyone should use racial slurs of any kind. Of course no one is perfect. But that word is not one which was tolerated in my home and was one certain to start a fight out of it. Again, there's a difference between representation and reality. To the extent that anyone refers to themselves as a slur I think that's a mistake. I don't think certain words can be reclaimed. There are similar questions among women and homosexuals about words which have been used to insult and wound being used as words of proud self-identification.

Any white person that would use that word directed at me would not be a friend.

Now this gets tricky because inevitably there will be someone who is all agitated and so mad they could just spit that they are "not allowed" to use that word with black people. That's a ridiculous argument to me. First of all it's not true. If you like you are free to scream that word all you like at your black associates or friends. No one is stopping you. But you are not free to pre-determine their reaction. Chances are it won't be a good one.

A writer who I greatly respect and emulate has written a great post on this topic in relation to the Dr. Laura brouhaha a few months back. I recommend reading this. I don't agree with all of it but it hits some important issues.

To riff off one of his points this really does come to community propriety and consent. A man may get angry at his girlfriend or wife and call her a "dumb c***". A husband and wife may engage in public displays of affection including touching. In private moments they may use all sorts of demeaning or insulting language. (Rex Ryan)
Just because they do that with each other doesn't give anyone else the right to go play graba$$ with the wife or call her out of her name. I have worked with people of different ethnicities or races that had no problem calling each other names or making jokes about where/how they grew up. If I did that they would have a problem with it. It's just human nature.

I think that coarseness in language is usually a bad thing and should be avoided. That's just how I was raised. On average I think the widespread use of that word among the rappers is a bad thing. But I'm going to stop now before I start to sound too much like Stanley Crouch.

I knew you were a closet fan .

Short answer from a middle-aged white guy: The word clearly has it's place in history, so to edit it out of a book written over a hundred years ago is not only ridiculous, but it goes against everything this country was founded on.

I personally wish black people wouldn't use it around me. It makes me very uncomfortable, and I'll often ask them not to do so when talking to me. They usually respect me for it (although I have been directed to go fuck myself a few times).

White people should NEVER use the word. That's just how I feel.

I agree w/ both. I think black leaders have been trying to discourage its use even in friendly terms but something so accepted in everyday language takes at least a generation, sometimes even longer to completely drop away from common use. Its presence in music & movies like 'Pulp Fiction', etc will keep it going even after it's not used as much in everyday conversation.



There is no way a white person can use that word in conversation and have it not be offensive. There seems to be an unwritten rule, or code that (probably because of its origins), whites just can't say it.

And it's not that they're not allowed to use it, they would just be in a heap of trouble if they did.



Hard to say, there are some relationships that are so strong they can endure anything. However, a white person would have to be really, really REALLY good friends with a black person and the two (or more) know each other extremeely well, for the word to be able to be used comfortably and unoffensively.



Again, I refer to 'Pulp Fiction' and the like. Quentin Tarrantino seemed to have no problem inserting it and let's face it the film is a classic. That's just an example since I've seen it. Am sure there are more. So in the right context why shouldn't it be used in writing, fiction or non-fiction?



Freedom in writing, freedom of expression. However...a writer of ANYTHING should be prepared to backup, defend, and accept any fallout, good or bad, as a result of what he or she chooses to write. Regardless of content, because such reaction as long as it doesn't result in physical harm...is ALSO freedom of expression.

I think that Richard Pryor summarized it very well. He said that he had often used that word with friends, associates, etc. However, after a trip to Africa, he got up on stage and admitted that he was now ashamed with how casually he had used it. He vowed he would never use it again.

I find it to be demeaning, I don't care who says it. If I greeted my other Italian-American friends, with "What's up, my dago-wop?", wouldn't that be demeaning? Blacks not only fought but died in the battle to eliminate the sentiments that went with that word, so why use it now?? Personally, I don't get it.

I would never, ever use that word, and I would never, ever allow it's use in my presence, just as I would never subscribe to any such slur. They put a person front and center as incredibly ignorant and small-minded. I hope I never come across as such.

My opinions are uncensored and may be considered offensive if you are what I would call oversensitive. I am only trying to be practical in my approach, like it or not, here it is:

N-Word offends me. If you don't want to say ni**er don't bring it up.

The huck finn thing pissed me off because it was not what Mark Twain wrote. We shouldn't be painting over parts of the Sistene Chapel that we don't like.

Also, to erase the word ni**er erases the history of it. A lot of people went through a lot of struggles for and because of it and to erase that turns their struggles into a meaningless act. We should not be erasing a hateful word, we should be teaching why the hate was/is dumb and wrong instead.

Let me keep this as simple as possible. It is only a word.
Nothing more and nothing less.

I am sadden by what the world has done to these several letters. They have used it politically to a point where people are not only afraid to speak it but also afraid to spell it out when they write it.
They have made it into a evil thing that is so bad that they would have you believe that if you do use it or write it in its normal form that you are a monster.

They have whipped people into a frenzy. Putting fear into everyone white person (non Black) in this country. Telling them that only Certain people may use the word and at times even going as far as demanding that people lose their jobs and are unfit to do things because of its use.

They have raise the bar to make it seem like just using the word will cause major conflict, civil unrest and possible bloodshed. That it would topple governments and end the human race!

Come on, it is only a word! And even if words can be mightier then swords...we have made this one into a god in itself. We have made it into a battle cry in my opinion but at what cost to us all. Freedom?

Yeah, it is made only more powerful by people calling it "N-word"

Maybe you should tell that to the families of those who were called that word while being beaten, lynched, abused and killed for so many years because of the color of their skin.

The many children who were denied the "freedom" of an education, the use of public transportation or even a meal because they were categorized by the use of that word!

Just a word my ass!

Such ignorance.

ni**er?

It's ridiculous discussing something that's automatically censored.

Personally, I find the word absolutely disgusting and degrading. When I hear that word spoken, it makes the person saying it completely ignorant and low class. One of the worst words in the english language...just my humble opinion.

They say it's the most powerful word in English. I have to think about that.

Longneck, I know what you're trying to say, and I often think that saying F-word or using stars to censor yourself seems kinda silly...but here I knew that several forum members might be offended if I spell it out. I don't know. Maybe.

Lilo, would it have bothered you if I used it in my post/thread title?

A word on censoring, because I think it's important.

What, actually, is being censored, and whose sensitivity is being protected, when a word is ommitted or in some way distorted?

On this board, I'm thinking of '[BadWord]' (the C word) and 'ni**er' (which isn't a '[Badword]', curiously, it's just 'diluted' with asteriks).

I don't get it. It's quite an arbitrary process that if nothing else draws attention to the offending item and also to one's own sensitivity. What are we, Victorians?

What's arbitrary is the notion of replacing certain letters with an asterisk but not others. It would never be 'nigge*', or 'cun*'. But when we read the word we don't read it any differently; the sound-meaning is still produced in our heads, etc.

This addresses the arbitrary way in which we assign signifiers to signified objects; we don't call a four-legged canine animal "cat", and we don't call something whose function is to be sat on a "table". My point is that the only thing being censored is the signifier, not the signified; we're deleting an image, not its associated meaning.

I don't know what produces oversensitivity, neither historically nor socially, but I do know it can often neglect both history and society. If you're sensitive to cursing in and of itself - as opposed to the contexts in which it can occur - then you're probably sensitive to a whole other lump of things, including a recommendation to 'chill out'.

There is I guess the argument that censoring random letters in words 'spoils the fun in and/or incentive to curse in the first place', but I think that's idealist self-projection. Who here would really start typing the C word left right and centre if its automatic ban was lifted?

I think it's double self-projection: cursing is cultural, and censoring language is censoring culture, which inherently elevates one's own above others'. It's liberal exclusivism.

The only way to effectively censor particular words is to forbid language itself, which is impossible.

Tolerance is a two-way process.

I was always taught it is offensive and NOT a word to use.


However, as far as banning the word from literature, I don't think they should. Don't know if I can explain exactly why. There is something different about it's use in these writings. It was a sign of the times that it was written maybe; and/or gives a realism to how things were in our history???? Why alter it???

Speaking of which, anyone close to my age will remember the Disney movie, "The Song Of The South" Isn't there a controversy surrounding that movie content as well? I wanna say they aren't releasing it on DVD or something? Anyone else know?

Gosh, it has been probably since I was a kid that I saw the movie, but I remember it being a very heartwarming film.

TIS

For the record, my 'ni**er' post above was automatically censored. I wasn't being polite.

(Because replacing letters with asterisks isn't being polite, it's being stupid.)

Back to the cause for this discussion, the pointless white washing of HUCK FINN, a good example when censorship can come from the ignorance of both factions: The hypocritical morality police and the PC vanguard.

All art dates, as time capsules for their epoch's language, grammar, politics, morality, prejudices, etc. That's inevitable and part of the charm to a degree, and HUCK FINN is no different. In 2010 eyes the book does come off as being racist, Twain using common 19th century black stereotypes for the newly named Slave Jim that Twain's contemporary whites found acceptable back then, and unacceptable today.

Which is ironic considering in today's hindsight all this almost obscure Twain's point of the book: An illiterate, runaway southern white boy growing beyond the culture's established/encouraged racism, putting aside ignorant stereotypes and view blacks as people once he meets and gets to know them in the flesh.

When we view art from outside of our epoch, we must always ask is "what can I take away from this for now?" That last paragraph is what I got from FINN, while not ignoring what I wrote in the previous paragraph before that.

Consider I'm sure a future target of PC white washing, William Shakespeare's THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. Terrific writing, memorable lines (its the Bard you know), and anti-semitic mentality which was the norm in Elizabethan England. But in the midst of a play which comes off as wretched 16th century WASP pornography in some modern quarters, You then get this famous great speech Shakespeares gives to the "villain" Shylock which throws a wrench into that argument:

Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility?
Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his
sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge.
The villainy you teach me, I will execute,
and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

Thus is VENICE anti-semitic, or simply another HUCK FINN? The debate rages on, prepare the sponges!

The Founding Fathers of America believed in public education because of their ideal that the masses won't be so fucking ignorant and not be so easily manipulated by the educated elites, who maintained control by among many valves, language.

Thus PC at its worst is very much just another reincarnation of Fascism, just acceptable to the people you would think would know better of the implications.

Regarding whites who use the "N-word," I think we remember more recently like especially the Michael Richards fiasco. But another notable example that came to mind for me when I read that OP was that John Lennon song which back in 1972 got him into heaps of trouble with the same liberals who earlier considered him a hero and leader.

Radio refused to play it, it was only performed on TV once on the Dick Cavett Show and this only after Cavett caved to ABC network pressure and taped a pre-show "warning" to audiences that the said song might offend some sensibilities. Lennon played it at his '72 charity concert at Madison Square Garden, which has been used in some arguments as to why the NYC papers were so harsh on his performance.* Ultimately it only peaked at #57 on the charts (Lennon's lowest charted single, solo or w/ Beatles) and usually left off his Greatest Hits compilation albums, including the one that came out last year.



*=So harsh, he never performend a full-length concert again in his lifetime. He was planning on resuming touring when he got popped.

A black lad at my work keeps saying, if for example he asks for a light for cigarette and you don't have one, "It's cos I'm black right?"

He's joking, but he doesn't discriminate as to who might get his tone and who mightn't; I'm not sure if he's aware of how passive aggressively confrontational that can be in some contexts.

I've wondered recently how he'd react if I responded, with the same smile with which he says it, "Actually, yes, it's because you're a ni**er".

I don't think "The Merchant of Venice" is anti-Semitic. As a Jew, I'd certainly rather have Shylock be portrayed the way he is than as, say, someone like the inhumanly perfect black doctor Sidney Poitier plays in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"!

I'm not arguing for censorship regardless of context, but what to you is 'the right context'? Here you've justified its use because it's 'part of a classic'?

That's the sort of 'films are for fun' liberalism that bought Tarantino's repugnant Inglourious Basterds a critical pass too: because that was so funny and cleverly put together, a good majority of its audience didn't seem to care about its bankrupt approach to history and Holocaust representation.

Disney never released SOTS uncut on VHS, and never will release it on DVD, at least in America. What's fucked up is that it's available over in Europe.

Of course Europe is racist anyway, so I'm not surprised.

I get why Disney would rather wish SOTS be forgotten and never mentioned again, but its silly not just for the same point most of us in this thread have agreed upon already.

But also wrong or not the movie happened and has its place in Disney history. It won several Oscars, including Best Song ("Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah") and served as the inspiration for the very popular Disneyland/World ride Splash Mountain. Which also is nicknamed "Flash Mountain" for some women notably "flashing" the ride camera.

Some years back Disney released a wonderful DVD set containing all the studio's animated World War 2 propaganda, with an authority figure (Leonard Maltin, I believe) explaining the context of the war and 1940s in these pictures including those that especially played on racist chariactures of the Japanese (buck teeth, yellow skin, squinty eyes) which you found regularly in contemporary LIFE, TIME, and other mainstream publications. Hell even the very liberal Dr. Seuss played on them too on his newspaper cartoons.

That DVD set also included this:



If Disney was to ever grow a pair and accept its history, they should do SOTS in a similar DVD release. You can't ignore history, nor ignore why it was ignored in the first place. A balance can be made.



Yes it is.

Isn't it just as offensive to whites being called trailer trash or honky's? What about whites who act "black" wiggers?

Now Miggie, you know that I always use the politically correct term for trailer trash: Hillbilly .

I was specifically thinking of the line spoken after Bruce Willis fails to throw a fight and then runs off with the cash. The character Mesalis says (paraphrasing) if he goes to Indochina I want a N... waiting at the bottom of a rice bowl.

Of course the line was spoken by a black man but supposedly written by Tarantino, he got full credit & an Oscar for it. So the line is his responsibility and it worked no other would've worked as well.

So that's what I meant by 'context'.

Good question, though.

Unlike Shylock, a central developped character in the piece, I don't think Sidney Poitier is the real focus in "Guess who's coming to Dinner" -- in fact, as good an actor as he is, he's just being used there to stimulate the real focus - which is how the white folks think of him, and of black people in general.

Definition of the word ni**er :

usually offensive; Used as a disparaging term for a Black person; Used as a disparaging term for a member of any dark-skinned people; a member of any dark-skinned race; a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons; to refer to individuals with dark skin, especially those of indigenous African descent who previously were racially classified;





Another Definition of the word ni**er : Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people; a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons <it's time for somebody to lead all of America's ni**ers … all the people who feel left out of the political process;

Is that your intent in referencing my President, The President of my country, in using the word ni**er in the context that you did? Please help me to understand and see where you may be coming from.

It's the law of these boards, like it or not. Don't diss the board's administrator by debating the merits of censorship on his property.

I whole-heartedly agree with his rules, specifically with this hateful word being *'d out.

I'd be all for removing any and ALL censorship from the boards -- I hate censorship of all kinds and believe everyone should be able to say what they want. The problem with that, though, is that there are too many immature and hateful people out there, as well as some [BadWords] here as well. But we're not having this conversation again.... it's off-topic.

Ignorance? I hope you aren't saying that about a member of this board? You know the rules about that....


Now, you surely know that a "word" didn't do those things, bad people did. Lets not mix the two up.
What next? you going to blame the rope for the hangings? GEE! play nice!

Oh relax; I hoped it would be clear it's obviously just an irrelevant joke.

ni**er is often a term with which black people have identified themselves, just as 'gay' has been successfully adopted by homosexuals.

Obama prides himself on being 'down with it', not in the street sense or black sense but in the political sense. And he's not.

If ni**er is a hip term, then your president, the president of your country, is a fraudulent hipster.

But I'm not talking politics. It's a joke. Feel free to respond to my serious posts, though.

FWIW, I can't remember the last time I said or typed the N word.

Crikey, chill out. 'Diss the board's administrator'? What, you mean Geoff?

Was I just told not to write on censorship?

My bad; didn't know we'd had one.

Regarding this board's censored features ..... YES (in a word).

You've been here long enough and we've been through this too many times.

You wanna fight censorship in newspapers, movies, etc..... knock yourself out (with my blessing). Just leave this board's very few censored words alone.

Fair enough?

I also think occurences of a certain word, phrase or cultural outlook can draw our attention to artistic limits.

Imagine if for instance my DVD of Griffith's Birth of a Nation (1915) had had its sequence of hooded KKK members heroically chasing black people to Wagner's 'Flight of the Valkiries' deleted? It's a politically abhorred film and shouldn't be diluted as such. Griffith is hailed as an innovative cinematic storyteller, but we shouldn't aid author festishism, or distort history, by fine-tuning it to our own wishes.

Yeah.

If we've been through those things, I've genuinely forgotten.

My post in question also used this board's censored words as an example; the wider point applied to censorship in general.

But yeah, fair enough.

This analogy fails Capo. No (sane) black American person identifies himself or herself as a N*****- not even the people who make their money using that word in film or music. If asked they would identify as "Black" or "African-American" or a few other descriptions that are now archaic. I can say with some confidence that's also true of black peoples throughout the diaspora. Whatever they call themselves they don't identify as "n*****"

"Gay" is nowhere near as offensive to people who identify as being attracted to the same sex as "sodomite" or "pervert" or "pederast" or "fa****". "Gay" is in and of itself no longer an insult. More to the point it's what many such people prefer to be called, just as people who used to be known pejoratively as "Gipsies" now seem to want be known as "Roma". It's generally considered polite to refer to people as they wish to be addressed. In fact it's more than polite; it denotes acceptance of their right to define themselves.

Using a racial slur to describe the president of the United States, however ironically, because you disagree with his politics or disagree with the Board's banned word policy, makes no sense.

I got black friends who call me ni**er and I'm white! I just wish everyone could say it. To me it's just a word. I'd love to be able use it in a positive manner and not worry about getting shot in the face. This is what's wrong with this world. I hate racism.

I can't believe that I'm hearing "It's just a word." It's NOT just a word. Every word has a deeper meaning and a history, and words should always be chosen carefully, not because of censorship, but to express oneself with true distinction and clarity.

The "N Word" reflects a history of fear, of anger, hate and subjugation. It reflects a time when people were considered property, to be bought and sold and used, and considered no more than livestock. It reflects a time when a people were considered lesser than, when they were denied the essential rights of freedom and education and free expression that were guaranteed to OTHER Americans. It reflects a time when people put their lives on the line to eradicate the usage of that word, and to bring those essential freedoms to those denied them.

Perhaps it's the fact that some haven't lived through those times. Perhaps it's pure flippancy. Perhaps it's racism. But a casual attitude towards it, the desire to bandy it about as if it were meaningless, is something I find appalling.

Now we have people who feel that we should only have "good" meaning words around?

Please people, I fully understand that you hate what this word now represents to many people, their feelings and fear.

But, calling for removal of words from our everyday use is as bad as putting bans of our rights or removing books from our reach or better yet the book burnings that have taken place years ago.


Removing the use of this word is not going to change what has happened then or what will happen in the in the future.

Reminds me of people who think that nothing happened during the second World War to the Jewish families.

And while we are it, yelling, and using cutting remarks at people who do not feel the same way that you do are almost as bad.


SB, it is not pure flippancy, or racism or a casual attitude towards it, or even the desire to bandy it about as if it were meaningless, it is called a difference of opinion!

and I do hope that you don't find that appalling.

Everyone please remember, just because you say it louder or meaner or put others down doesn't make your statement the winner. Most times it just shuts the other persons mind off to what you are saying.



Happy posting guys and lets keep the threads fun and interesting!

I never said the word should be removed. It has a history, and to remove it from our culture would be absurd. How can you learn from history if you try to erase it?

What I did read are some posts that feel it's "just a word". To me, that's wrong. It's not "just a word". No words are. Words have the power to move, to anger, to incite, to educate, to inspire. Words are incredibly powerful, and to dismiss them is, in my opinion, a mistake.

Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting threads we've had in quite some time. The discussion has been reasonable for the most part, and, at times, illuminating. I applaud Fame for posting such topics recently. It's great to have you back, Fame!

I agree. And most white people do NOT have a casual attitude towards it and know not to cross a line by using it in conversation. And most white people tend to cringe on the rare occassion they might hear another white person use it.

(Anybody remember that infamous Saturday Night Live skit between Chevy Chase & Richard Prior?)

The problem today is that alot of black people do have more of a casual attitude toward it, and do feel comfortable using it toward each other both in a friendly and derogatory way. Perhaps SB is correct in saying it's because they did not live through the history of it.

Which is why certain leaders of the Black Community, whatever their political leanings...are correct in discouraging (as opposed to 'banning') its use in any way, so that one day years from now it is never uttered at all and is only remembered for the dark part of U.S. history it represents.

Apple

Both you and SB are absolutely correct. Case in point. Several years ago while coaching my semi-pro football team, there were several African American young men who continually used that word in conversation. Many of the older African Americans, both players and coaches on the team, were offended by it, as was I.

Turns out that one day several of the young African American players came to me and asked why I was so turned off whenever I heard them use that word (I had implemented a rule where if the word was used by ANYONE, that person or player would have to do 100 push ups and 2 laps around the field)

I sat down with them and explained the background, meaning and what that word represented and you know what? When I was finished many of them told me that they were not aware of it's real meaning and what it represented and thanked me for educating them about it! They told me that they had been brought up thinking that it was a word that was used to show affection towards their peers!

From that day forward, if someone on the team used that word, I no longer had to say "2 Laps and 100 push ups!" Instead the young African Americans who now understood what a hateful and disgusting word it was would hand out the punishment!

As far as I am concerned ANYONE who uses that word outside of using it for the purpose of a discussion such as this, or to educate someone as to it's true meaning, is either mean, hateful or just plain ignorant!

DC,

Your post reminds me of when I was working (middle school)and the couple occasions where the "N" word was used between African American kids (not in a mean manner, they were friends). Of course the school would NOT tolerate that word as you might imagine, but these kids likely didn't know the full impact of the meaning of that word either I suppose??? I don't know, but it seems surely their parents must have discussed it at some point in their lives, no?

TIS

Who knows TIS. Speaking from my own experience with the young football players, as they told me, no one ever took the time to explain to them what the word really represented. So this could very well have been the case with your students.

There you go!
Perfect way to put it, without the drama!
Thank-You

Just a theory mind you...but I think alot of this casual attitude toward the word itself began with the late great Richard Pryor. His stand up comedy was full of that word and (unless I've got the wrong guy) even the title of one of his one man shows was: 'That (N) is Crazy!

He was absolutely hilarious, no doubt about it and an inspiration for many who came after him, including the equally hilarious Chris Rock.

But I think Pryor was one of the first if not THE first to throw that word around like it was nothing and on top of that use it to be funny. He may have contributed to making it 'acceptable' at least to his own people.

Apple

You are quite welcome and so, do I have brains now?
(Still pissed off about that..but let's get back on topic.)

I think Redd Foxx used it in his nightclub act before Pryor did. I still have a couple of Foxx's old albums (real vinyl ). I'd have to look at the copyright dates on them. But it's really neither here nor there. Pryor got the most attention with it because of the name of his standup act, and the famous album that followed it.

THANKS, pizzaboy...you're right about Redd Foxx.

I guess the difference is that he wasn't really nationally known until 'Sanford & Son' and of course he had to tone down ALOT for 1970's television. Very few really knew of his raunchy nightclub career (including me) until biographies started popping up after be became a star.

Pryor had the benefit of having his act filmed and distributed as a major motion picture release. I remember seeing it and don't think I stopped laughing throughout the entire thing. (Side note: There was a bit he did about how men cannot fathom how a woman can stop & start peeing at will that I still smile about to this day...!) Many more people were exposed to Richard Pryor than had been to the 'pre-television' Redd Foxx.

Apple

This has to remind you of Geroge Carlins famous "play on" the seven dirty words you can't say on TV.
The way he said them and defend them, it just made you laugh.

As I mentioned in an earlier post here, Richard Pryor stopped using it after a trip to Africa. As he said, it was a word that described wretchedness, and he vowed to stop using it.

Yes, I remember your post SB. It is to Pryor's credit that he made that decision.

Unfortunately for a few generations, more people became accustomed to his using it in comedy than heard about his revelation as to its true effect.

Apple

I will bet you a million dollars that all of these kids on your team knew exactly why this word was so controversial. You did not need to tell them. Everybody knows about the slave owners and especially black people. But this word wasn't always seen as a negative. It simply denoted "black skinned". Nineteenth-century English (language) literature features usages of the N word without racist connotation, e.g. the Joseph Conrad novella The ni**er of the 'Narcissus' (1897). The main character is a West Indian black sailor and in no way was he seen as a poor representation of black people. Words can have many meanings and whose to say what the true meaning is or better yet, the right meaning! In no way do I favor racism, but I don't believe in the power of words that are nothing more than some letters scrambled together. What I do believe in, is the power of the thought that is behind the word. You can walk up to me and tell me how bad I am when you're actually complimenting me and telling me how good I am. Yeah! and what about the word motherfucker. When you break that word down, it refers to people who fuck their mothers, but is that really what you think of when you hear it? Most of the time I hear it, it's not even a negative word. It's always like "What's up motherfucker" or "I love this motherfucker". People say it with affection now. I got many black friends and I never looked at them like they were different from any of my white friends. No, I don't use that word. Not because I think it's a bad word, but because of how other people perceive it.

Yeah, there are some brilliant minds in this forum, and the level of discussion is really high sometimes. Some of the threads in the GF section are truly amazing, for example.

Thanx a lot for the kind words!

To what extent does censoring a word censor history itself?
To what extent does retaining a word's original meaning despite its wide usage in different social contexts (because in different historical contexts) distort the development of language itself?

Lilo, point taken re my failed analogy. If ni**er isn't an official identification, it's still widely used in a lot of different contexts, none of which or most of which are not in any way consciously negative.

I don't agree 'it's just a word', but I don't think words have a fixed meaning removed or isolated from the context in which they occur.

Words have never offended me more than the intention behind them.

For instance, if someone called my mother a [BadWord], I'd be much more offended by the implication that that sort of thing would goad me into a reaction than the 'insult' itself.

BTW, I recommend the Serengeti & Polyphonic song "My Negativity", which says "My nega-nega-nega" in such a way so as to evoke the N word. Very clever response to the kind of rap music that embraces the word. I can't find a video of it.

The word might in another generation's time not be a racial slur, by the way.

The times in which its occurence in contemporary society is intended as consciously negative are, in fact, archaic - that is, its usage is archaic, not the word itself - by people consciously retaining its historical use, which is becoming daily diluted due to the development of language through history; by people, that is, behind the times.

Last summer, I had a minor altercation with another female driver, who appeared to be about 20 years my senior...right on my block where I live. Leaving out the details, the whole thing ended with her yelling the following at me, before driving away:

"I hope you drop dead, you c**t!!!'

Because this was another woman, and an old lady besides...I found and still find this quite hilarious. But if it were a man, no matter what age, I think I would've been pretty upset.

I doubt she expected or even wanted a reaction, her intent was to let off some serious steam.

Words DO have meaning, and in what context and by whom they are said can either magnify or diminish that meaning. But once they are said they cannot be 'un-said'.

Any wannabe intellectual can proclaim what they would do or how they would react IF such & such were said to them, but I really don't feel that life works that way.

No, I'm saying from experience that insults have never offended me more than the intentions behind them. And as such, I've no reason to believe it'll be any different for me in the future.

That isn't to say that somebody else won't break down into tears if they're called something they'd rather not be called.

Wannabe intelLOL!

I think the key point in all this discussion, is not whether you have the right to spell out any word you like, or spell out any "collection of letters" -- I think the key point is whether you choose to do so knowing that it will offend afro-americans out there, and mostly the elder generation.

Of course, you can argue that "they choose to be offended" and that you didn't mean to offend anyone, but the fact is that it does offend them regardless of your innocent intentions, because the word triggers bad memories and bad emotions they want to forget.

So if by not saying a certain word I can prevent that from happening, then fine I'm willing to make that "sacrifice".

I do think freedom of speech is important, but I can live with not saying a few words that I don't have to use.

And no, I dont think we ought to "police" ppl about it - I think every individual should think for himself whether to use that word.

And I'd like to add another angle to our discussion:

I ask you all: how do you feel about the Swastika?

Is it just a "collection of lines", just another shape?

Will you tell a Holocaust survivor, that this shape is meaningless, and it could be drawn feely if there's no mal intention involved?

If you happen to like this certain shape, do you think it's perfectly fine to print it on your T-shirt and walk the streets with it?

(nowadays, I think the symbol is mostly used by neo-nazis who spray it on synagogues and jewish graves)

It's offensive, evil and degrading. It stood (and still stands) for hatred, plain and simple.

What I find disturbing is that the things discussed here - the swastika, the words, they are all symbolic of subjugation. They echo a day when one group of people were not considered human beings by another group of people. They were demeaning, at the very least. They allowed the dominant group to harm and kill the other without consequence, because one was without rights.

The swastika was--and is--the symbol of the utmost evil in recorded history. Neo-Nazis, skinheads and other lunatic groups still use it as their rallying point for hatred and murder. It is a "collection of lines" that leads straight to hell.

Whether we like the swastika or not, ANYBODY in the USA has the freedom/right to print it on their clothing and 'walk the streets' with it. (Of course, wearing it at school or work would be another matter and in those places it would be rightfully forbidden.)

But...they would get a very bad reaction if they did. Which they would probably expect and be proud of, because anyone who would dare display such a thing knowing what it means obviously has a message.

I remember incredible negative fallout several years ago when Prince Harry was pictured costumed in a Nazi uniform at some masquerade party. I never thought by any means that HRH was in agreement with what it represents...and after all it was just a costume in his opinion...but HRH clearly did not take the time to consider the effect this would have.

Honestly, Fame...your initial purpose for the -N- word thread has been applauded and invoked initeresting conversation...but don't you think we've taken it a bit far?

Symbols and words DO have meaning.

Apple

Since "Words" are one of the forms of human communication, they cannot be broken down or defined as shapes and illustrations, nor can the spoken word be defined as sound from the larynx. And similarly the swastika is not just a placement of color and lines. They are both expressions of thought - communication.

Theatrically (artistically) "The Producers" somehow has been able use the swastika and Nazism to create a humorous presentation that doesn't offend. Go figure.

Word. I agree.

Tolerance is a two-way street. I think the vast majority of occurences of the word ni**er today is through ignorance, not malice. How similar is this to the hypothetical example of offending a Jewish neighbour by allowing smoke to emit from your chimney?

I think one should be taught how to think, not what to think.

I don't use the N word; I've no reason to. As a fan of rap music, though, I hear it a lot; and its use is always ironic and mostly not confrontational.

But language develops autonomously, and so not only should we not police it, we can't. Don't forget that The N Word (that term makes it more sacred than it should be) didn't originate as an inherently derogatory term...

...and nor did the Swastika, which the Nazis adopted from the Hindu faith. Its meaning has been distorted and become associated with a certain form of fascism.

Did I say already that slurs and meanings are cultural products? Today's compliment is tomorrow's insult; insults come and go, as with anything that develops as autonomously as fashion.

No, it isn't meaningless. And I wouldn't wear a T-shirt because I wouldn't want to associate myself with its meaning and history.

I think the act of drawing a Swastika 'freely', if one is aware of its associated meanings, is in itself a provocative gesture. Even if it's to provoke the kind of discussion we're having here. Which isn't to say that that kind of discussion shouldn't exist, but you've got to be aware of who you're provoking. Two best friends who like to intellectualise over a pint discussing the moral associations of drawing a Swastika is very different to someone typing on a Holocaust memorial message board...

(For the same reason, I rarely enjoy having to endure jokes in social situations where I'm not familiar with people's tastes; the person who at a party tries to break the ice with "Does anybody know a joke" is usually an eternal moron.)

Challenging someone to defend the reason behind why something offends them is usually never an innocent process, unless the challenger is themselves innocent of society and history. And we're talking of a helluvan innocence...

Of course history has had its own distortions; the Swastika has become associated with 'evil', which presupposes a nebulous notion of morality, something I don't subscribe to. At any rate, I think the Holocaust historically arises not due to some moral depravity, but because of a complex mixture of things governed by social forces. And if it were a case of simply learning from such evil 'abberations', we'd have a better way of explaining all the genocides that have happened before and since Hitler.

The US flag could be associated with evil in certain contexts. As could a portrait of Tony Blair, a Margaret Thatcher soundbite, the chilly mention of Charles Darwin, a revolutionary scientist who during his own life was going to Hell for certain!

Another thought on 'words as random symbols'.

Though earlier in this thread I've written a little on the arbitrary nature in which signifiers (symbols, words, etc.) are assigned to signifieds (objects, actual things, etc.), if humanity were wiped out tomorrow and aliens landed on the planet a hundred years from now and picked up a book in a bookstore, they'd have absolutely no way of translating the black shapes on the page.

Words do have meaning as much as symbols do, but they're associative and context-dependent; therefore, they're cultural products, insofar that culture is an inevitable product of human life, of social interaction, etc.

MC is right to note words are a form of communication; but communication requires both a communicator and an audience to communicate to.

Often, one's audience is not known, and so one should be aware of possible consequences of communicating certain things.

Rather than banish the word ni**er from the English language, I'd rather teach its significance and historical development to future generations.

True, and good point.

However, in the story of "The Producers", I believe the reason for them being used IS to offend the audience and critics and therefore have the show close. So it's funny to us the audience because we're in on the joke.

And also because the writer, Mel Brooks, is Jewish. (So are/were Zero Mostel & I believe Gene Wilder, who starred in the film.) So the long-earlier defeated Nazis & Hitler were actually being laughed at & made sport of by those they had targeted to begin with.

Glad you liked the initial purpose and the interesting discussion which followed, but if for some reason you think my new questions weren't necessary, or that I beat a dead horse, or that I get off topic, or I dont know what -- then I respect your opinion, but you really don't have to worry about it. Because I ask questions which interests me, and if people want to reply then great, and if not then no harm is done. Everyone is welcome to ignore

I for one, am happy that I asked these questions, because I learned a few things. The posts before yours were interesting, your post was interesting, and also the ones which followed it. Now I learned a thing or two about "The Producers" as well as a little story about Prince Harry!

But we're getting off topic, so thank you for your honest criticism, and allow me to get off topic one last time and congratulate you on 8000 posts! here's to 8000 more!

I agree, we all learned a few things from this whole thread. I guess what stuck out for me was the responses when you brought up the swastika...for the most part you appeared to have struck a very emotional chord with several members! But of course, that's what you wanted so go for it!!

To he honest, I found it interesting that you chose THAT symbol to introduce to the thread.

And thanks, I hadn't even noticed the 8,000 posts, never look at that stuff, mine or anyone elses!!

Apple

I think this thread has made my points from before...

This is an awesome discussion, but I have a question for those board members who say white people should never use the word.

What are the limitations? Am I really expected to say "the n-word" instead of "ni**er" when discussing something like its use in Huck Finn? That seems ridiculous to me. If I'm tell a friend about a discussion I overheard where one man called another a "ni**er", why do I have censor the word? We both know what I'm talking about and it isn't like I'm using that word "against" someone.

What are everybody's thoughts? If it isn't being used as an attack and is being used to refer to something, is it still necessary to change the wording?

Speaking only for myself, here's what I posted earlier:

"There is no way a white person can use that word in conversation and have it not be offensive. There seems to be an unwritten rule, or code that (probably because of its origins), whites just can't say it."

Meaning...using the word in conversation directed at someone else. And maybe instead of 'can't say it' (for those who are going to nitpick every word)...the phrase should be that whites are not expected to say it without raising a few eyebrows and/or getting into a bit of trouble.



Of course not, where are you getting that you have to 'censor' anything?

All of us are free to use the word if we like, and whenever we like...many of us are simply uncomfortable saying it.

My father, unfortunately, had absolutely NO PROBLEM using the entire word, in a very derogatory tone...when referring to any black person, from Bernie Williams whenever he struck out, to any regular guy standing at a bus stop or shopping in a store that he didn't even know. This is because he was an ignorant bigot (RIP). (My mother always SWORE he was not like this when they were younger & first married.) While we all became accustomed to it and knew he would never change, we were always quite disgusted when he did say it.

When referring to literature, Huck Finn etc.? Again, nobody's forbidding anyone to say it if you feel like using the whole word and you're comfortable doing so then go ahead who's stopping you?

Most who have responded are trying to convey how THEY FEEL PERSONALLY about the word and its history and its use.

(Interesting observation: You can see the entire word while responding via 'QUOTE' or when editing a post. Yet once submitted it goes back to censored '**' version for all the Board to see.)