|
|
|
December 02, 2006
Possession of words without regard to intent
We simply cannot get away with condemning some comedians who use racial slurs, while applauding others who do so. To engage in such selective condemnation gives rise to the kind of double-talk that creates moral confusion--and leads to further cracks in the nation's racial divide.So argues the Conservative Voice's Nathan Tabor in his discussion of the recent use of the "n" word by white comedian Michael Richards. Tabor acknowledges that many black comedians "have used the politically-charged word throughout their comedy routines," that the "inversion of the word is a way for blacks to reclaim their identity" but nonetheless demands a zero-tolerance standard for everyone. It's an interesting argument, but I have to disagree. I think the use of the "n" word by anyone amounts at minimum to a form of speech so crude that it ought to be considered in the same league as profanity or obscenity, but think what Tabor misses goes to the nature comedy and satire. When Richards used the "n" word in the way he used it, he used it in a derogatory manner. At that point he ceased to be a comedian. As a longtime listener to Howard Stern, I can't count the number of times I heard him use the "n" word. But not once did he mean to degrade anyone except the word itself. His theory was that words lose their power when they are ridiculed, and gain in power as they become taboo. Whether he's right (and whether it's a good idea to defuse the power of a derogatory epithet in this manner) can be debated. But Howard Stern's "n" word use is simply not on the same level as Michael Richards. The "n" word is not part of my vocabulary, but I liked the fact that Howard Stern was trying to defuse it. Similarly, Howard uses the "f" word with great regularity, and not because he is prejudiced against gays, but to ridicule such prejudice. Interestingly, I'd feel more comfortable spelling out the "f" word than the "n" word, but the reason I won't spell out either is because the more I allow taboo language into these blog posts, the greater the likelihood my blog will be blocked by the various net nannies. However, because Howard deliberately mispronounces both the "n" and the "f" words, I can probably get away with spelling them phonetically the way he pronounces them: "nigguhs" and "faigs."* I think that when some gays use the "f" word to describe themselves, they're doing pretty much the same thing that some blacks do, and it's really no more bigoted than Howard Stern. In neither case is it intended to be derogatory. Intent of the speaker -- and above all context -- seems to be the key here. Once we start ignoring intent and context, we might as well ban "Huckleberry Finn." Ben Jameson, a teacher in Fresno, Calif., teaches Huckleberry Finn, selectively. When the class includes a black student, he drops it from his reading list. It seems that the wellspring of American novels suffers from 160 literary problems; the word "nigger," used, oh, 160 times.That was written in 1995. By now, I think the schools have pretty much been purged of the vile Mark Twain. Perhaps this represents progress, but I'm not convinced. I think intent matters.
These word games can get ridiculous. In dialogue, what ought to matter is what people think. posted by Eric on 12.02.06 at 08:12 AM
Comments
Not sure what you mean about the three-letter f-word being "significantly less problematic" or why. Do you mean that the "n" word is uniquely worse because of its historical usage? Or its ability to upset people? As an insult, I think the "f" word is at least as hurtful as any of the various pejoratives for Jews, Hispanics, or Asians. Not sure why it would be "highly offensive" to correlate them, so I'm not sure what you mean. Should there be some sort of ranking system for which insults are the most insulting, and to whom? How would this be decided in a fair and objective manner? Eric Scheie · December 2, 2006 01:14 PM You're letting your kindness run away with your tolerance. Brett · December 2, 2006 02:43 PM Probably dissembled cruelty.... Eric Scheie · December 2, 2006 03:18 PM I guess Joseph Conrad's "The Nigger of the Narcissus" is consigned to being never taught again. How can we ever hope the next generation will understand the pain these perjoratives caused if we can't talk about those words, even in quotes Rod · December 2, 2006 09:04 PM Rod, I disagree, if I understand your intent. The words didn't cause any pain. Words cannot do that. The intent behind the words caused the pain. It's really important that we keep that perspective. Mrs. du Toit · December 2, 2006 11:43 PM Eric: As for f-word that also is British slang for cigarettes, it is not the equivalent of the n-word. The maltreatment of Gay Americans -- and cosmopolitan gays all over the world -- bad as it may be -- does not compare to chattel slavery. You can't hide your blackness in the closet (for the most part). Except for the most flamboyant of gay men, one isn't labelled "gay" simply by walking on the street. There were no laws imposing segregation based on sexual orientation. Life ain't always a bowl of those proverbial cherries for Gay Americans, but it can't be compared to the Jim Crow Era. The n-word is weighed down by far heavier baggage than any other ethnic or orientational slur. Rhodium Heart · December 3, 2006 03:10 AM Just in case anyone would like to make real English faggots at home, here is the recipe: FAGGOTS The following recipe is from the BBC UK Food Web Site. Preparation time: 1-2 hours. INGREDIENTS: DIRECTIONS: Faggots can be served for lunch or dinner or can be part of a mixed grill breakfast. (My guess is that faggots are served with beer because no sober person would eat them. Maybe a hungry pit bull would.) Chocolatier · December 3, 2006 12:05 PM "In dialogue, what ought to matter is what people think." If I may, one can never know what someone else 'thinks.' All that one CAN know is what one communicates. Words have meaning. Meaning creates context. Context creates communication. Kevin · December 3, 2006 03:35 PM It very much matters to me what the other person is thinking, and I hope that if there is a dialogue, that I am communicating my thoughts as accurately as I can. Words are a tool to communicate thoughts, and some words are better than others. If thoughts are not being communicated in exchanges of dialogue, the whole thing seems a waste of time. RH, back to the "n" word. Your argument seems to be based on the unique history of oppression of black people and how the word relates to that. Wouldn't that argument also make symbols like the swastika and even the confederate flag similarly offensive? Aren't such symbols also laden with baggage? Do 16 year olds who might use them really exhibit the same mindset as the people who used them during slavery, Jim Crow, and the Holocaust? The word "faggot" has baggage, although arguably not as much as the word "sodomite," but does that really mean people who apply such words to homosexuals have murder in mind? Is there really a common kinship between people (whether victims and tormentors) who never knew each other going back hundreds of years -- based on the use of the same pejorative expression? I'll grant you that the "n" word is the worst of them all. But other than the baggage of the word's historical context, is there a logical connection between present day prejudice and long-deceased people who engaged in lynching, torture, and extermination? I'm not saying there isn't, but when a 16 year old call hurls an insult at another 16 year old, I'm not sure whether historical context is necessarily being evoked. Insulting people and using foul language are always unacceptable, but is it a good thing to invest any word with so much power that the mere utterance of it imbues the speaker with an almost magical force? Is the old "sticks and stones" expression of any value to this discussion? And what about banning Huckleberry Finn? Eric Scheie · December 3, 2006 04:12 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The notorious n-word -- n***** -- should be used only when you are quoting someone for the purpose of demonstrating the inappropriateness of a prior usage. The three-letter f-word is significantly less problematic. It is highly offensive to me when someone correlates the use of f*g with the n-word.
(Actually, I always thought the real f-word, has four letters and rhymes with "luck." Never heard the British slang for cigarettes labelled "the," or even "an" f-word.)
What I do find even more offensive is those smug, self-satisfied, morally "superior" people who constantly declare that new labels must be used for various out-groups. "Black" is now offensive, you must be racist if you use it, so goes that line of thinking. Try explaining to an 85 year old why "of color" is appropriate, but "colored" is repugnant. When I was young, "queer" was the big insult for the homosexually-inclined. Now it's a term of empowerment! And South Park is moving the neutral "gay" word into verboten category.
We should get upset when people use bad words in anger. What Michael Richards said was wholly inappropriate and cannot be compared to a Chris Rock monologue -- although both are equally unfunny from a comedic value, in my opinion. Mel Gibson's rant against Jews was offensive even though he didn't use one of the designated slurs for Jewishness. The context showed there was hate and bigotry, regardless of whether particular slurs were or weren't used.
People love "zero tolerance" policies. That's stupid -- context matters. The only appropriate "zero tolerance" policy is a "zero tolerance" of "zero tolerance."
Use your brain, people.