Racial reference
Earlier, I broached the subject of the ethnic epithet. There are two issues that still need to be explored: (1) should some kind of distinction be made between the merely ethnic and the racial? and (2) in any case, is there something ethical that needs to be spoken to this usage?
Prior to addressing these questions, however, there is a bit more “phenomenology” that should be unpacked, especially for the sake of our international readers. In America, the Italians and Irish have mostly blended in. But there remain two, maybe three groups, in which the us-them modality continues.
The Jew (yid, hebe, kike, hymie)
If there was ever a manifestation of nation-in-nation, it is the Jew: therefore, we should expect objectifying terms to apply to that group par excellence, reflecting the us-them that they have themselves established and insist upon.
The terms in parentheses rise and fall as to being regarded as insulting. Elia Kazan in the 1948 Gentleman’s Agreement wanted yid to be regarded as unacceptable, even though it is the simple term for “Jew” in the Jew’s own language of Yiddish (the very name for which, simply means literally “Jewish”). Kike was, as mentioned in the earlier post, possibly a typical immigrants’ term with Ellis Island associations. Today, yid and hebe are considered relatively benign, but kike is thought to be unmentionable.
So what’s going on here? How does the word get out, which word is approved? How does it change?
What is amazing is the chutzpah, in that yiddish is itself practically designed around objectifying and insulting the non-Jew. To complain about kike while referring to the object of his lust as abomination, shiksa, is audacious indeed. It is a clear example of declaring by mere fiat.
The Negro (nigger, coon, black, jig, darkie, African-American)
When I use the term Negro, it produces gasps of disbelief from my nieces. And who can blame them? We all “feel it,” don’t we? But how did this prohibition come about? who started it and why? how did word spread?
African-American is today the preferred term, but says who? where did that come from? Is a fourth-generation descendant of Englishmen from Zimbabwe that emigrates to the US an African-American? Why not?
That alone gives the lie to the propaganda.
“African-American” is a particularly absurd designation. When I see a Negro approaching, I am able to say “African” if by that is meant the race that predominates in Africa, but I can certainly not say, “American.” It awaits further information to see if the designation American applies. Is a Nigerian here on a study leave also to be called an African-American? (or what: African-African?) Hopefully not: for then, American becomes a meaningless place-holder, equivalent to a word for “I’m standing here.”
So the term, if used accurately and honestly, requires a tentative holding back, that is linguistically simply unnecessary.
(We note as well the hypocrisy of the rhetoric: Do Negroes get to claim Africa as their special domain, to the exclusion of others? If so, then why can’t Caucasians do the same for North America? For some reason, “racism” is always a one-way street by definition.)
The term “black” has not gone completely out of usage. The term was parodied by Thomas Sowell in his clever essay “Pink and Brown people.” The terms black and white strain at an empirical positivism that is ludicrous: there are various shades of brown, and pink people.
But black is singularly inadequate: there are indigenous black and brown people in other continents, such as India; but they are not Negroes.
The term “colored” was particularly inapt. Caucasians are the colored folk: alone among all the tribes on earth, they have every hue of eye and hair color. When the usage applied to the dark races dies out completely, I claim first dibs for its use to apply to Caucasians.
“Negro” is the historical term to designate a particular race. There is no need to strain for a definition: everyone knows exactly which race is denoted. It is not as if the term is unclear, or ambiguous. As if “I just never know when the word applies; therefore let’s get rid of it.”
The term was used freely by everyone, both Negro and Caucasian (I don’t mean to divide the world into those two– I know there are also Orientals and others — take this as a temporary simplification) until sometime in the 1970s.
We should be suspicious when the directive suddenly disseminates that something is taboo, though no one can repeat an argument in plain English why it is so.
What is strange is to note that Negro basically is Latin for black.
The Oriental (Asian, chink, slant-eye, gook, Charlie)
Much of the slang here derives from war-time: WW2, Korean, and Vietnam. It will pass with the soldiers of those wars.
The academic and traditional Oriental simply means “eastern.” It is contrasted with “occidental.” The division of the world into east and west is not so much Euro-centric as Palastino-centric.
West and east are as neutral a designation as it comes – unless it should be that “eastward” has a certain superstitious favorable connotation. Churches used to be designed to face east for example.
Summary
It is clear that there is an “invisible empire” that wants to dictate our use of language.
Language does change, granted. But it must change organically and in correspondence to the development of the life-world of the folk that speak it.
There is a logic to language. When it is dictated by fiat, that logic is violated. Then, a reason should be given and assimilated. But a reason must be subject to rebuttal. Such never are given in the rules of Political Correctness (PC).
Therefore, we must categorically reject PC and self-consciously violate its bogus canons with boldness. We must become PC scoff-laws.
It is the PC-mongers that are lawless, not us.
When some take it on themselves to dictate language, they would turn us into robots programmed for stimulus and response.
The hypocrisy of much of the legislation reinforces that it must be resisted.
Language belongs to the people that speak it natively.
While some have called this movie (Full Metal Jacket) racist for the following quote, I’ve always seen it as a good way for the D.I. to make his point:
“There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here, you are all equally worthless.”
Comment by Joshua — September 8, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
You forgot – Jungle Bunny
An elderly friend of mine commonly evokes either laughter or shock when she utters it. She thinks nothing of it though which in itself is amusing. An elderly white (northern) woman casually saying jungle bunny in the shopping market or in the car isn’t part of a common northerner experience. While searching for the etymology of the phrase, I happened across the Urban Dictioary wherein one finds the following (I found the little sentences accompanying the definitions entertaining and educational) “Offensive term for a black man. Hold on to your bags, there are jungle bunnies here.” “Word used to describe a person of Black color, usually from South America or Africa regions. Considered usually armed and dangerous by the White Man. Son, lock your doors, we’re in Oakland now… plenty of Jungle Bunnies there!” ” Racist term for African Americans, derived from the city being called the jungle and the fact that these people jump fences when running from the police. Oh shit, it’s a jungle bunny! Hide your jewelry.” “A low class black person. This is not the same thing as an African American, as the politically correct term should only apply to those of color who are deserving of respect. An African American is nice, does not recieve governent assistance, and does not live a life of crime. Jungle bunnies, on the other hand, live off of foodstamps and the meager wages they receive from stealing cheap electronics. Bill Cosby is an African American. The guy you see out your window breaking into your car so he can steal your cell phone and CD player, on the other hand, is a jungle bunny, as is his girlfriend that’s selling crack.” “ Non-P.C. racist term for a black person, out of vogue because jungles are no longer referred to as ‘jungles’.The contemporary term is rainforest rabbit.K.K.K. Kleagle: these damn’ jungle bunnies are takin’ over the damn world. other guy: Shut up, Senator Byrd (D-WV)” “Offensive term for a black person. So-named because most of them live in cities and have the uncanny ability of the jump high fences and reproduce like actual bunnies.
Black man: Ay man, lem-me gidda dolla !
White man: What for?
Black man: I funna get some flamin’ hot cheetos.
White man: (to friend) Stupid jungle bunny.”
Comment by 009 3/4 — September 12, 2007 @ 12:20 am
On the general subject of politically correct speech, where the concept came from, and why it is fatal to succumb to its strictures, see this very stimulating colloquy by Alex Linder. Download it before loading into your MP3 player, so you can skip forward and backward. The PC discussion starts around the 33 minute mark, with a discussion of an article by neo-con John Derbyshire.
Warnings: 1. language is rough. Ladies, do not listen to this talk: get your man to listen and summarize for you over a candlelit dinner. 2. Alex is an atheist. When contradicting biblical revelation, he is, of course, wrong, and those comments need to be overcome or bracketed. Unfortunately, however, when commenting on the modern American church, his comments are always trenchant and accurate.
Comment by TJH — September 12, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
I second the comment by TJH.
Something really clicked with me when Alex was talking about how the Soviets controlled language through “political correctness,” and how the goal was humiliation for those who accepted and forced themselves to use those terms. If you can be made to humiliate yourself, you are demoralized and ineffective against those would seek to control you for their own ends.
Comment by Dietrich — September 15, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
It’s my opinion that “African-American” is a proper term for, and only for, people of whatever race or races that have at least one parent or grandparent (not farther back) who was born and raised on the African continent, within the last century or so.
By that standard Barack Hussein Obama is an “African-American” but the vast majorit of blacks here are not.
I prefer to call them as a group, “American Blacks”, withholding the term “Black Americans” for those who have done substantially better than the average ghetto dweller in adapting themselves to American conditions and mores.
Comment by Bret Ludwig — September 17, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Then white astronomer Alan Rogers would be an “African-American” — but I doubt that would go over very well with our rulers if he checked that box on the census form.
Comment by TJH — September 19, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Excellent stuff from Linder. I have heard this before from revisionist historians (mainly Christian), but not from an atheist. He is borrowing on a lot of Christian capital, and I’m glad for it.
I wonder, however, how he would evaluate the efforts of this website to reveal “the truth”. After all, you guys seem way too incognito for Linder’s blood. A “pc evaluation of pc” he might call it.
Comment by Joshua — September 20, 2007 @ 8:55 am
Joshua — God forbid! If we ever say anything that seems to be tainted with PC, I hereby appoint you as sergeant-in-arms to hammer us for it mercilessly!
However, our mission is a bit different from others. We are trying to apply Wittgenstinian and vantillian analysis to the problems of our time so that the questions can be asked the right way. This requires unraveling the assumptions and conceits that are deeply embedded in almost all current discourse, including in the church, and even in the right-wing reactionary reformed hard-liner church, unfortunately.
Comment by TJH — September 20, 2007 @ 11:51 am
TJH-
Actually, you guys are definitely not pc! Linking to white-nationalist, and racist, Alex Linder is not exactly pc!
What I’m getting at is that we need the church to do what Linder is doing, minus the biological racism. Linder’s biological racism attracts the pagan–unprincipled, tatooed-covered “nigger-haters”. These can be anarchists, cultists, and the garden-variety biker guy.
But the church has the real answer to the race problem. As many of my Confederate heroes have said, it is unbelief, not biology, that makes for an inferior culture or race. The church needs to say this, but they are compromised. So, I’m glad you two are plowing the ground for proper intercourse. I also see proper (tatical) restraints used here. So “too pc for Linder’s blood” doesn’t mean pc by my standards.
Which brings up a question: How does the church get out of this mess? I agree with Wilkins that the problem is always because of unfaithful churchmen. I’ve heard different options: reform liturgy and worship; worldview training; the Exodus movement (seccession prep); visible protesting; form a Christian militia…okay I made that up. What says First Word?
Comment by Joshua — September 22, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Joshua — for starters, we need to eliminate “racist” from our vocabulary. This is itself a communist deception.
I do not say that Alex is a “biological racist.” He says there is something that can become characteristic of an ethnic body and be transmitted. And that this is true is undeniable. Whether it happens via DNA or something more mystical I don’t know, and I don’t think Alex would insist on any particular explanatory theory for the mechanism either.
I suspect Alex is attracting many white-collar intellectual listeners, indeed probably more of them than the type you mention. He rejects tattoing, though not for the reason that we also should (contrary to law of God). One should not be a nigger-hater but there is certainly ample reason to resent the way nigger-culture is being foist upon us.
Comment by TJH — September 24, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Joshua — as to your last questions, I have no idea. Any approach that says, “this key will unlock all our problems” is certainly wrong. If such a key-to-everything were the case, I would toss sabbath-keeping into the mix.
Probably the reason such “key to everything” approaches have so much ongoing appeal is that life is wholistic, and so people intuit that when the “solution” is found, changes will occur in most areas of life and thinking, including that decried by the keys, and so they latch onto their particular key of interest. But this is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Comment by TJH — September 24, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
I am the one who says that Linder is a “biological racist.” True, he says “there is something that can become characteristic of an ethnic body and be transmitted.” No problem, here.
But whatever this “something” is, leads him to conclude that “niggers are not human” (in his words). This indictment on negroes, rather than his “explanatory theory for the mechanism” is my concern, and the reason I call him a biological racist. Even if biology leads to intellecutal, or entreprenurial inferiority, it (biblically) doesn’t lead to non-human. I’m sure you would agree.
If you want a different word than “racist” what would you suggest for one who thinks certain races of God’s image-bearers are non-human, posion? I’ll adopt the term if it fits better. I do see your point about the term as communistic deception; but what is the term I’m looking for?
Also, while he attracts some white-collar intellectuals, I don’t see to many of them at his rallies. That would comprise their white-collar jobs. But that is the voice that needed, preferably white-collared churchman.
Comment by joshua — September 24, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Joshua — the thing of it is, Alex (Linder) as an atheist is going to be using the word “human” differently than we do also. If he took human = featherless biped, then he would grant that niggers are human. On the other hand, if we insist that human = biped made in image of God, then Alex would have to deny that he himself is human.
There is also the fact that words are constantly being pressed into metaphorical extension. When a woman calls a rival “bitch,” she obviously does not really think she is a canine. Likewise, when someone carelessly says, “the niggers that attacked Shannon and Chris are animals, not human,” a bit of reflection would reveal that animals don’t act that way; only humans do. Yet we all understand the usage at an intuitive level. It means something like, “they have broken covenant with the human community in such an egregious manner that they cannot be counted part of that community in any sense.”
Rather than “racist,” I would identify Alex as, perhaps, “consistent evolutionist.” His thesis does show that the institutional evolutionists are liars. That an evolutionist would deny that Africans are less evolved reveals arbitrary, purely political commitments.
If I had the privilege of engaging Alex in conversation one-on-one, I would try to press him to admit that his case against jews and niggers finally has no more basis than an arbitrary act of will, given his worldview. Then I would point out that his life work and rhetoric makes no sense on the basis of pure will. There is an ethical theme (”white man, you ought to ….”) that he cannot justify. So I would point out that he needs to become a Christian even to make coherent sense of his own life.
(Sorry for the delay in responding. I guess the timing of your post was such that it didn’t make the link bubble up to the top, so I missed it until I was scanning oldies day before yesterday.)
Comment by TJH — November 19, 2007 @ 10:32 am
TJH,
Thanks. Very helpful. Any thoughts on the last part about the needed voice of “white-collared” churchmen to speak on relevant taboo topics?
Comment by Joshua — November 19, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
A study of the book of Jude is an interesting commentary on our American society. Verse 10 says, “…but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.”
Worth a read.
Comment by ElizaF — November 19, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Joshua — actually I regret introducing the “white collar” distinction. We need leaders to speak out. Historically most leaders come from the educated class. But today, it is all mixed up. The smart thing to do today is not go to college; and many that go through the mill and are duly rewarded with their office job in the high-rise, and begin clawing up the ladder, are semi-educated nincompoops.
We are in an age of shame because our leaders are deeply compromised and fearful. I’m talking about the real leaders, like Dobson and the late D. James Kennedy, not just the self-proclaimed ones like Candy. Billy Graham knew about the jewish problem but would not speak about it publicly.
Comment by TJH — November 21, 2007 @ 9:38 am
TJH,
I have a few more words for you. What is with the word ‘butterfly’? It has nothing to do with ‘butter’ or ‘flies,’ nor does it have any relationship to butter flying through the air. Where is the logic in that!! Or what about this abuse of language that says we ‘park’ on driveways and we ‘drive’ on parkways. What nonsense!! Or what about the way we speak of sending items through different means of transportation. If you send somthing by truck, then it is called a ’shipment’ and if you send something by boat, then it is called ‘cargo.’ Language like this is just not being “honest” and “accurate.”
Obviously, I am being silly. However, I am not sure I fully understand how you are being any different. I grant that if you push the term ‘African-American’ to the wall, it is not the most precise term. So what? Is it really that big of a deal? Perhaps, the term ‘Negro’ is more precise, however, if this term has come to have a negative connatation, why would you insist on using it? I know, I know, you think the ‘invisible empire’ has dictated this change, which you think is wrong. Even though I am not so sure that is correct, in any case, the ‘people’ as a whole in America (especially African Americans) have decided that the term ‘Negro’ has taken on a negative connatation. So, why do you insist on using it? You should have started your crusade back in the 60’s, if you wanted to fight the ‘invisible empire.’ It is a little late now. The language has changed, whether anyone likes it or not. If you come up to a group of African Americans, and say, “How are you Negros doing today?” they will take offense. So, once again, why do you insist on using it? The change has occured, the people have spoken, regardless if you think this has ultimately come from the ‘invisible empire.’
In the end, I think it comes down to the issue of love. If African Americans think the term ‘Negro’ is offensive, then I will not use it. It is that simple. A refusal to do this is what makes people think that you and others like you are covering for some racist tendencies. It is racism that is dressed up in the garb of opposing PC and the ‘invisible empire,’ but in all reality it is just another way to hold on to our racism, while we outwardly say we oppose racism. This may or may not be true of you. I do not know you or your motives. But I am curious to know why you insist on using the term ‘Negro’ given what I have said. above.
Comment by Troy — December 5, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Negros don’t even find “nigger” offensive, so long as it is a nigger speaking. How far will you go, Troy, in letting the status quo define what is acceptable or offensive ?
Is your principle the following: “If [specified group] think the [specific term] is offensive, then I will not use it”?
If so, one could have a reductio party with such a principle.
Comment by Joshua — December 5, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Going along with all of this talk of language, culture, and political correctness: how would terms such as the dreaded “f-word” come into play? Certain factions of our culture (including church goers) say that this english word should be wholly excluded from our vocabulary. It, along with other arbitrarily classified words are considered to be taboo and even immoral to use in a sentence. This is an example of a word that has multiple meanings and none of which blaspheme God’s name. Even the less dreaded “s-word” is frowned upon especially in Christian circles. Where did these words originate and why should we follow this distinction that seems to be even more arbitrary than the ones stated above?
Comment by Josh — December 5, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Joshua,
If a specific group thinks that a term that identifies them has negative connatations, then ‘yes’ I would not use it. Why would I? Language is a social convention; a tool that we use to communicate. Language changes over time, and words pick up or drop off positive and negative connatations. Why such strong resistance to these changes? Is this really a hill to die on? This is why I start to wonder if underlying this whole thing is a racist attitude. If your desire is to love those people of other races, and your desire is not to use abusive language toward them, then why quibble over words. You may say ‘negro,’ not intending to offend, and they too want you to use language that does not offend. You are both in agreement. So, why create a needless barrier over the use of words?
I find it a little interesting that you said, “Negros don’t even find ‘nigger’ offensive, so long as it is a nigger speaking.” Why didn’t you say ‘negro’ in the place of your second use of the term ‘nigger’? This may have been a mere slip on your part, but it seems to indicate that you also have no problem referring to African Americans as niggers. Am I wrong here? Are you trying to defend the use of ‘nigger’ as well as ‘negro’?
I am not sure what you mean by a reductio party, so I will let you clarify. By all means, give me the reductios.
Comment by Troy — December 6, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Troy,
I think there is tension between two claims in your last post. You say, (1) “If a specific group thinks that a term that identifies itself has negative connatations[sic], then [you] would not use it, and (2) that “language changes over time.”
If you are suggesting that language should change when certain groups detect negative connotations in words descriptive of themselves, I think your two points are contradictory. This is because, as TJH pointed out, language cannot change by fiat, which is the implication of point (1).
A reductio for starters would be the following:
Since you should not use terms to describe groups who may detect negative connotations in such words, then you should refuse to describe as racist (or having racist tendencies) those who in certain contexts use the word nigger to describe negroes, for such groups find such a descriptor filled with negative connotations.
Comment by Joshua — December 6, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Joshua,
I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say that language cannot change by fiat? TJH said,
“Language does change, granted. But it must change organically and in correspondence to the development of the life-world of the folk that speak it…Language belongs to the people that speak it natively.”
If I understand what he is saying, I do not see a problem with this. However, if language belongs to the people, and the people decide a certain term designating a race of people has taken on negative connatations, then we should not use it unless we want to be abusive. It doesn’t really matter if a person here or there agrees with the change, because the fact of matter is that today if you call African Americans ‘negros,’ it will have a negative effect. If you have no desire to be offensive, then why use it if you know what the effect will be? Have you ever considered the possibility that deep down you really do want to be offensive? Do you regard your African American brothers in Christ as more important than yourself (Phil. 2:3)? In your choice to use ‘negro’ and ‘nigger,’ do you think you are looking out for your own personal interests or for the interests of others (Phi. 2:3)?
Next, you gave your reductio. If I am saying that we should not use terms to describe groups who may detect negative connatations, then I should also refuse to describe some people as ‘racist’ who use the word ‘nigger’ to describe African Americans, since the term ‘racist’ has negative connatations as well.
In response, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you are the person who wants to use the term ‘nigger’ as a reference to African Americans, thus showing my inconsistency if I call that ‘racism’? The problem with your reductio is your equating terms used to designate races of people and terms used to designate sinners. I do not have a problem using words to designate sinners that have negative connatations because I believe they are sinners who have done blameworthy things. If we did not, we could never speak of murderers, theives, adulterers, racists, etc. Although, this is a lot different than using terms to designate races of people. Unless you think it is sinful to be an African American, then your reductio fails.
However, in your defense, I should have been more precise when I said, “If a specific group thinks that a term that identifies them has negative connatations, then ‘yes’ I would not use it.” By ’specific group’ I meant a particular race, not just any group. I just assumed that would be understood given the context of our discussion.
Comment by Troy — December 7, 2007 @ 9:26 am
Troy,
I appreciate the exchange. Here are a few quick things to think about.
1. By fiat, I’m referring to the change of terms as defined a minority, either racial or the invisible pc police. When you say that language belongs to “a people” and should change when they see a term as offensive, you are not distinguishing between the groups of people who do not see it offensive, and groups who do. This amounts to saying that language belongs to minority groups; it should change according to the dictates of the shallow-skinned, easily-offended, sub-groups of the people. This is a denial of the claim that language belongs to “the people”.
2. I do not prefer the word “nigger” as the world of choice to describe Negroes. Most of the time “Negro” is the most accurate term to describe them as a race; but “nigger” might be a more accurate way of referring to a class of Negroes who are thugs—this seems to be Chris Rock’s own usage. Yes, Negroes find “nigger” offensive, but, like I said, only when whites are saying it. How does your principle of hold in this case? How can “nigger” be an offensive term when Negroes use it to describe their own race, or a subclass of their race?
3. I see your point about my equating of terms which describe races with those which describe sinners. But here you are equating two things distinct: a) those who racial epithets which are offensive by racial groups, and b) sinners. I’m a little reticent to sign off on this equation. The reason is in reference to point 1: the category of sinners would expand or shrink based on fiat by minorities.
Comment by Joshua — December 7, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Joshua,
Okay, so you are saying that language belongs to “the people” not “a people.” Part of my previous points has been that “the people” think those words have negative connatations. At what point do we recognize that a word has changed? If you did a poll asking Americans whether or not ‘negro’ or ‘nigger’ had negative connatations, I think the majority would say they do. Do you agree? Would this be enough to persuade you that language has changed? If not, what would it take?
Comment by Troy — December 11, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Troy,
Who says a word should change because of negative connotations? Or even if a majority confirms the same connotation? Furthermore, who says that it is a sin to continue to use a racial term that the majority sees as containing negative connotations? As TJH has pointed out elsewhere, “negro” is far more descriptive of the race we are speaking of, than the terms “black” or “african american”. Why not announce as our standard that words which are less descriptive of what they signify are taboo, even if they have negative connotations perceived by the whole world.
Sure the majority of people will admit negative connotations in the word “negro”, but they would with the words “blood-atonement” and “fundamentalist” as well. Besides, the more significant issue is how words go from acceptable to taboo. Fifty-one percent of the population doesn’t wake up one morning and decide that a word is taboo. I’m concerned with the forces behind this. I’m conviced they are evil, and I refuse to submit to their sinister program.
You still haven’t answered how negroes can get away with violating your principle when they call each other niggers.
Comment by Joshua — December 11, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Joshua,
It is true that some African American youth have used the term ‘nigger’ to refer to one another. This is not accepted by African Americans as a whole.
1. You wrote, “Who says a word should change because of negative connotations?”
If a word picks up negative connatations and you have no desire to be offensive, then do not use it.
2. You wrote, “Or even if a majority confirms the same connotation?”
I thought this was your whole point, namely, that the language belongs to “the people.” Apparently you disagree with this now. Seemingly language belongs to ‘you’. Only when ‘you’ decide that something makes sense, or when ‘you’ decide it does not have some sinister force behind it, then “the people” can embrace changes in language.
3. You wrote, “Besides, the more significant issue is how words go from acceptable to taboo. Fifty-one percent of the population doesn’t wake up one morning and decide that a word is taboo. I’m concerned with the forces behind this. I’m conviced they are evil, and I refuse to submit to their sinister program.”
You almost make it sound like language would never change unless some sinister force dictates to us these changes. I hope you do not believe this.
I wonder if you think it is okay to use the s-word? Would it be okay for pastors to use this word and other ‘commonly accepted’ cuss words behind the pulpit? There was a time when the s-word was acceptable; however, some people believe that this native English word was replaced by Latin terms that were supposedly more distinguished for bodily functions. What if someone responded today by saying, “What a sinister program!! Who says that Latin is more distinguished than our English words. I will not fall for this evil nonsense. I will not allow some uptight people dictate to me how I should speak.” What would you say to such a person? Or, perhaps, this is another change you want to fight?
Comment by Troy — December 12, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Troy,
I’m beginning to wonder if you are reading my comments, and if this exchange is a waste of my time. But allow me this response, and you may have the last word.
That language belongs to the people and changes according to the people does not imply anything about the method or mechanism involved. It only means, for my argument, that minorities and pc police can’t own as a sub-group what belongs to the group. The general public’s detection of negative connotations in a term and therefore changing the term is but your proposal, not anything derived from the claim that “language belongs to the people.” I don’t know the details of how it happens, but as I said before, I am reticent to sign off on your proposal that a majority opinion that a word has negative connotations is enough to 1) warrant the change of the term, and 2) render the detractors sinners.
I think your mechanism is un-workable, and have even suggested that it probably doesn’t explain how racial terms have in fact changed. Do you really think we went from “nigger” to “negro” to “colored” to “black” to “African-American” because the majority of people decided the earlier terms were offensive?
You wrote: “I wonder if you think it is okay to use the s-word? Would it be okay for pastors to use this word and other ‘commonly accepted’ cuss words behind the pulpit?”
You are the one using the “commonly accepted” standard, Troy. Besides, I thought you stipulated a while ago that we were discussing the use of racial descriptive words, rather than all words in general? But since you have switched it, I have an observation about a pastor’s pulpit language. Since blood-atonement along with sh*t have negative connotations, he should use neither. In fact, he might not want to use the term “Christian”, since a poll would probably reveal that most people associate this word with negative connotations such as “hypocritical, narrow-minded, judgmental, etc.”
Comment by Joshua — December 12, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Once in a while I’m going to close commenting, just to slow the conversation down. If it is closed, check back later… it will open again.
Comment by TJH — December 12, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Troy (#17) – there is undoubtedly a bit of paternalism to my view of Negroes’ view of the word Negro, in that I’m quite sure that those that have adopted the politically correct view have done so out of the same causes of manipulation that whites have, but amplified by either excessive gullibility of some, and of others, a victim-mentality and desire to exploit any ruse to put whitey in his place. And “putting whitey in his place” includes dictating “you can’t use such-and-such a word; you must use such-and-such a word for that purpose.” What could be more of a power ploy than telling people they can’t use words they learned from their mothers?
If the Negro leaders themselves, including the sainted King, used the term, then it can’t be inherently degrading. You say the term has “has taken on a negative connotation.” But if that were so, someone should be able to explain what that connotation is. Connotations are non-denoted class descriptions. They aren’t feelings. They aren’t odorless gases. If the term were “piece of sh-t,” it would not be hard to identify the connotation and explain why it were offensive. But here, evidently no one can either identify the “connotation,” nor explain why it is offensive – the explanation is simply, “it has a negative connotation.” But that is just mindless herd-mentality.
Interviewer: Charlie, why do you find the word boffer offensive?
Charlie: I don’t know, but since Jack finds it offensive, it is.
Interviewer: Jack, why do you find the word boffer offensive?
Jack: I don’t know, but since Charlie finds it offensive, it is.
As providentially enabled, we must explain also to the Negroes how they are being manipulated by forces that do not have their just self-interest in mind.
Comment by TJH — December 22, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Troy– a couple more comments are necessary to finish with your #17 and then move on.
1. The problem is not merely that “African-American” is not the most precise term; it is (in addition to the other things I mentioned) positively inaccurate. I can take fuzziness; I can’t take falsehood.
2. Your example, “If you come up to a group of African Americans, and say, ‘How are you Negroes doing today?’ they will take offense” is misconstrued. You also wouldn’t walk up to a group of whites and say “How are you whites [or Caucasians, or Aryans] doing today?” unless it were an inside joke. (Note that the problem with the term “African American” is highlighted even by your example, since if they are strangers, you don’t know if they are Americans.) But the main problem here is linguistic competence, not giving offense.
You also wouldn’t give a talk to the Ladies’ Historical Society and say, “lynching had to do with niggers messin’ with our women.” But you might say something like that when hanging out with the guys over cigars and whiskey. To the Society, you would say something more like, “the account of lynching that is currently fashionable leaves out a big part of the story.”
So there is a question here of linguistic/social competence.
Comment by TJH — January 1, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
TJH,
You have asked for an explanation of why ‘Negro’ or ‘nigger’ has a negative connotation. Also, you want accuracy in language. The main problem is about linguistic competence, not offense.
Where exactly do I find this list of absolute rules for linguistic competence? Who decides when a change in language is legitimate or not? Do you? Here I thought language was a social convention. The fact is that language will not bow down to your rigid rules. The language belongs to the people. It does not have to follow what makes sense to you, or is accurate enough for you, etc.
But what if someone gave you a reason for the negative connotation? What if someone told you that it picked up a negative connotation because the word is tied to a time in our nation’s history when a race of people were slaves and considered to be of inferior worth? As our nation has changed, there was a change in our language to show this. Would this make you change your mind?
At the end of day, I have to wonder if this is really a battle worth fighting (not between you and me, but the use of the term ‘Negro’ or ‘nigger’). In some ways I am sympathetic to your concerns about political correctness and someone dictating to us what we can say and cannot say. However, are we getting tied up in verbal disputes at the expense of the people involved? In general, I am more than willing to change my use of language to avoid giving offense where no offense is intended, or to avoid an unnecessary misunderstanding. This is because I care more about people than I do about my terminology. Why should it be any different in this situation?
Comment by Troy — January 4, 2008 @ 2:25 pm