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?