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?

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.

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.