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.)