Response to Pullum on slurs
« previous post | next post »
This is a guest post by Robert Henderson, Peter Klecha, and Eric McCready in response to Geoff Pullum's post of July 10. My only role was offering in advance to post a reply if the authors would like me to. I'm a good friend of Geoff Pullum and a friend of the authors. What follows is theirs.
We were quite surprised to read the LL post by Geoff Pullum of July 10. In this post, GP discussed the suspension of Tory MP Anne Marie Morris for using the phrase “n****r in the woodpile” at an event held at the East India Club. After her use of this phrase was recorded and publicized, she was suspended by the Tories for what the Financial Times described as a racist remark. According to GP, this punishment was excessive, as the remark in question was not racist; he proceeds “reluctantly” to defend Ms. Morris, as the idiom in question was merely “silly.” While we offer no comment on the appropriateness of the specific punishment Ms. Morris received, we do find this characterization problematic on both moral and empirical grounds, together with many other commentators on social media, and we want to suggest that the author should have been (much) more careful when dealing with such an important topic.
What counts as a racist remark? The range of possibilities is broad, from direct attributions of racial slurs to covert dog-whistles, and it’s ultimately not for us as white individuals, or for anybody outside of the oppressed group in question, to declare exactly what is or is not a racist act. However, it does seem clear to us that the category of racist statements isn’t limited to saying things like “X is a [slur].” Thus GP’s claim that the MP’s statement doesn’t count as a racist remark because she didn't call anyone by the slur is off the mark. Utterances which are judged to be racist remarks even include saying positive things about non-people, e.g., "I love [slur] food!" This fact shows that GP’s definition of racist remarks is far too narrow.
Once we allow racist remarks to include more than predicating a slur of an individual, the ground for defending Morris's remark shrinks substantially. The only such defense is to argue that the appearance of the n-word in an idiom is enough to neutralize its racist meaning component. GP tries this route, but here the post runs into empirical problems given well-known facts about slurs. There is a consensus in the semantic/pragmatic and philosophical literature on the topic that slurs aggressively attach to the speaker, committing them to a racist attitude even in embedded contexts. Consider embedded slurs; imagine Ron Weasley says “Draco thought that Harry was a mudblood”, where attributing the thought to Draco isn’t enough to absolve Ron of expressing the attitudes associated with the slur. Indeed, even mentioning slurs is fraught territory, which is why the authors of most papers on these issues are careful to distance themselves from the content expressed. While we aren’t aware of work on slurs in noncompositional idioms in particular, a moment’s thought is enough to show that just putting a potentially offensive word into an idiom doesn’t defuse it; we would feel uncomfortable saying “the shit hit the fan” in formal situations, for example, although here “shit” lacks its literal meaning. Thus we should expect that the slurring meaning of the n-word survives in the idiom.
Slurs are generally words which have a history of being used to inflict serious emotional distress. Setting aside how it is that they come to do that in first place (which surely must have something to do with both their literal meaning and with their issuers’ hateful intent), they come to have a perverse second effect, as we understand it: they viscerally remind their victims of the hurt they have experienced due to prior use of the word, as summed up by the Langston Hughes quotation excerpted by Geoffrey Nunberg’s post, or by Ice Cube in his recent discussion with Bill Maher: “When I hear a white person say it, it feel like that knife stabbing you, even if they don’t mean to.” And importantly, what we have read and heard from people who have been victimized by these words suggests that any depiction can be such a reminder, whether it is use, mention, quotation, or even just phonetic overlap, as in the very obvious case of an idiom containing a slur, or less obvious cases like similar-sounding but historically unrelated words.
As an analogy, consider someone who has been the victim of repeated axe-violence — someone who has been attacked with axes over and over again over the course of their life, and has been threatened with such attacks even more often. If such a person were to come into contact with even just a depiction of an axe or axe-violence, it would be responsible to assume that the person may well become upset, and maybe even re-traumatized. And importantly, this is independent of anyone’s intent — it wouldn’t matter if I showed such a depiction to such a person with the virtuous intent of wanting to rob these depictions of their power to hurt the victim, for example — it would still very likely cause pain. There would be no reason to expect that that pain would be in any way a function of the depicter’s intent.
Likewise, any depiction of a slur creates the risk of causing hurt to those people who have been historically victimized by the slur, regardless of speaker intent. In this way, the slurring effect of a slur is more like Grice’s (1957) natural meaning than his non-natural (communicative) meaning; it is something the hearer derives from the utterance independent of grammatical convention or of their recognition of the speaker’s intent. See also this discussion of research on the physiological effects “mere words” can have.
These considerations defuse the central claim of GP's linguistic defense of Morris's remark, namely that the meaning of the idiom is "a hitherto concealed unpleasant surprise". Instead, racial slurs are terms that both predicate racial categories of people, and also denigrate those categories (technically, they are “mixed content bearers”). The idiom thus means "a hitherto concealed unpleasant surprise" while at the same time committing the speaker to a racist attitude. It is this second component that we expect to attach to the speaker, even in idiom. That this is the case is also shown by the fact that people have to keep apologizing for using the phrase. In fact, the fact that the MP was suspended and the reporting of the suspension makes use of the term “racist remark” is itself evidence that people naturally get the racist interpretation.
We think that GP's defense of Morris is not tenable on linguistic grounds, but there is a second aspect of the post in question that we find disturbing and important to address. Throughout the post, GP repeatedly mentions the n-word in its uncensored form. In a follow-up to the original post, he says that his refusal to censor is a strategy to avoid giving that word its power. If you take the standard linguistic analysis of slurs, though, the word’s power does not come from mere taboo (i.e., a social prohibition on using or mentioning the word as we see with expletives like "shit"). The word literally has as part of its semantic content an expression of racial hate, and its history has made that content unavoidably salient. It is that content, and that history, that gives this word (and other slurs) its power over and above other taboo expressions. It is for this reason that the word is literally unutterable for many people, and why we (who are white, not a part of the group that is victimized by the word in question) avoid it here.
Yes, even here on Language Log. There seems to be an unfortunate attitude — even among those whose views on slurs are otherwise similar to our own — that we as linguists are somehow exceptions to the facts surrounding slurs discussed in this post. In Geoffrey Nunberg’s otherwise commendable post on July 13, for example, he continues to mention the slur (quite abundantly), despite acknowledging the hurt it can cause. We think this is a mistake. We are not special; our community includes members of oppressed groups (though not nearly enough of them), and the rest of us ought to respect and show courtesy to them.
The sad fact is that linguistics as an academic field has severe diversity issues. These problems are not helped by the strategy above, which, while in the abstract might have its merits, in practice is only hurtful, and only serves as a barrier to those who might find its use painful or insensitive. Certainly, the taboo-ignoring strategy exemplified by GP’s original post is not going to be helpful in solving the problems our field has with lack of diversity. These problems are further evidenced by the fact, mentioned above, that we, the authors, are white, so we cannot directly understand what it feels like to be affected by the slur under discussion. Writing this post discomforts us in light of this fact, but we feel that we have a responsibility to try to further this discussion, and acknowledge that our understanding of the actual harm that comes from the n-word is indirect. For all of us who are not targeted by particular slurs, understanding can only really come from listening to those who have been harmed by them. We strongly encourage everyone to do so.
We want finally to emphasize that it’s not our intention to hang GP from the nearest flagpole, or to implicate in any way that he is himself a racist. We mention this only because some people we have talked about this issue with felt the need to defend him on this count. It hadn’t even entered our minds; we know that language behaviors are deeply ingrained and don’t always reflect our values. Indeed, one of the main points of this note is that speaker intention is not always relevant to these matters. (What’s more, we don’t even believe that debating which individual people may or may not be “racists in their heart of hearts” is a productive way to take on racism.) We are, in fact, fans of GP’s; but we are not fans of this post, for the reasons above.
We are grateful for helpful comments on this note by Carissa Ábrego-collier, Chris Davis, Mitcho Erlewine, Julia Goldsmith-Pinkham, Prerna Nadathur, and Betsy Pillion.
Sergey said,
July 20, 2017 @ 6:40 pm
It's kind of obvious that if "someone who has been attacked with axes over and over again over the course of their life, and has been threatened with such attacks even more often. If such a person were to come into contact with even just a depiction of an axe or axe-violence, it would be responsible to assume that the person may well become upset, and maybe even re-traumatized" then such a person should not be allowed into the normal society. To guard such a person against upsets, he should be confined to the controlled environment of probably a psychiatric institution, or at least of their home and not allowed to come into the uncontrolled environment.
On the other hand, demanding that nobody ever use or mention axes because of the possibility that such a defective person might get upset, is entirely unreasonable.
Peter Klecha said,
July 20, 2017 @ 6:48 pm
Sergey: i agree that it would be unreasonable because axe-attacks are not endemic. racism is, though. there's always a risk you might unknowingly hurt someone with your words, and we shouldn't paranoidly self-censor ourselves in anticipation of such concerns. but there's no pleading ignorance when it comes to the n-word. except by people living under rocks, i guess.
also, "defective"? i hope you don't know any victims of trauma.
Brandon Rush said,
July 20, 2017 @ 7:12 pm
I think GP would be perfectly happy to concede that the use of N-word would cause hurt, but intent matters, and GP's point boils down to it's not obvious that the intent was present in Morris' case.
Levantine said,
July 20, 2017 @ 7:14 pm
The axe analogy is silly and unhelpful, because ordinary people can't be expected to know they may be dealing with someone with such a peculiar history. Ordinary people can, however, be expected to know that a slur like the N-word is grossly offensive to many and should simply not be uttered.
Todd said,
July 20, 2017 @ 7:22 pm
@Sergey:
"It's kind of obvious that… such a person should not be allowed into the normal society."
Doesn't this amount to victim blaming? A person has been victimized, and your response is to lock them up?
Sergey, are you also a fan of the US's policy of mass incarceration, disproportionately of exactly the same group which is victimized by the n-word discussed in this post? That seems to be exactly the implementation of the policy you're suggesting.
My two cents? Taking issue with the hateful message conveyed by a slur doesn't make one "defective".
Rubrick said,
July 20, 2017 @ 7:27 pm
In Geoffrey Nunberg’s otherwise commendable post on July 13, for example, he continues to mention the slur (quite abundantly), despite acknowledging the hurt it can cause. We think this is a mistake.
I disagree with this fairly strongly. I think Prof. Nunberg did exactly the right thing. He was discussing a word; the only sane way to do that is to use that word. Declaring a word off-limits in academic discourse strikes me as a very dangerous precedent.
And by using the word forthrightly, I think Geoffrey effectively sapped it of much of its power (see also Voldemort…). If he should have avoided using it, does that imply dictionaries should omit it as well? If I'm looking up niggle and my eye alights on it, might that not cause me harm?
Peter Klecha said,
July 20, 2017 @ 7:33 pm
@Rubrick: i don't see any support for your assertion that censoring the word would render otherwise intelligent discussion insane. of course dictionaries, articles in academic journals, legal briefs, and other similar things should depict the word in the interest of accuracy. but a post on LL does not fit into those categories. no one would be unsure what word he was referencing if he had censored.
Matt said,
July 20, 2017 @ 7:34 pm
I find it "problematic" how casually they analogize hearing a word over and over to repeated physical violence, as if this were a completely uncontroversial comparison.
"And importantly, what we have read and heard from people who have been victimized by these words suggests that any depiction can be such a reminder, whether it is use, mention, quotation, or even just phonetic overlap, as in the very obvious case of an idiom containing a slur, or less obvious cases like similar-sounding but historically unrelated words."
I think it's clear that the MP's original remark is racist. But suppose instead she had complained about the "niggardliness" of the current government. The post suggests equivalency between the two statements. Is this really the standard we want to use?
Doug said,
July 20, 2017 @ 7:43 pm
I'd like to thank to guest-posters for their thorough discussion.
One point is unclear to me.
They say 'The idiom thus means "a hitherto concealed unpleasant surprise" while at the same time committing the speaker to a racist attitude.'
What exactly does "committing the speaker to a racist attitude" mean?
My first interpretation was that it means that we can reliably conclude that the speaker holds racist attitudes, but that seems not to be correct, since the guest-posters later say "Indeed, one of the main points of this note is that speaker intention is not always relevant to these matters."
Do the guest posters believe that the MP's utterance necessarily reveals a racist attitude, or not?
Tom S. Fox said,
July 20, 2017 @ 7:49 pm
“…it’s ultimately not for us as white individuals, or for anybody outside of the oppressed group in question, to declare exactly what is or is not a racist act.”
I found the racist!
mpr said,
July 20, 2017 @ 8:33 pm
I'm curious to understand more about this bit:
"The word literally has as part of its semantic content an expression of racial hate, and its history has made that content unavoidably salient. It is that content, and that history, that gives this word (and other slurs) its power over and above other taboo expressions. It is for this reason that the word is literally unutterable for many people, and why we (who are white, not a part of the group that is victimized by the word in question) avoid it here."
Does this mean that it is OK, or not, for people of the same racial group whose ancestors have been victimized to use the term?
What if the person is part of the racial group but their ancestors have not been victimized (for instance, a recent immigrant from Africa to the United States; or an Afro-American )?
What if one has only one parent who is part of the racial group?
Eager to understand the rules surrounding when it is OK or not to use this term
C. Bowern said,
July 20, 2017 @ 8:57 pm
Thank you for this post. An additional point worth mentioning is that the slurs and insults directed at different groups have very different content. For example, most insults and slurs about men (particularly as used by other men) tend to revolve around virility and heterosexuality, whereas those directed against women much more commonly involve suggestions of death, rape, and other violence. So people who claim that insults aren't such a big deal might want to reflect on whether the insults they typically experience involve a similar degree of intimated violence, history, and power.
Thorin said,
July 20, 2017 @ 9:11 pm
@mpr I would argue that Africans' ancestors were also victimized by European colonialism throughout the continent, and as friends of mine from Uganda would attest, they are also targets for the same racial slurs as black Americans who have been here for generations.
Neal Goldfarb said,
July 20, 2017 @ 9:30 pm
I tend to agree with the authors as to the unacceptability of the idiom that Geoff wrote about, but for a different reason than they give. Geoff glossed the idiom's meaning "a hitherto concealed unpleasant surprise". Let's call that the idiom's implicature; that may not be technically correct, but it gets at the idea that the idiom is used to express a meaning that goes beyond its literal text.
In any event, it seems pretty clear to me that this implicature is based on exploiting the use of nigger. What, after all, is the source of the implicature that the unexpected surprise was unexpected? It is precisely the use of nigger as a racial slur. Because nigger denotes black person. And this isn't case where that linkage is semantically opaque. For anyone who recognizes the implicature, nigger is the least opaque part of it.
However, on the broader question of the (in)appropriateness of mentioning or quoting the word nigger, I disagree with the authors, as is apparent from my writing the word in its uncensored form in the previous paragraph. I've previously discussed that issue in a comment to this poston Language Log (which also discussed using the word in ways that is not only not disparaging, but that subverts the word's odious connotations. I'm going to reproduce that comment below, without change. But let me note up front that my postulated explanation (in the second paragraph) for the use euphemisms such as the N-wordis unfortunate and misguided on a number of levels, especially when read in the context of the present post.
Neal Goldfarb said,
July 20, 2017 @ 9:36 pm
When Roy Peter Clark talks about the use by other people of the word nigger, he, like lots of people, uses the euphemism the n-word rather than the word itself. This fastidiousness makes no sense to me at all.
Presumably what motivates this fear of saying or writing nigger, even when merely discussing someone else's use of the word is a desire to signal that you think the word is awful —sort of the converse of the prohibition among observant Jews of saying or writing the name of God. But if the (racist/hostile) use of the word is really as horrific as all that, discussions of such uses that say the n-word rather than nigger can have the perverse effect of softening the impact of the racist/hostile use of the word.
For example, here's a headline I found: "N-word sprawled [sic] all over interracial couple’s burned home. Possible hate crime?" Wouldn't the hatefulness of the crime have been made even clearer if the headline had said, "Nigger scrawled all over interracial couple’s burned home."
Also, it's possible to use the word nigger in a way that deliberately calls attention to the racism and injustice that the word evokes. Dick Gregory titled his autobiography, Nigger and he later wrote a book titled Up From Nigger. Would it really have been better if these books had been called N-Word and Up From the N-Word?
Then there's the "new niggers" trope, in which nigger is used as a rough synonym for 'an ethnic or cultural group that is unjustly reviled':
Should this subversive repurposing of nigger be taboo?
It should be obvious what my answers are to the questions I've been asking. But it would be interesting to see someone in the n-word camp (John McWhorter, maybe?) address these issues.
mg said,
July 20, 2017 @ 9:37 pm
Being from a different ethnic group that faces slurs and having a parent of a sexual orientation that often faces slurs, my feelings are quite clear. If you don't consider yourself part of the group being slurred, don't use it. If you consider yourself part of the group (and no one else gets to make that decision for you, with extremely rare exceptions), you get to decide. Some members of some groups start using the slurs as a way to reclaim the words and defuse the words' power over them. Some will don't.
As to "not knowing someone was an axe murderer" (which I agree was a poor choice of analogy), I've had people use slurs nastily in front of me because they didn't know I was a member of the group. I have also had someone use a slur on me who didn't realize it was a slur and was mortified when she found out. I can tell the difference between the two situations.
That said, I can't imagine there's any native speaker in the English speaking world who doesn't know that the n-word is offensive. If one accidentally uses the woodpile phrase as a slip of the tongue, the correct response is to immediately apologize profusely. If one is a politician and therefore used to curating their image, it says something if they don't realize it's unacceptable. And I wouldn't rule out dog-whistling in this case, either.
Martha said,
July 20, 2017 @ 9:47 pm
Doug, I'd say the "racist attitude" is that the meaning of the idiom is predicated on the idea that it would be unfavorable (to say the least) to learn there is a black person in your family history (or woodpile, if one has understood that to be the meaning of the idiom).
I mean, even if the idiom were "black guy in the woodpile," I'm fairly certain people would still find it offensive.
If a speaker doesn't hold a negative attitude toward black people, why aren't they uncomfortable evoking such an attitude to make their point, when they could just as easily say "unpleasant surprise"?
Dan Lufkin said,
July 20, 2017 @ 9:48 pm
@ mpr — If you know that using a certain word offends a considerable number of people, I fail to see why you feel the need to use it. There's just one rule to understand: In public speech, which this instance definitely was, it is never OK to toss off a racial slur. If you are addressing a small group of etymologists or (save the mark) semanticists, you may venture the slur if you have control of the context, but be prepared to take some flak for obtuseness.
Fred Mailhot said,
July 20, 2017 @ 11:33 pm
Thank you LL for posting this; it seems to me to be just right.
Frankly, I'm gobsmacked by the defenders in this comment section. What the hell is the matter with you all?
It is very easy to discuss that word, its uses as a slur or as part of a historically unsavory aphorism, in a Lx context or otherwise, without spelling it out. Doing so smacks of wilfull cultural insensitivity and reveals the extent to which the user is blind to the emotional damage words can inflict. The simple fact is *you do not know what it's like to be a black person on the receiving end of that word when uttered by a white person (especially an old white dude; looking at you GP)*.
I think that some of my fellow commenters might derive some benefit from this illuminating Twitter thread, posted a few weeks ago (by a linguistics student, no less!)
https://twitter.com/Luckwman/status/862280151358418944
I know that I sound preachy and will surely raise some hackles with my finger-wagging/admonishments. I'm willing to make enemies over the fact that this is a discussion that still needs be had (in this of all locations!)…
ryan said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:12 am
It seems like people are missing something here. The phrase does in fact mean "a hitherto concealed unpleasant surprise." Is there anyone who thinks the unpleasant part is meant to be the woodpile – as if people said the phrase because it was a surprise to find such a nice man in a woodpile of all places?
Of course not. The problem with the phrase is that the only thing rendering the situation unpleasant (for the sort of person who would ever use the phrase) is the presence of a "nigger." To understand the phrase when you hear it, you're forced to value the word nigger as unpleasant. The listener is forced to be complicit in the racism.
Though it's nearly unimaginable, if the idiom that held on for decades after the n-word was rendered taboo had been, say, "nigger in the parlor," and it meant "a pleasant surprise, like the unexpected visit of a long-lost friend," there would be far fewer objections. The problem with N.I.T.W. is that the objectionable word is deployed precisely for the connotations that make it objectionable.
You can't say "I'm not racist. I just like the sound of a phrase that requires an implicit understanding that running into a black person would be unpleasant." This is not a neutral nor neutered use of the word nigger.
ryan said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:15 am
Well, I hadn't seen my point made in this or the previous posts, but now I see that Martha made the same point tonight. I should have finished the comments.
Riikka said,
July 21, 2017 @ 1:11 am
@Rubrick
@Peter Klecha
@Neal Goldfarb
I am a non-native English speaker. I come from a genetically heterogenic European country that has had no colonies and in history has rather been robbed and burned by outsider forces travelling back and forth, sometimes capturing people to sell them as slaves. Before eighties it was normal not never see a live person with a different skin colour; now it's getting more normal. The country in question doesn't track "race", and the mere belief of the existence of different races is considered racist. I thus lack the innate emotional connect to the use of racial slurs that people in some other Anglophone countries might have.
I often watch TV-series from across the pond. Recently I watched a Judge Judy or similar show from Youtube, and heard a conversation that I recall as following:
Person 1: Then she called me f-word, n-word, c-word and b-word!
Person 2: Tell me exactly what she said.
Person 1: She said: “You …….. ………, …… ………. ……. ………..! (all "bad" words were blanked)
Audience: *Gasp*!
Person 2: That was so horrible of her!
…
I am constantly baffled by the English speaking world’s habit of censoring words to the extreme, while still allowing the meaning be conveyed. Talking about c-words, b-words and such seems only to claim that the author or speaker him/herself is too good or enlightened to mention the words as they are, while still being able to paint the exact pictures of the meanings in the recipients’ heads. It sounds very much like the shamanic idea of calling bear any other names than “bear” to avoid it hearing you and understand someone’s coming to hunt it, which would make the hunt unsuccessful. Moreover, it makes people like me think extra hard which exact words are we talking about: I know what f-word and n-word is, and I think I know what c-word means, but which b-word? What’s a k-word? If I talk about w-word, will I be understood?
I do understand that the whole problem comes from the idea of talking politically correct while having politically incorrect ideas. As far as I understand, English loaned in the word “negro” creating “nigger”, which was a generally accepted word, that later on got replaced by “black”, then “Afro-American” and again by “African-American”. And that people are now so concerned by the terminology that if a South-African travels to US, he or she will also be called “African-American” because though it sounds like it denotes origin, in reality it’s the politically correct word for a person with dark skin.
Back home, the suspicious group of people are offspring of handymen that travelled across the country with their horses, selling lace and knife-sharpening services. I watched a TV-interview of a woman from that group, and she was asked whether they should be called “Roms” and not “gypsies”. (This was after people started realizing that Political Correctness was a thing, and also created problems because people don’t seem to be able to spell the name “Rom” correctly but calling these people something like Romans.) Anyway, the woman answered that calling her gypsy is all right, as long as the tone isn’t demeaning or cursing.
In short, use of words like "n-word" sounds very much like word-magic to me.
Peter Klecha said,
July 21, 2017 @ 3:16 am
@Brandon Rush:
I think GP would be perfectly happy to concede that the use of N-word would cause hurt, but intent matters, and GP's point boils down to it's not obvious that the intent was present in Morris' case.
well it's precisely our point that intent doesn't matter, or at least it doesn't matter enough to be a blanket defense in all cases. if you want to argue that, go ahead, but your comment seemed to me to suggest that we hadn't brought up intent at all.
Ryan said,
July 21, 2017 @ 3:19 am
@Fred Mailhot
"Frankly, I'm gobsmacked by the defenders in this comment section. What the hell is the matter with you all?"
I find this to be utterly insulting, to say that people who disagree with your viewpoint have something wrong with them. You say this is "a discussion that needs to be had," but it's not a discussion when you're essentially considering the other side to not be worthy of having a place at the table.
Peter Klecha said,
July 21, 2017 @ 3:27 am
@Neal Goldfarb:
Presumably what motivates this fear of saying or writing n*****, even when merely discussing someone else's use of the word is a desire to signal that you think the word is awful
there's no need to presume — we stated quite clearly why we avoid depicting the word, and it isn't to signal anything — it's because depictions of the word cause harm to a relatively large segment of the population, as we understand it.
For example, here's a headline I found: "N-word sprawled [sic] all over interracial couple’s burned home. Possible hate crime?" Wouldn't the hatefulness of the crime have been made even clearer if the headline had said, […]
i don't think that anyone could possibly misunderstand the hatefulness of the crime on the basis of the first headline, at least not in any way that would be repaired by uncensoring the slur. what information about the crime, exactly, is conveyed by the second that is not conveyed by the first?
you may be confusing the idea of ~communicating the shock and pain incurred by use of the word~ with ~reproducing the shock and pain incurred by use of the word~. what depicting the slur achieves is that it makes the reader of the report actually have the visceral reaction that a passerby would have upon seeing the original. and it's true that if i merely describe to you the shock and pain of being suddenly slapped in the face, you may not really understand it as well as if i up and slapped you in the face. but i don't think that passing on those negative feelings are an obvious good. you shouldn't hurt people just to let them know how hurt you were.
Also, it's possible to use the word n***** in a way that deliberately calls attention to the racism and injustice that the word evokes.
yes and many people of color have done just that. we offer no comment whatsoever on the appropriateness of reappropriation of slurs by members of the communities they target — it's not our (us=white people) place to comment on that. it's for members of those communities to have that discussion. our commentary was strictly on the topic of the use and mention of this slur by white people.
Susan K. said,
July 21, 2017 @ 3:27 am
Louis C.K.'s (in)famous bit seems apropos:
https://youtu.be/wS2THqZemoc?t=5m16s
Peter Klecha said,
July 21, 2017 @ 3:43 am
@Matt:
I find it "problematic" how casually they analogize hearing a word over and over to repeated physical violence, as if this were a completely uncontroversial comparison.
i'm not sure what you mean by your use of scare quotes here, but assuming this is a genuine comment: it's by no means uncontroversial, as your comment proves. in fact, i expect there to be quite some disagreement about this point. but we are not presupposing this — we are asserting it. and we have offered support as well. did you see the link to the discussion of how words can inflict harm akin to physical violence? i suggest you read it, and the sources cited within.
I think it's clear that the MP's original remark is racist. But suppose instead she had complained about the "niggardliness" of the current government. The post suggests equivalency between the two statements. Is this really the standard we want to use?
equivalency, no, but similarity, sure. look, it's not all black and white. this is arguably a borderline case. i avoid that word because the phonetic overlap is so striking to me that i can't help but hear it and flinch. for myself, i feel it's responsible to assume that people who have been hurt by that slur would (at least) also be unable to not hear the slur inside that word, even if they safely recognized that there was no racist intent (not saying everyone would, just saying it would be safer to assume so). and what's more, c'mon, can't you just say "frugality"?
ajay said,
July 21, 2017 @ 3:44 am
we would feel uncomfortable saying “the shit hit the fan” in formal situations, for example, although here “shit” lacks its literal meaning.
This is a peripheral point, but: what? Pretty sure that "shit" here literally means shit.
"Shit" has non-literal meanings, like "business" or "property" – so we can say someone "has his shit together" meaning "has his affairs in order", or we can tell someone "take all your shit off my desk" when we mean "take all this stuff of yours off my desk". But those meanings aren't relevant here. The image is of actual, literal shit hitting a revolving fan (and hence being suddenly and explosively flung in all directions).
Peter Klecha said,
July 21, 2017 @ 3:51 am
@Levantine:
The axe analogy is silly and unhelpful, because ordinary people can't be expected to know they may be dealing with someone with such a peculiar history. Ordinary people can, however, be expected to know that a slur like the N-word is grossly offensive to many and should simply not be uttered.
i added the analogy because a very similar analogy was very helpful to me in understanding a similar case many years ago. i thought it would go without saying that the analogy ends precisely where you say it does — that axe violence is not endemic but racism is. i guess we should have spelled that out, though. thanks for your critique.
Geoffrey K. Pullum said,
July 21, 2017 @ 4:35 am
Replying to all these comments would take a week, and possibly (since they would keep on coming) the rest of my life. I encourage careful thought and discussion of this topic, because racism is still rife in both the UK and the USA, and I'm against it. I know how much words can hurt; what we are talking about is whether word taboo is the right way to prevent or remedy such hurt. However, I feel obliged to respond to one disgraceful direct allegation by Fred Mailhot above, because it would be almost misleading for me to say nothing about it:
This directly uses my race and age as the basis for an assertion about my capacity for empathy. And does it on a basis of knowing nothing of my life, experiences, or family background.
I have been spat at in the street and called "nigger-lover" for walking with my first wife, a black Jamaican. I have been barred by my own parents from spending Christmas with the family because my mother did not want any black person to be seen entering her house. I had to counsel my wonderful son when, at the age of 8, he was told calmly by a white girl in his class, "I hate you, because you're a nigger." Don't tell me what I don't know and can't feel.
I could tell you many other other stories of racism striking close to my own life (much more in Britain than in the USA, incidentally), and my emotional reactions, and the actions I have taken. But instead I will just say this. By all means freely discuss the difficult moral, psychological, and linguistic issues surrounding the peculiar case of idioms in our language that are left over from a time when racism was common and moral condemnation of it scarce. Disagree with my views and criticize my arguments as you think fit. But don't you dare tell me what a person of my race and age can know or feel. Don't you dare.
Doug said,
July 21, 2017 @ 6:54 am
There's a lot of disagreement in this thread. Still, it might be helpful to point out areas of agreement.
So far as I can tell, no one is actually defending Anne Marie Morris's remark. That is to say, no one is claiming that nobody should be offended by what Morris said. Certainly Geoff Pullum is not doing so. When he says "I reluctantly have to defend Ms. Morris." he specifies "I cannot see her slip-up as a suspension-worthy offense"
He's aware many people were offended & he doesn't say they shouldn't be offended. And he goes on to say that he think no one should use the phrase in question.
Meanwhile, the guest-posters "offer no comment on the appropriateness of the specific punishment Ms. Morris received".
So far as I can tell, we don't have any disagreement expressed about the Morris incident itself.
David said,
July 21, 2017 @ 6:59 am
@Peter Klecha
"See also this discussion of research on the physiological effects “mere words” can have."
There's a pretty convincing rebuttal to that piece here: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/
I would also echo what others, such as @Riikka, have said about the censoring of 'the n-word' amounting to magic thinking: surely if, as you say above, "no one would be unsure what word he was referencing if he had censored", then the effect on someone who has previously been targeted with the slur would be the same whether they were to read 'n****' or 'nigger'. Your argument seems to amount to saying that it's the literally the arrangement of ink on the page, or pixels on the screen, that causes harm.
Bev Rowe said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:19 am
I grew up up in an era when words like fuck and cunt were utterly taboo but the word nigger was used freely. I now hear fuck and cunt freely used on television and written in newspapers but nigger cannot even be written down.
I really cannot see what is gained by euphemisms such as n-word. I see that and hear the word nigger. If I were black I am sure I would also hear the word nigger and feel all the feelings that it use arouses. But it seems to me demeaning to suggest that black people interested enough in linguistics to follow Language Log are unable to understand that some things cannot be discussed if the real words are not mentioned.
Paul said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:32 am
The guest authors of this generally admirable post write, "we know that language behaviors are deeply ingrained". Perhaps that explains their seemingly unconsidered use, in this context, of the word "denigrate", where many synonyms were obviously available.
Also, the line about "hang[ing] GP from the nearest flagpole" was perhaps a little unfortunate.
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:49 am
Bev Rowe, do you object, then, to the fact that many newspapers still avoid printing "fuck" and "cunt" in their uncensored forms? While I think the NYT's policy of coyly paraphrasing swear words is absurd, I certainly understand why less evasive workarounds like "f***" are the preferred standard in much of the news media. You say that you cannot see what is gained by such euphemisms, but what, other than the potential to offend, is gained by using the original words instead? We all know what "N-word" and "n*****" mean, and, contrary to your claim, it's perfectly possible to discuss the issue using these substitutes, as this very post proves.
bks said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:57 am
It's not okay to ban use of the word but it is okay to acquit, by jury nullification if need be, a defendant who punches the user in the puss.
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 8:15 am
Thanks very much for this post. I was distressed to see Geoff Pullum's original post in this venue, and am glad of all the pushback. I am also distressed to see the exuberant use of the spelled-out n-word by a number of commenters in this thread, so proud of their daring contrarianism that they not only maintain that it's perfectly OK to use it but use it over and over and over. Take that, oversensitive minorities and allies of minorities! (I know, I know, you're not using it directly, you'd never do that, you're just mentioning it. Over and over and over.)
If you don't consider yourself part of the group being slurred, don't use it. If you consider yourself part of the group (and no one else gets to make that decision for you, with extremely rare exceptions), you get to decide.
Exactly, and well said.
Aristotle Pagaltzis said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:07 am
I guess personally I just don’t understand avoiding the word itself when the word is nevertheless being communicated. I’m fine with having a consensus that one needs to go to unambiguous lengths to distinguish reference from use when it comes to problematic words such as “nigger” – but exactly what is achieved by the mere blanket prohibition of a 6-letter sequence?
Hardly anybody would argue that a depiction of a svastika in a documentary or a period film automatically constitutes an endorsement of Nazi ideology, and that svastikas must always be shown blurred or pixelated in film. Then why is the same proposition any less absurd when the medium is language?
Bear in my that I argue this with essentially no desire to write or say the word. (I can’t be entirely certain, but this comment may well be the first time I’ve ever written it, and I will not mind if it proves to be the last as well. Unfortunately I cannot equally claim to have never said it out loud, because I had contact with rap lyrics long before I had contact with Americans – an embarrassment I am all too happy to leave in the past.)
Note too that I mostly disagreed with Mr. Pullum’s posting. I agree only insofar as, in the most charitable interpretation and without knowing anything about Ms. Morris’s person, I find her use of the saying not necessarily indicative of a conscious and incorrigible attitude on her part toward black people, and the reaction was thus possibly excessive. But I believe it does still betray at least an unconscious absorption of racist social norms of another era, and is at the very least grounds for a mortified apology once pointed out to her. Not because she merely uttered the word, but because she employed it – in a saying which, as several other commenters point out, is predicated on implications derived from its racist meaning.
But when the word is the very subject of a discussion… what exactly is left to avoid by avoiding it?
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:12 am
what exactly is left to avoid by avoiding it?
Avoiding hurting/upsetting/offending members of the group to whom the word is hurtful (as has been explained many times in this and previous threads). Each person has to decide how important that is to them; if one is not personally affected, of course it is easy to say "Well, let them toughen up and deal with it," as many have been pleased to respond. I hope you will not be one of them.
Robbie said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:12 am
I think it's clear that the MP's original remark is racist. But suppose instead she had complained about the "niggardliness" of the current government. The post suggests equivalency between the two statements. Is this really the standard we want to use?
—
equivalency, no, but similarity, sure. look, it's not all black and white. this is arguably a borderline case. i avoid that word because the phonetic overlap is so striking to me that i can't help but hear it and flinch. for myself, i feel it's responsible to assume that people who have been hurt by that slur would (at least) also be unable to not hear the slur inside that word, even if they safely recognized that there was no racist intent (not saying everyone would, just saying it would be safer to assume so). and what's more, c'mon, can't you just say "frugality"?
Because there is NO slur in the word "niggardly". The etymology is Old English hneaw "stingy, miserly", related to Scandinavian hnøggr "stingy". The word "niggle, niggling" is closely related, all connected to the idea of being overly concerned with trifles.
And no, you can't just say "frugality", not if you're careful with your use of language, because the two words mean quite different things. Frugality is being very careful with the spending of a limited resource. Niggardliness is being excessively stingy, like a miser.
If you're going to ban "niggardly" because of its mere sound, what about "niggle"? "Snigger"? "Sniggle"? Do you disapprove of the country names Niger and Nigeria?
The real problem with PC language is that it spreads, putting more and more words beyond the pale. In the US, in the 1960s I was carefully taught that the correct and approved word was "negro". By the 1970s the proper term was "black". I don't live in the US any more, but apparently "black" is now offensive, to such an extent that people are becoming reluctant to say the words "black" and "white" in any context at all.
Apparently the only acceptable term nowadays is "African-American" (until it's changed again). Which has been drummed into Americans so hard that they reflexively call black people from other countries "African-American" — which is insulting in its own way. To me, "African-American" sounds deliberately divisive, highlighting a person's ancestry as if it's the most important thing about them. Imagine if everyone in America was talked about as "Irish-American", "Chinese-American", "German-American", "Italian-American", not by choice but mandatorily at all times.
And for the record, my opinion about Anne Morris is that it was a stupid thing to do by any politician making a speech — it wasn't an off-the-cuff slip, it was a prepared speech. She should have known it would cause controversy, and rewritten accordingly. In fact, it was such a glaring error that some political observers have suggested Morris was deliberately throwing herself on her own sword to distract from the government's other activities that day.
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:18 am
To make another comparison with violence, do we need to see actual beheadings on the news to know that so-called Islamic State carries them out? Are the networks merely pandering to the oversensitive by describing the act rather than showing it? I'm at a loss to understand why so many commenters here feel such an urge to see and write the N-word; it's as if, on some level they'd rather not explore or admit to themselves, they're titillated by the transgression.
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:21 am
Because there is NO slur in the word "niggardly".
Yes there is, all you have to do is listen to it. What you mean is that etymologically there is no slur in it. Etymology, of course, is not destiny, or else we'd still be using "bead" to mean 'prayer.' If you choose to tell black people that they have no right to be offended because of etymology, that's your choice. I trust you yourself are in all areas of your life actuated only by logical, historically justifiable motives.
Niggardliness is being excessively stingy, like a miser.
So say "miserly." It has always amused me that the "but this word has a special, irreplaceable meaning!" card is played in this case, where the semantic field covered has one of the greatest range of synonyms available of any in English. Go to a thesaurus and look it up; I'm quite sure you'll find some just as suitable as "niggardly." Unless, of course, your main objective is to stick it to those offended by it.
The real problem with PC language is that it spreads, putting more and more words beyond the pale. In the US, in the 1960s I was carefully taught that the correct and approved word was "negro". By the 1970s the proper term was "black". I don't live in the US any more, but apparently "black" is now offensive, to such an extent that people are becoming reluctant to say the words "black" and "white" in any context at all.
Ah, this old canard. Trust me, black people don't care whether you say "black" or "African American" as long as you're talking in a generally respectful fashion. To use "Negro" is either to prove that you're a doddering old person who hasn't been exposed to the news in half a century or (as with using "niggardly") to show that you're a daring soul who refuses to care about African Americans and their silly preferences. And to use the n-word, of course, is to be straight-up racist.
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:23 am
Forgot to add:
people are becoming reluctant to say the words "black" and "white" in any context at all.
It's this kind of blatant untruth that is a frequent sign of a disingenuous approach to a difficult issue.
Acilius said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:25 am
I do tend to lean towards Riikka, 13 comments up, who warns about the dangers of collapsing the distinction between use and mention when discussing words that we ought not to use. I also think it's so obvious that one ought not to use the word in question here that the only really interesting question in the whole matter is, what on earth was Professor Pullum thinking?
Ms Morris is a member of parliament, and as such has a responsibility to conduct herself with a modicum of dignity. How could a scholar as distinguished as Professor Pullum, with the personal background he so touchingly describes six comments up, see her use of such a phrase as anything less than a stain on the honor of the Commons, requiring a severe disciplinary response? A phrase comes to mind that I picked up many years ago, when I lived briefly in Texas: "Looks like you got into the loco weed."
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:48 am
Robbie, "African American" may sound divisive to you, but those whom it actually describes clearly feel differently. Many white Americans proudly describe themselves as Irish, Italian, German, etc., even if their ancestors came to the States generations ago. Why can't African Americans also express pride in their heritage without upsetting you? Perhaps being reminded that their ancestors were forcibly removed from Africa is something other Americans would rather not think about.
As for "niggard" and its derivatives, anyone who employs them today does so knowing that their sound alone carries certain unavoidable connotations. To go ahead and use these words — despite their relative obscurity and the wealth of more usual synonyms — is to be deliberately provocative. It's no different from such puerile playground utterances as "Let's have a mass debate!", where the intended referent is clear despite the lack of any etymological connection.
Vulcan With a Mullet said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:54 am
My 2 cents: As a white American, I have definitely heard the phrase, and as a white American and a human being in general, I would NOT EVER use it in public discourse, irrespective of arguments about whether it is subtly racist, or deconstructive, or intentionally insulting. It's clearly offensive even if the intent isn't.
Seems like a clear cut case to me, although I am a staunch defender of all free speech – I also have common sense and etiquette.
sff9 said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:58 am
@Geoffrey K. Pullum
I believe the main point of this sentence was that uttering this word as an old white dude increases the harm it does. I think it's in this regard that the authors "look at you".
Maybe the harm is alleviated when the old white dude in question has personally suffered from racism more than any other old white dude, but your readers generally don't and can't know this about you. I certainly didn't.
Mark P said,
July 21, 2017 @ 10:04 am
The original question was whether the removal from a party office was excessive. As an American, I am not competent to discuss the use of the N-word in the UK. Perhaps that is debatable. But in the US, the use of that particular expression would certainly warrant removal from a party office. In my opinion, it would disqualify the person from holding any public office.
In the US, that word is a special case. I am pretty sure there is no other class of person other than African Americans who were denied even the dignity of personhood itself in the Constitution. The non-personhood of African Americans was institutionalized, recognized, established by the Constitution, and it took the Civil War to remove it. And even then African Americans were treated as second-class citizens, if even that, for a hundred years afterwards. Today a black child born to a well-to-do family still inherits the history of their race. We are still a racist society (Perhaps particularly in light of the current political climate in the US today, which brings up another question: is the US actually a civilized country?) The word itself recapitulates the history of blacks in the US.
Should academics use the term itself? Perhaps that's debatable. My position, in light of this post and some reconsideration, is that not using it would be, at the very least, polite, and using it would be, at the very best, insensitive.
C. Bowern said,
July 21, 2017 @ 10:05 am
or to put it another way, it's a problem when people presume things about you based on ethnicity and gender, isn't it?
David said,
July 21, 2017 @ 10:58 am
@sff9
"I believe the main point of this sentence was that uttering this word as an old white dude increases the harm it does."
I get the 'white' part here, and the 'dude' part at a stretch…but what on earth does being old have to do with anything? This seems like straightforward ageism.
Matt said,
July 21, 2017 @ 11:15 am
@Peter Klecha
Let me first thank you for taking the time to respond and for engaging in this discussion. I admit that the first part of my comment was more of a comment overuse of the word "problematic" to mean "I don't like this!" But leaving that aside, the rest of my comment was sincere. As for the link on violence, the New York Times article argues that unkind words are stressors, and prolonged exposure to such an environment can cause long-term physical harm. I think that's fairly uncontroversial, as anyone who has suffered from severe stress and anxiety can attest too. However, as critics of the article have pointed out, this does not mean that words are the same as violence:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/
I wouldn't be surprised if similar physical stress was caused by a variety of situations in everyday life i.e., constantly jostled on the subway, having the door slammed in your face by the person walking into work in front of you, etc. That can really wear you down day in and day out! However, I think it devalues the idea of violence to say that someone who experiences it has been a victim of violence. It doesn't take many blows from an axe to shorten someone's life but it's going to be quite a chore to kill someone with words.
Hyacinth said,
July 21, 2017 @ 11:18 am
I’m a black American, and former academic, who has avidly followed this blog for several years, but never commented. I’ve been following Geoff Pullum’s original post and the follow-up posts and comment threads with great interest, as may be imagined.
It appears that most (all?) commenters in these threads are not themselves black Americans, but (understandably enough) many are using hypothetical, potential, recollected, quoted, or extrapolated reactions of black Americans to the “n-word” in support of their arguments.
Given that context, I feel compelled to pipe up as one individual member of the affected group. My own positions on the various points raised in this discussion are complex (and not entirely settled), and I won’t attempt to summarize them all here. I simply want to document that it does make a difference to me whether the word is printed in censored form or not. Yes, as a member of the group targeted by this language, it does personally hurt me when I see (and hear) it. This hurt (or “offense,” if you will) is something above and beyond a cognitive understanding of the word represents, how it has been used in various places and times in the past and how it is being used in the current context. It doesn’t mean that once I see it I’m devastated, rendered intellectually paralyzed and incapable of evaluating those factors and engaging in further discussion. And it doesn’t mean that I categorically call for everyone around me to cease and desist using it in any context. Nevertheless, the personal hurt is there. I sincerely appreciate people who acknowledge that that hurt exists as they pursue their arguments, whatever they may be. In these comment threads, I very much appreciate the attempts made by languagehat, Levantine, Peter Klecha (and the other authors of the current post), and others to explain the importance of sensitivity when using this word.
I’d also like to confirm from my own experience in academia (not in linguistics, but in the humanities) that “abstract” discussion of this word, and of racism and connected topics, can cause serious feelings of alienation from academic discourse and institutions. I would say that is one of several factors that contribute to a lack of racial diversity in the field (and even in the comments section of this blog).
Lastly, for the record, I still consider myself a fan of Geoff Pullum and of Language Log, and am glad for what I’ve learned in this discussion and many others here.
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 11:32 am
Is your conclusion that therefore we shouldn't worry about using offensive language, since it's not nearly as bad as hitting people with axes? Assuming your answer is "No, of course not," I'm not sure why you're going to such trouble to prove an obvious and irrelevant point.
a George said,
July 21, 2017 @ 11:40 am
I did not see this post as an attack on Prof. Pullum, but rather on those who feel unfettered but who willingly carry the responsibility for their own utterances. For this reason I react even after Prof. Pullum himself has clarified a few matters.
It seems that political correctness pervades more and more of what the individual utters publicly. Not in closed social fora, or what are erroneously perceived as closed fora. It has even gone so far as to generate a culture of apologetics, apologising in public for historical behaviour that we would today consider an infraction of human rights, because our Western culture is now so much more advanced. In my view, political correctness is a culture of cowardice mixed with the concept of original sin. A cowardice only exceeded in those cultures in which you are not at all allowed to see the face of the person speaking.
Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", which as a summing up is ascribed to the views of Voltaire? We have been so proud in our Western civilisation that we were able to defend our freedom of speech to this degree. Sadly, no longer, it appears!
Life is hard, but we believe that it is less hard than it used to be. On some levels that is quite true, but concerning personal relations nothing has changed, probably because it is closer to our animal past than much of our thin cultural varnish. In the past, sometimes not even that far back, some in power would oppress those less fortunate. Examples abound, but the most highlighted are the enslaving of in particular individuals from the African continent and their progeny. Those who enslaved were other tribes, Arabian tradesmen, and white slave importers and slave-owners. The two former categories are virtually always left out when slavery is discussed. Slavery of persons of African descent was officially abandoned many years ago, but slavery as such still existed in e.g. British public schools where the juniors were enslaved by the seniors, certainly as late as 50 years ago — I have not checked recently. The reason this type of slavery survived was that it was a period to live through, whereafter the enslaved became the enslavers. It was called character-building! I am reasonably certain that suicides among "slaves" were not unknown, but they were probably never correctly attributed. But many would have scars on their souls. We all have our cross to bear one way or the other, and we had better get used to it. The cross may be more or less personal, but it does not get nobler and therefore deservant of greater respect if it is based in history. Suffering is part of human existance, despite what condescending Worriers try to teach. My view is that it is better to grow free of a feeling of suffering than to rely on symbolic gestures promoted by the Worriers. But if we are able to prove (if necessary in court) that we are given worse opportunities in life than the average citizen, due to a personal or sweeping verbal attack (any word, not just the NIGA word), then we have the law on our side. Discrimination is not permitted — in our society.
Part of our humanness is the ability to feel part of a group, with those outside being targets of ridicule or worse. Them and us! Did the slaves never make jokes about their masters? Did members of one tribe not ridicule members of other tribes? Are there really no jokes about the white man? We never hear them.
I am not going to repeat what I have written lengthy comments on already in the threads that have covered the present use of the NIGA word, but I severely resist the contention of languagehat that certain language, masonic-style, should be reserved for special groups of people. Groups may decide that within that group they will refrain from certain expressions and agree on a fine if they are used. However, the thought that anybody can decide that nobody else is permitted to use them is preposterous.
I have downloaded the various threads relating to this threat to free speech and implicitly free thought, because I fear that 1) they will either be removed entirely in the name of political correctness, or 2) LanguageLog as such will be closed down. Well, I suddenly realise that with modern technology it might be simpler to prevent me from commenting because of my apparently offensive attitude!
The power of political correctness already pervades universities, where students have requested to be warned if their horizon is threatened by being broadened. That is, among other things a-historical and shows complete denial. Whether such approaches to potentially offending material will mean a slow-down in the intellectual development of our society remains to be seen, but it is worth fearing. I want to have the arguments preserved.
Coby Lubliner said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:01 pm
I wonder if there are any Latin teachers left in English-speaking countries, and if there are, how they go about teaching the Latin word for 'black', orally. Niger was, in fact, an alternative to negro for designating a "black" person from the 16the century on, and it was only around 1800 that the g was doubled to ensure that the word rhymed with 'bigger' (as in Latin) and not with 'tiger', but the pejorative sense doesn't seem to have entered until about 1850.
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:03 pm
a George, that was an absolutely disgraceful screed of which you should be thoroughly ashamed. To equate the "enslavement" of juniors by seniors in British public schools with the transatlantic slave trade is just abominable. The rest of your diatribe is equally repugnant and proves, if nothing else, that racism doesn't operate merely on the level of slurs.
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:04 pm
Hyacinth, thank you for your valuable perspective, and for your kind words about my comments.
Peter Klecha said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:17 pm
@David:
Your argument seems to amount to saying that it's the literally the arrangement of ink on the page, or pixels on the screen, that causes harm.
yes, that's correct. why should it be only meaning that can cause harm, and not form?
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:20 pm
I agree with Levantine both in condemning a George's disgraceful screed and in thanking Hyacinth for the valuable perspective and kind words. (I should also add, in case it wasn't obvious, that my comment beginning "Is your conclusion that therefore…" was addressed not to Hyacinth but to Matt and his immediately preceding comment!) It continues to appall me that so many white people have so little interest in the feelings and reactions of black people, preferring to brush them off with rants about freedom of speech (of which I am a firm defender, by the way) and specious analogies. Try to summon up a little decency, folks.
Coby Lubliner said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:21 pm
Another thing: the French word nègre is more or less equivalent to English 'nigger' (though it has the additional meaning of 'ghostwriter'), though it isn't quite as taboo. But I think that the translators of Jean Genêt's play Les nègres missed the point by titling it The Blacks.
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:23 pm
But I think that the translators of Jean Genêt's play Les nègres missed the point by titling it The Blacks.
Surely you're not suggesting the world would be better off if they'd used the slur instead.
Lameen said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:42 pm
There's a lot of very good stuff in this post, and I appreciate the careful explanation of the semantic background: "slurs aggressively attach to the speaker" is a key issue here. But I'm not at all convinced by the argument that linguists should systematically avoid mentioning slurs even among themselves in order to avoid hurt.
In the course of becoming a member of "linguistics as an academic field", more than once I've had to consult key reference works written by people who quite literally fought and killed to subjugate my ancestors, some within living memory (one egregious case is Philippe Marçais). All the way through my educational career, I've run into people putting forward vocal arguments for why people in a situation strikingly similar to my grandparents' deserved to get expelled from their homes and exiled, or for why my religion (or, indeed, every religion) is evil and dangerous. I regret the fact that some people hold such views, and despise some of them. But I definitely do not regret that I've had the opportunity to hear their views and respond to them. To the contrary: looking back on it, one of the most valuable parts of my education was learning how to deal with and counter shocking, hurtful statements without being overwhelmed by my immediate emotional reactions. If this skill is something we're expected to learn at university – and I really think it should be for all students, not just members of various minorities – then, above a certain level, avoiding slurs just seems patronizing. If I can cope with reading 19th-century genocide enthusiasts, I can probably cope with an academic discussion of the word "raghead".
RP said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:50 pm
Re French. The slave trade is still called "la traite négrière" or less commonly "la traite des nègres". The slave traders are known as "les négriers". The existence of this terminology makes me think the range of usage differs from that of the English slur. I have not read Genêt's play so can't suggest the best translation.
Re the penalty accorded to Morris. It may seem a technicality to some but the benefit of those considering whether it was too harsh (which I don't really think it was), it's not true that she has been "removed from a party office", unless mere membership of the parliamentary party is thought to constitute an office. (Confusion has been caused by the use of the term "whip". She has never been a whip. Having the whip removed is synonymous with suspension from the parliamentary party/grouping/caucus.) Still less has she been removed from public office. And all the relevant or semi-relevant precedent in these matters suggests that if she doesn't say or do anything stupid in the months to come, she will probably regain full membership of the parliamentary party in between two and twelve months' time and will then be allowed to stand again as a Tory candidate at the next general election.
Lameen said,
July 21, 2017 @ 12:55 pm
Also, reading the comments that I missed while composing this: thanks to Hyacinth for a thoughtful and enlightening comment. It would be great to see more black linguists' perspective on this issue here.
Todd said,
July 21, 2017 @ 1:03 pm
@a George:
"Whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", which as a summing up is ascribed to the views of Voltaire? We have been so proud in our Western civilisation that we were able to defend our freedom of speech to this degree. Sadly, no longer, it appears!"
I recommend checking out Lynne Tirrell's Genocidal Language Games. You may find that there are things people can say which you might not find defensible.
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 1:06 pm
Lameen, even those of us who refuse to write it out are still discussing the slur in question. Using unambiguous stand-ins for the word is not the same as refusing to confront it; on the contrary, such substitution can be a conscious and purposeful move.
With all due respect (and I say this as someone from a Muslim and partially Arab background), "raghead" does not come with the same extremely troubled history as the N-word, and I really don't think anyone other than a black person can understand how it feels to hear or see the latter.
Lameen said,
July 21, 2017 @ 1:13 pm
"Unambiguous" presupposes a lot of prior locale-specific cultural knowledge. You and I know what "n-word" means; a grad student who just arrived from, say, China or Ethiopia may well not.
I certainly agree that "raghead" isn't nearly as strong as the n-word. But I doubt that even the n-word is stronger than actual genocide apologism.
Ellen K. said,
July 21, 2017 @ 1:21 pm
I get by just fine without the word "niggardly" as part of my vocabulary. (I only know of the word because of discussions such as this one.) I'm sure others can too. The idea that people can't express themselves fully without the word is, in my view, incorrect. In fact, if they want to express their thoughts to me, they should avoid the word simply because I wouldn't know what it means. Don't use words that your listeners or readers won't understand, or might misunderstand.
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 1:22 pm
I doubt that even the n-word is stronger than actual genocide apologism.
It's also not as bad as hitting people with axes. Again, I'm not sure what conclusion we're supposed to draw from that undoubted truth.
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 1:34 pm
Lameen, a grad student unfamiliar with the substitution can simply look it up and, in the process, reflect on why the slur itself was avoided. And again, avoidance of the slur itself does not equate to avoidance of the issue of racism itself. From what I can tell from the comments here, those who are willing to use the word do not seem any better informed about the issues at stake than those of us who refuse to do so.
Lameen said,
July 21, 2017 @ 1:35 pm
The conclusion I'm drawing is that, when you're addressing an audience who have already learned to cope with utterances way more painful than slurs, it's patronizing to treat the quoting of slurs as off-limits.
Rose Eneri said,
July 21, 2017 @ 2:19 pm
IMHO as an old, white, American chick
1) The MP was totally wrong for using the phrase she used. I'd never heard it before and I found it offensive. I think she was appropriately ousted for casting a very poor light on her party and for being unimaginably insulated. How could she possibly represent anybody?
2) I do not use the n-word for several reasons; to not offend anybody, to demonstrate that I too am offended by the word and to signal that I don't even use it in private.
3) But, you can't have it both ways. If you don't want other people to use a word, you shouldn't use it yourself. It appears that African-Americans use the n-word neutrally or even affectionately among themselves, yet they claim to be offended by others' use of the word. Although I accept this, I think it is unreasonable to expect people to understand the dichotomy. The incomparable Chris Rock said it best at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v56A46P93eg
Wouldn't it be better if we all stopped using the word?
4) I have a visceral reaction to the c-word. I think people can easily understand that it is offensive because not even woman use it among themselves.
5) I worked with and played sports with lots of black folks. I was the only white chick on my coed softball team. It was common to refer to people as "the black chick" or "the white guy". Black and white were just descriptions, like tall or blond.
D.O. said,
July 21, 2017 @ 2:24 pm
I will make a mostly political comment. Ignore it if you are not interested.
I find the attitude "let's leave to the affected group make the decision" attitude both reasonable and dangerous. It is reasonable on a short-term one-word scale. But it is dangerous on a larger scale. In US history, many waves of European immigrants, at first very much prejudiced against, assimilated to the "white" group just fine. Whatever (usually small) differences remain are mostly inconsequential. Current not white or black groups are mostly Latino and East Asians. It is overwhelmingly probable that the second group will assimilate into the same "general American" category. For Latinos situation is more questionable, in part, due to various affirmative action programs and relative political strength of the group. But a large portion of Latinos may very well become generic-Americans as well.
This leaves blacks as the only group that will be on a clearly separate status. The question is, whether it is a Good Thing. If not, we try should try at least not to establish rules that makes this separation more firm. I know that chief justice's Roberts dictum “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” is simplistic, but should we at least try to move in that, rather than the opposite, direction.
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 2:29 pm
I think people can easily understand that it is offensive because not even woman use it among themselves.
This is not true. I know a number of women who use it. That does not, of course, give me (a man) the right to use it.
D.O. said,
July 21, 2017 @ 2:30 pm
Sorry, stupid of me, I forgot about Native Americans. But there the situation seems to be so complicated that it is well beyond me to even ask a reasonable question.
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 2:52 pm
D.O., the fact that, of all the groups you mentioned, African Americans were the only ones literally imported as slaves is important context you neglected to mention. So too is the unique level of institutional and general discrimination they continue to face. Your understanding of the category of "general American" as something that entails "assimilat[ion] to the 'white' group" exemplifies the kinds of prejudice that non-white groups (including East Asians and Latinos) are up against. Perhaps the onus should be on white Americans to accept and adjust to the increasingly multi-ethnic demographic of their nation.
Rose Eneri, regarding No. 3, I'm a gay man and, when speaking with other gay men, will sometimes use terms that I would find offensive if said by someone straight. I think it's rather common for members of a group to feel entitled to refer to themselves in ways they deny to non-members, much like we are willing to complain about our own families but bristle at criticisms from outsiders. The dichotomy is, in other words, rather easy to understand.
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 3:06 pm
The dichotomy is, in other words, rather easy to understand.
I agree, and as a straight white male I find it not only easy but incumbent on myself to use the language preferred by other groups and not to bother my head about the language they use among themselves, which is none of my business.
Doug said,
July 21, 2017 @ 3:54 pm
Todd said:
"I recommend checking out Lynne Tirrell's Genocidal Language Games."
Thanks for the reference. Although I've only skimmed the paper, I note that while she is discussing "derogatory terms to refer to Tutsi individuals [that] played a crucial role in licensing the 1994 genocide", Tirrell spells out those terms in full, not using dashes or asterisks.
Does anyone here know if she would/did do the same if referring to the N-word in her work?
a George said,
July 21, 2017 @ 5:18 pm
@Levantine and @languagehat: quoting out of context and not putting up an argument is bad form. On LanguageLog I had expected more argument and less unreflected gut feeling. Trying to redefine "racism" is not helpful at all.
I am quite proud of having my lengthy comment designated a "screed". That is because I am actually much more familiar with its other connotation: a solid floor.
If these bleeding hearts cannot stand what I write, then do not read what it says under "a George". If, on the other hand they need my published considerations to flash their own virtuousnesses, be my guest! All their comments presently tell me is that those two do not like what I write. But they are really of no consequence if they are not providing intelligent feedback.
@Todd: I think he misses the fine point here when he states "You may find that there are things people can say which you might not find defensible." That is misquoting what Voltaire himself did not say: the quotation is about the right to say something, not about that "something" itself. I am sure Voltaire would have disapproved of Todd's reading.
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 5:36 pm
a George, there are some viewpoints that are simply too extreme to merit a properly argued response; yours is one of them. It would be like trying to discuss geography with someone who is convinced that the world is flat.
Jonathan Smith said,
July 21, 2017 @ 6:40 pm
It's not that arguments from general principle (freedom of speech, etc.), from use vs. mention, or (relatedly) from the purported objectivity and/or requisite precision of scientific discourse are without any basis whatever. It's just that (speaking here for the U.S. context) experience and observation richly informs all white people that their use of this particular word is in the general case the close equivalent of spit in the faces of black hearers or readers. If doing principled science, philosophy, etc., really required the performance of acts so debasing one's fellow man, it seems to me that one would be compelled to demur — and if this is to be characterized as cowardice or sentimentality, so be it.
John said,
July 21, 2017 @ 6:52 pm
a George, to my eye, languagehat and Levantine have provided some of the most intelligent feedback in this entire thread, their responses to your posts included. I'd offer a line-by-line rebuttal of your original argument—which is not really an argument at all, but a series of distorted facts combined with unfounded assertions—but I happen to agree with Levantine: there's no basis for argumentation. For example, the equivalence you implied between slavery in the United States and "slavery" in British public schools is so absurd that there's nothing anyone can say except: no, these are not at all the same.
Regarding the debate on whether it's appropriate to use the n-word when writing about the n-word, I agree with the authors of the original post, and with the people in this thread who have argued against using the full word. The word under discussion is clear. No one's speech is being censored—instead, what is being asked for is empathy.
seriously said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:07 pm
But, you can't have it both ways. If you don't want other people to use a word, you shouldn't use it yourself. It appears that African-Americans use the n-word neutrally or even affectionately among themselves, yet they claim to be offended by others' use of the word. Although I accept this, I think it is unreasonable to expect people to understand the dichotomy.
@Rose Eneri: This point comes up again and again, usually (although not, thankfully, in your case from all available evidence) as a smokescreen by those who really, deep down inside, regret that they can no publicly use the term under discussion. But different groups use different words in different contexts all the time, and we understand that some are appropriate, while others are not. Some scenarios:
1a. A female colleague comes storming into the office, sits down angrily at her desk, and says to me "My husband is a real asshole."
1b. I come storming into the office, sit down angrily at my desk, and say to my female colleague, "Your husband is an asshole."
Perhaps one remark would elicit a sympathetic response from a co-worker, while the other would be received with, at best, defensiveness.
2a. I'm sitting next to a guy in a bar, who turns to me and says, "My wife is a bitch."
2b. I'm sitting next to a guy in a bar. I turn to him and say, "Your wife is a bitch."
I can envision ending up buying a drink for the guy on the next barstool in one scenario (even as I think to myself, "Yeah, what does she say about him–there are two sides to every story.") I can equally envision getting punched in the nose in the other scenario.
I'll resist the temptation to go on and on, but surely you are aware of similar cases–terms of endearment between lovers that would be insulting or demeaning if used by someone in a purely social setting, things you call yourself when you are frustrated, angry, or upset with yourself that you would be offended if someone else called you, nicknames or nonsense things you say to your pet that you would regard as highly inappropriate if used by your neighbor to refer to the animal, teasing comments that you can say to a friend but that you would never say to an acquaintance…
So if members of one group want to use a term that would be offensive in most contexts in a way that is joking or affectionate or even as a way to remove some of the power that the term has, I feel no diminution in my ability to express myself if I decline to use it, or even if 'polite society' requires that I not use it.
Jair said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:09 pm
I'd like to register my disappointment at such a preachy, finger-wagging post appearing on Language Log. To suggest that there are certain strings of characters that are so toxic that even a *linguistics blog* cannot print them is extraordinary. Should we also start putting fig leaves on our anatomy textbooks so that our nation's students cannot be exposed to moral depravities? It defies the imagination.
languagehat said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:11 pm
What defies my imagination is the fact that so many people are so eager to insist on their right to use language in a way they know is hurtful to other people.
ardj said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:12 pm
I fully accept Hyacinth’s feelings on the subject. I am very grateful for coming forward to help – I asked in the discussion of Professor Pullum’s original post, if there were really no Afro-American or other groups who felt slighted by the language used to describe them. That Hyacinth has felt able to do so, overcoming a real natural reluctance, is brave and should be applauded, as indeed should the careful discriminations made in the post. I am also grateful for Lameen’s insightful contributions, especially about the relative importance of words and actions in various contexts.
@Mark P,21jul17 10.04
“I am pretty sure there is no other class of person other than African Americans who were denied even the dignity of personhood itself in the Constitution”
In 1919 the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibited the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex (it was originally proposed in 1878, so it only took 40 years – if you don’t count the years from the start of the Constitution)
@languagehat: “Because there is NO slur in the word "niggardly". Yes there is, all you have to do is listen to it” – Maybe it depends on how you pronounce it – personally I am happy to employ a ‘d’. But even if it were misunderstood, I am not prepared to be held accountable for all the ways in which people misunderstand me. At some point my auditor is going to have to use their brain and not just their emotions. (This remark is addressed to Ellen K, as well – if she still has problems, I will be happy to send her a dictionary.) What puzzles me is that languagehat, for whom words matter, cannot see that miserly is no substitute for niggardly. If I were to call him a niggardly denier of nationalist nominalizing nouns, I doubt he would want to substitute the word miserly.
That does not mean I wish also freely to use the n-word. But I think that languagehat is wrong not to wish for an explicit translation of the Genet play, which gave force to Genet’s concern with domination and subjection: words matter, if you will pardon the pun.
Thorin said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:17 pm
I don't think it's preachy to point out that certain words have been used as weapons throughout American history to oppress people who were forced here and sold into slavery. Some words are powerful in that way, and to say they're just strings of letters put together trivializes the pain the words cause to those they were conceived to harm. When someone calls my wife a "w**back" or a "sp*ck" (yes, I will censor the words), I'm not going to tell her they're just words. They're a manifestation of hatred for who she is and where she's from.
ardj said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:20 pm
@ardj: forgot to add, that Genet was of course deliberately transgressive. as RP's note today will confirm.
Mark said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:24 pm
@ardj, I recognize that women were denied the right to vote, but I hope you're not equating that with the treatment of slaves. For one thing, whatever you may think of the treatment of some women by some men, women were not actually treated as property to be bought and sold, and disposed of in any fashion the owner desired. But surely I don't have to list the differences.
Guy said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:29 pm
@Rose Eneri
African Americans who use it are generally using it differently than how it is used in the contexts where it is generally found offensive. For example, in some dialects, "nigger" denotes a man (as opposed to a woman) with no specification of race. A white man could be called a "nigger" in these dialects without speakers of those dialects finding it odd, and so it becomes somewhat more similar to, say, Spanish "negro", which is simply the word for black. But even if we are talking about the "standard" usages, the context of the speaker is relevant. If you'll forgive the analogy (which as many have pointed out can never be perfect, and of course there are a thousand reasons why this is inapt but I'm trying to gesture at part of the issue), it's slightly like how a short person might make a joke about their height but if other people make those jokes they are being assholes.
Guy said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:31 pm
Also, of course, the use of the word by black people is often the subject of criticism, but that usage, whether appropriate or not, can't be used to excuse racist usages by other people.
Levantine said,
July 21, 2017 @ 7:44 pm
ardj, are you seriously maintaining that "niggard" is (together with its derivatives) semantically unique and irreplaceable? Do you really deny that anyone hearing or seeing the word — especially for the first time — is inevitably going to be reminded of the slur that looks and sounds so much like it? If your aim is to be clear and precise in meaning, why on earth would you choose a word that is always going to call more attention to its connotation than to its denotation?
Barbara Partee said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:56 pm
I just want to add my thanks to almost everyone. This has almost all been a respectful and valuable discussion. I'm still not sure where I stand on the original issue myself, but I think less close to Geoff Pullum than I where I started out. I still don't agree with everything Peter Klecha and his co-authors have said, but I see that side of it better now, I think.
I especially want to add my thanks to Hyacinth for a beautiful and informative contribution. I was very happy to see the statement that you're still a fan of Geoff Pullum. I'm always happy when people can disagree strongly and still stay friends.
ngage92 said,
July 21, 2017 @ 9:59 pm
Also, if you're interested in how actual people use "niggardly", I suggest searching for the word on twitter.
Many thanks to languagehat, Levantine, and Hyacinth for fighting the good fight that I have no energy for.
Ellen Kozisek said,
July 21, 2017 @ 10:05 pm
@ardj.
You've missed my point. Or, points. You completely ignored my main point, and don't seem to comprehend my secondary point. Worded differently: When writing and speaking, keep your audience in mind. That's very relevant to work choice, both with niggardly and with the main word under discussion here.
(For the record, I don't fall into the "avoid mentioning the word when talking about it" camp. But, here, the word has already been used enough times that there's to repeat it. But I wouldn't likely say "the N word".)
Eric Mccready said,
July 21, 2017 @ 11:16 pm
I just got off a plane—there are so many comments here that responding to them all seems quite impossible, especially 17 hours into an intercontinental journey. But let me just second Barbara on thanking everyone for mostly remaining civil and friendly despite the contentious nature of this issue, and also Hyacinth for adding a key voice to the discussion. The Tirrell paper is also very relevant in this context. Someone noted that the words described there are spelled out, and in fact I think this is common though not universal practice in papers on slurs, though people are very careful to distance themselves from their content, and often choose obsolete or relatively unhurtful ones, or slurs which, in their descriptive content, apply to the authors themselves. The issue isn't an entirely clearcut one in a pure research context, but it seems to be good practice to avoid unnecessary pain for anyone involved, which is what we tried to suggest in our post. In the context of a blog like LL, it's not at all clear to me that there's any pressing, non-ideological reason to say possibly hurtful things given the existence of obvious alternatives.
I want to stress again that it wasn't at all our intention to attack GP himself or to create a venue for anyone to do so. We disagree with him on the empirical facts (I think), on the right way to address the problem of racist speech, and possibly also on what counts as racist speech at all (which is probably bound up with the empirical point). But we all have the same goals here, so it's very good that things have mostly been positive.
Now I need a coffee or I will collapse.
Allan from Nevada, Iowa said,
July 21, 2017 @ 11:39 pm
If you mention it too many times, you're using it.
Todd said,
July 22, 2017 @ 12:35 am
@Doug:
"Although I've only skimmed the paper, I note that while she is discussing "derogatory terms to refer to Tutsi individuals [that] played a crucial role in licensing the 1994 genocide", Tirrell spells out those terms in full, not using dashes or asterisks.
Does anyone here know if she would/did do the same if referring to the N-word in her work?"
She does in that work, in fact, along with several other examples of slurs (p 191).
In some classrooms where this work is discussed, I have seen the Kinyarwanda words for 'cockroach' and 'snake' euphemized (or referenced through their English gloss) on par with "the n-word", despite Tirrell's convention.
Todd said,
July 22, 2017 @ 12:38 am
@a George:
"That is misquoting what Voltaire himself did not say: the quotation is about the right to say something, not about that "something" itself. I am sure Voltaire would have disapproved of Todd's reading."
I didn't recommend the reading to Voltaire. I recommended it to you.
Allow me to rephrase. If you were to read it, you might find cause to believe that there are some things which one shouldn't have the *right* to say (e.g., the sorts of deeply derogatory terms [this is a term of art, here] that justify genocide).
R. Fenwick said,
July 22, 2017 @ 3:27 am
@languagehat: “Because there is NO slur in the word "niggardly". Yes there is, all you have to do is listen to it”
This argument I find truly problematic and excessive. Should the phrase "spick and span", then, be committed to damnatio memoriae? What about "fag-end"? "Hoarfrost"? "Country"? "Dyke" as a term for a dam? All of those contain slurs of some kind from a pure phonetic point of view. The use of "niggardly" as an oblique way to allude to the slur that's the topic of discussion here is, I absolutely agree, a problem. But how far along the euphemism treadmill must we go in purging our language of those kinds of words? How similar does a word have to sound to a slur, and how infrequent in its use, in order to consider it worthy of removal from conversational use? Is "snigger" off the table? "Bigger"? "Niggle"? "Nickel"? These are questions that we need to be able to answer in order to be able to properly deploy respectful and non-racist language, and we're still no closer to an answer on it.
Also, what do we do if we happen not to be a part of the culture in which a word is so highly offensive? My Australian English-speaking father was recently stunned to discover how deeply racially stained the word "uppity" is in the US (to the point that it's very often coupled with the slur under discussion in this post). In Australia those racist connotations are entirely non-existent and all kinds of people can be freely referred to as "uppity". Should Australians therefore stop using the word? Should we be expected to be aware of the connotations in other speech varieties of what to us are innocent words? Do we have the right to expect such in return?
languagehat said,
July 22, 2017 @ 8:01 am
What about [etc. etc. etc.]? These are questions that we need to be able to answer in order to be able to properly deploy respectful and non-racist language, and we're still no closer to an answer on it.
No, they're not. This is the infamous and deeply tedious "slippery slope" argument that's always trotted out whenever anyone is asked to change their behavior for someone else's sake. (Cf. "If we let you gays marry each other, the next thing you know people will be marrying their horses!") There are no "questions that we need to be able to answer" other than "Is the thing I am asked to do something that will improve the life of the person asking it of me?" You can worry about "hoarfrost" or whatever if and when someone comes along and tries to get you to stop saying it, in which case you can evaluate it on its own merits (spoiler: nobody's going to).
Should Australians therefore stop using the word? Should we be expected to be aware of the connotations in other speech varieties of what to us are innocent words? Do we have the right to expect such in return?
In order: No; No, unless you're told of it; Yes. Obviously Australians should talk among themselves as they see fit; if they find themselves in a context (like coming to America) in which their language habits clash with the expectations of those around them, they have to decide for themselves how to respond. They can go "Forget it, I talk the way I talk and you can just deal with it," in which case I and many Americans will apply the label "asshole" to them, or they can go "Sorry, I didn't know; I'll try to change my habits while I'm here," in which case they get a gold star. Personally, if I visited Australia and was told that such-and-such a word or phrase was offensive to the locals, I would try to avoid it.
In Argentina, the verb coger, a very common and perfectly ordinary word meaning 'to take' in most of the Spanish-speaking world, is an obscenity meaning 'to fuck.' This is, needless to say, a source of great mirth to Argentines welcoming visitors from abroad who run up against the difference in usage, and there are well-worn jokes about it; each visitor will either learn to substitute another verb (as the Argentines do) or put up with endless mockery. Of course, in that case they're only in danger of making themselves the butt of jokes, not ruining other people's days. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be more concerned about their own convenience than about other people's not having their day ruined.
a George said,
July 22, 2017 @ 8:02 am
Well, if anything, it appears that the virulent attacks by languagehat and Levantine have made more people read what I wrote. To me, the most balanced response is by Jonathan Smith July 21, 2017 @ 6:40 pm, because it is calm, it argues and it is not ad hominem. And the observations by R. Fenwick, July 22, 2017 @ 3:27 am seem to me particularly pertinent.
The whole exchange of views has been very educational to me as regards style and level of expression, because I am not a frequent commenter on lists. Since this whole business started I have had off-list comments from people who are too timid to take list abuse that inform me that a few of the commenters must be categorised as well-known stereotypes that you will find on any list; they are called "virtue signallers". So, I was not entirely wrong in my analysis.
Anyway, I ought to make one thing clear: I do not knowingly have a need to use the NIGA word (and particularly not in the phonetic form I provide due to TV exposure to non-white persons who have pronounced it precisely that way), so you would not see it from me. However, when discussing the word, or when quoting an expression in a historical context, or giving the original title of a work, that is a meta-use of the word that must not be hampered. I prefer historical correctness to political correctness at any time, painful as it may be. As I have pointed out, bowdlerised versions (@Ellen K July 21, 2017 @ 1:21 pm: look it up if you don't know it; that is what I had to do, and it builds vocabulary) are no better than the original versions.
Todd July 21, 2017 @ 1:03 pm's reference to Lynne Tirrell is interesting, because it proves exactly my point that inter-tribe ridicule and worse was always the case, and that the superior, morally developed white apologetic did not have a historical monopoly on having had abused others. But it is never mentioned, and I do not see Africa-wide apologies abound. As I said, it has always been "them and us". And our rich verbal abilities have always given rise to points of attack, more or less snide.
I have still not seen a convincing argument that the psychic harm inflicted on descendants of slaves is any different from the psychic harm inflicted in an old-style (I hope) English public school (not even from John July 21, 2017 @ 6:52 pm). But like homosexuality in such places, this is not something that is spoken about at all. I maintain that apologising for historical wrongdoings is futile, but certainly abuses by priests must be compensated to the surviving senescent men that were once suffering choir boys, by official apologies (and perhaps prison sentences to the former abusers, despite their elevated age).
I have taken quite a liking to the expression "a spanner in the works". If a group of Iberics came to me and said, "you are insulting us", should I refrain from using the expression fortwith, just to be on the safe side? It is aiming for this kind of safety that is cowardly.
ardj said,
July 22, 2017 @ 8:18 am
@Mark P
“I hope you're not equating that with the treatment of slaves. For one thing, whatever you may think of the treatment of some women by some men, women were not actually treated as property to be bought and sold, and disposed of in any fashion the owner desired. But surely I don't have to list the differences.”
No, of course not, how silly of me. And yet even I have heard of the removal of Native American children to boarding schools, taken from their mothers and put in conditions which resemble for instance some of the Church institutions for women and children in Ireland, if not worse – nothing like the settlement house of Jane Adams, for instance. You may care to note that, starting with Columbus, who took slaves home with him, the Native Americans, and especially the women, were consistently and on a vast scale enslaved. This took place both under or in spite of Spanish, French and English law and under US law.
Cf. Relocation revisited: Sex Trafficking of Native Women in the United States., by Sarah Deer: Mitchell Hamline School of Law Open Access, 2010
In case you doubt that this was genuine slavery here is just one quotation: ‘Squaw Sarah’s master went so far as to devise “an iron Engin made almost like pot hookes with a revett soe that would come about her necke, and a padlocke to keep it fast there.” ‘
Nor did this stop with the general abolition of slavery enacted by the 19th Amendment in 1865:
‘In California, for example, the “Law for the Protection of the Indian,” (passed in 1850) allowed Indians convicted of certain crimes (including vagrancy) to be bonded out to “the best bidder.” … These 1850 laws remained on the books until well after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment ‘
And the paper I cited earlier also studies the ill-treatment of Native American women today,
Turning to non-native women, you may have heard of the ‘tobacco brides’ , whose arrival started even before the Mayflower: in 1619 90 “young single women from England went to Jamestown to become wives of the men there, with the women being auctioned off for 150 pounds of tobacco each (to be paid to the shipping company), as that was the cost of each woman's travel to America.” (Wikipedia’s source for this is ISBN 9780825144608, but it is a Google Book which Google is unable to find at the moment. But there are other references at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_brides)
But even if not, you must be aware that a woman’s lot, until emancipation, was to not have a legal standing in her own right: a married woman’s property became her husband’s; and she was simultaneously expected to work, both in the house and often in the fields or at least the garden, as well as handling clothes making and dairy arrangements (any profit from the sale of home manufacturers went of course to the husband.) And of course they had babies and brought up the children. Given the level of domestic abuse today, would you think that, in the less well-regulated societies of earlier centuries, it must have been rare for one to be treated no better than a slave ?
I am no expert on trafficking, but you might find interesting the report Sex Trafficking of Women in the United States: International and Domestic Trends at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/187774.pdf
Given the level of trafficking, internal and external, today, do you think that it was less likely in “days of yore” ?
languagehat said,
July 22, 2017 @ 8:30 am
a few of the commenters must be categorised as well-known stereotypes that you will find on any list; they are called "virtue signallers".
Of course, to the rest of us you and your pals too cowardly to express their ideas in public are well-known stereotypes with a less pleasant name.
So, I was not entirely wrong in my analysis.
Some people agree with you, so you're not wrong? You should talk to a flat-earther sometime; I'm sure you'll have an enlightening discussion. And really, I'm surprised that you were surprised to find that other people agree with you; a lack of concern with the feelings, ideas, and sensibilities of minorities has been an overwhelmingly popular attitude in human history (which perhaps, to you, means it must be correct). It is only quite recently that a substantial number of people not members of the relevant minorities have begun take them seriously; back in the good old days of the 1950s they were called "n*****-lovers," but now the charge is reduced to "virtue signallers". Progress!
languagehat said,
July 22, 2017 @ 8:31 am
(Oops, sorry about the itals. Bring back the preview function!)
Levantine said,
July 22, 2017 @ 8:33 am
a George, to paraphrase Jonathan Smith's comment, which I agree was very well put, if showing sensitivity to other people is to be characterised as virtue signalling, so be it.
It seems you're more comfortable with being labelled a racist.
Levantine said,
July 22, 2017 @ 8:39 am
languagehat said it more classily than me.
Jonathan said,
July 22, 2017 @ 10:16 am
Adding my thanks to Hyacinth for taking the time to comment and being open and honest.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman said,
July 22, 2017 @ 11:40 am
Speaking as an objective observer: These endless comments have become a three-ring circus and an "I'm more sensitive, more empathetic, and more considerate than thou!" contest.
And we all know who the winner is.
Zeppelin said,
July 22, 2017 @ 11:49 am
a George:
"I prefer historical correctness to political correctness at any time, painful as it may be [to people who aren't me]"
How brave of you.
Ellen Kozisek said,
July 22, 2017 @ 12:16 pm
What I see some people here saying is, in effect, "I don't have to think about and consider the perspective of the person or people I'm talking to or writing for". Which is sad. A sad way to live life. In addition to doing that simply to be a good person, it's also a good idea if you want to be understood, if you want to communicate effectively. If you you are writing just for yourself, or talking to yourself, write or talk how you like. But when you are, write or talk in a way that helps you achieve your communication goals. Which includes considering the people you are talking to and how they will understand your words, and sometimes, often, includes consideration for the people you are taking about.
And, no, "they can look it up in the dictionary" is not an appropriate answer for using unfamiliar words. Often, it's not practical to do that. It pretty much never is with speech (and if they can look it up, there's the spelling issue), but even with written communication looking a word up isn't always practical. Plus a person just might not know they should look something up. Or they just might decide not too. In which case you haven't communicated to them.
DD'eDeN said,
July 22, 2017 @ 12:35 pm
Substitute 'human' for the N word.
Margaret Wilson said,
July 22, 2017 @ 12:56 pm
Regarding why a word can be painful: It's not just that it's derogatory. It can literally be a signal of threat level. In many situations, hearing the word "n——" significantly raises the probability that the safety of any black person in the vicinity is in jeopardy. Because of this, hearing it will kick the autonomic nervous system into high gear, even if there is no threat in the present situation.
I would say that the axe analogy is not even as far off as Language Hat grants. You don't have to have been personally hit with an axe; if you have witnessed axe attacks you are going to find axes traumatizing. Soldiers can have PTSD without having been wounded themselves.
peterv said,
July 22, 2017 @ 1:30 pm
a George:
"I prefer historical correctness to political correctness at any time, painful as it may be [to people who aren't me]"
So-called political correctness is nothing more than a way to talk politely about or to people one doesn't know. It is the hallmark of a civilized society, and a feature of many current and past societies in addition to modern urban western culture (eg, court society in traditional Japan, pre-modern Shona culture in Zimbabwe). Preferring not to use polite forms of speech puts one outside that civilized society.
kltpzyxm said,
July 22, 2017 @ 5:22 pm
I must agree with @languagehat: If you don't consider yourself part of the group being slurred, don't use it. If you consider yourself part of the group, you get to decide.
I would add (generalization ranges over all slurs): In spoken, say ‘n-word’, if written, type ‘n-word’ or n****r.
There is no reason to gratuitously cause pain to our fellow humans.
R. Fenwick said,
July 23, 2017 @ 4:03 am
No, they're not. This is the infamous and deeply tedious "slippery slope" argument that's always trotted out whenever anyone is asked to change their behavior for someone else's sake. (Cf. "If we let you gays marry each other, the next thing you know people will be marrying their horses!")
It was not my intent to engage in a slippery-slope argument, which I apologise for. But (and I intend this not as a tu quoque) if your argument is truly that the use-mention distinction collapses in these instances, perhaps reread your own post. You've engaged, whether deliberately or not, in exactly the same kind of use-mention distinction you argue against, here in talking about "you gays".
I got the impression that you were arguing for a ceasing of use of the word "niggardly" more or less in toto because of its similarity to the racist slur under discussion, and I suppose the crux of my argument was simply to argue that to take such an absolute perspective on only a couple of select words is actually rather selective and reactive and socially lazy – a form of special pleading, in a sense. Slippery slope perhaps, but a willingness to actively and entirely prune a select word or two from one's lexicon because it sounds like a slur does actually imply that, if one's going to be consistent about it, one should also engage in more comprehensive self-policing of one's language; to take a more active engagement in the given context and use lexicon that's appropriate to and respectful of the people one's talking with and the people one's talking near, but not actually treat any word as absolutely verboten. That seems a more responsible approach to me.
But I may have misunderstood your intent in that regard, and if I did misunderstand, then I'm sorry for that too.
There are no "questions that we need to be able to answer" other than "Is the thing I am asked to do something that will improve the life of the person asking it of me?" You can worry about "hoarfrost" or whatever if and when someone comes along and tries to get you to stop saying it, in which case you can evaluate it on its own merits (spoiler: nobody's going to).
But that's exactly my point, languagehat! I think it's irresponsible, reactive, and lazy to simply wait until we're asked. I think we all have a responsibility to research more actively too, and reach out to others to determine what is and is not problematic. The question is not "Is the thing I am asked to do something that will improve the life of the person asking it of me?". I think it is "Is the thing I am doing something that will improve the life of the people I interact with, whether they have the strength to ask it of me or not?" Because I recognise that, although I'm a trans lesbian woman myself, on some axes I do hold social privilege, and that actively asking these questions is a responsibility of my privilege; that some people will find it difficult to call me out on those axes of privilege entirely because of my privileged position, that my use of a range of phrases might be heard by others to have prejudiced or bigoted intent, and so I have a responsibility to others to investigate my use of language and to be actively careful with it even if no offence is intended. I have a responsibility to examine the context in which I'm speaking and to be careful with my language accordingly.
languagehat said,
July 23, 2017 @ 8:21 am
That's a good and thoughtful response, and I appreciate your taking the time to make it. I'll be brief, because this thread is wearing me out, but:
You've engaged, whether deliberately or not, in exactly the same kind of use-mention distinction you argue against, here in talking about "you gays".
I'm confused. Are you maintaining that "gays" is a slur? Obviously I'm fake-quoting someone who doesn't approve of gay marriage, but that's not even in the same universe as using the word n*****.
if one's going to be consistent about it, one should also engage in more comprehensive self-policing of one's language
Look, we're all in some sense intellectuals in this thread (otherwise we'd be off at the beach or in a bar), and intellectuals are notorious for overthinking. I'm not pointing fingers; I do it myself. But, also notoriously, consistency can be a hobgoblin, and to me it is far, far more important not to offend the person I'm talking to than to be consistent about a comprehensive self-policing of one's language, which (let's face it) is both impossible and a sort of self-directed authoritarianism. We all make mistakes and are none of us consistent; the best we can do is avoid the worst and most obvious mistakes as much as possible and try not to obsess about consistency. Much as I appreciate your earnest self-examination, I would advise you to ease up on yourself a bit and accept the impossibility of perfection.
All that said, I am impressed with your attitude and proud to call you my comrade in the struggle (he said with a tinge of self-irony).
Ray said,
July 23, 2017 @ 6:05 pm
years ago my best friend and his wife had a baby. while the baby was still an infant I visited them, and we all went to the fourth of july parade to watch the town’s firetrucks roll by and toot their horns with abandon. the little baby was obviously very happy and excited by all the commotion, and so I said to him gleefully ‘HERE COME THE FIREMEN! WAVE TO THE FIREMEN!’ whereupon my friend’s wife said to her baby (but meant it for me) “WE SAY FIREFIGHTERS, DON'T WE.” I was so humiliated. imagine being corrected in front of a little baby! I sheepishly laughed it off at the time, but whenever I visited again I was very careful not to speak in front of the kid.
language policing is hard. because it involves engaging someone’s disempowerment with someone else’s disempowerment.
Fred said,
July 24, 2017 @ 9:28 am
@Ryan
The people defending their so-called right to use that word in public discourse in the face of its target demographic saying "this word hurts me" are either saying "I don't give a f*ck about your feelings", or "you're wrong about your feelings". Frankly, I don't know which of those stances is more galling. In either case, it's morally reprehensible, and so I stand by my claim that those people have at least one thing wrong with them. They may well have lots of things *right* with them and overall be great folks (that's typically my experience). I'm just not seeing evidence of it in this thread.
And to be clear (in case I wasn't, or you missed it), I was expressing dismay that there are many people for whom this topic is still arguable/debatable, not prescribing the necessity of this conversation.
@GP
You're right; I know nothing about you as a person beyond the bits that can be gleaned from the Internet; surely the palest shadow of your true self (as a linguist, I am and shall remain a fan).
One thing I do from having spent a good deal of time online talking about race to people from a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints is that:
P(R|O, W) >>> P(R)
R: "defends use of racialized verbiage"
O: "is middle-aged or older"
W: "is white"
So my targeting of those particular properties of you as a person was not, I maintain, baseless.
Also, In the space of a few paragraphs you take me to task for making presumptions about your capacity for empathy and then turn around and claim that I'm in no position to empathize with you. If you can empathize with the lived experience of a black person's oppression, then I assure you that I, a white person with a vaguely racist father the same age as you, can manage to empathize with yours.
Actually, there's a strong parallel here. There's a well-worn Québecois expression; "plans de n#gre", which loosely translates as "up to no good". My dad, a boomer from rural Quebec who didn't finish high school, knows better than to use that expression, because he was willing to listen to/read a few stories about the lived experience of the people on the receiving end of that idiom. Clearly, it's not that hard.
In short (haha); I've yet to come across a non-self-serving defense of the use of that word by a white person in any circumstance.
Athel Cornish-Bowden said,
July 24, 2017 @ 10:09 am
(For some reason my computer decided to post this before I was ready, and I don't see the usual Edit this comment button.)
I've come rather late to this, but I was in Portugal all last week and didn't have my computer. Anyway, I hope Rey (whom I know very well from another group) will forgive me for adding to "these endless comments".
I certainly heard "nigger" used with its original meaning when I was a child in England, and I may have used it myself. However, that was 60 years ago, and I haven't said it for many many years, and, with one exception that Ill mention in a moment, I haven't heard it with that l meaning for almost as long. However, I've certainly heard "nigger in the woodpile" and may have said it. In general I feel the same way as Geoff Pullum about it: I don't regard it as being in the same basket.
Anyway, a few years ago I was talking with someone who lives in Quito (who is not black, or Ecuadorian for that matter) and for reasons I've forgotten I mentioned the coastal region in the north of Ecuador called, I think, Esmeraldas. She said "they're all niggers up there". I was quite taken aback, but I wasn't sure whether to to be shocked, as I'm willing to believe that acceptable usage in Ecuador may be different from what it is in the UK or USA. I don't think she meant it to be offensive, but just treated it as the usual word. (Her English is excellent and almost without accent, but she's not a native speaker.
RW said,
July 24, 2017 @ 12:27 pm
I find the use of euphemisms or asterisks to avoid writing out the word "nigger" very infantilising. It is a word that I have never spoken in my life, and I did not like even typing it out, but I think if we are to meaningfully discuss the meaning and weight of words, we must not obscure the very things we are trying to comprehend.
Levantine said,
July 24, 2017 @ 1:55 pm
I get that there are different viewpoints on this, and some of the arguments for writing the word in full are logically sound, even if I don't agree with them. But the claim by multiple commenters that obscuring the word prevents our discussing or comprehending the issues it raises is genuinely puzzling to me. I repeat the point I made earlier regarding the non-depiction of violence in the news media. Do we need to actually see images of people being tortured or killed in order to understand what's happening in the world? Is there any evidence at all in this post or the accompanying comments that meaningful debate and analysis aren't possible without seeing the slur in full?
Ellen Kozisek said,
July 25, 2017 @ 6:34 am
After reading the comment from Athel Cornish-Bowden just 4 up from this one, I wonder, and those of us who aren't even fairly make a comment about that word, in that phrase, in a British context?
Ellen Kozisek said,
July 25, 2017 @ 7:09 am
Let me add, and in particular, I don't think we who aren't British can judge whether or not Anne Marie Morris's use of the phrase "nigger in the woodpile" merited being suspended from her political party.
Levantine said,
July 25, 2017 @ 7:47 am
Clearly the phrase was deemed unacceptable in a British context; otherwise, she wouldn't have had the whip withdrawn. So yes, the punishment was merited.
I am a Londoner in my mid-30s. I encountered the word in childhood (c. 1990), knew what it meant, and knew it was highly offensive. I'm almost certain that the first time I heard it was when watching the British sitcom Fawlty Towers, where it is used by Major Gowen in an episode broadcast in 1975. It should be noted that Gowen was portrayed as a befuddled old man prone to absurd utterances, and that the word's occurrence in Fawlty Towers was exceptional by the standards of British TV of the time. As far back as 1940, the League of Coloured Peoples complained to the BBC when a radio announcer used the word; the corporation accepted it was at fault and issued a letter of apology: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OmHMultyyy0C&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=%22i+find+that+our+announcer+was+at+fault%22&source=bl&ots=AVdUkw-EPF&sig=dsbcBgP6fJm3OlY4KemSlz_oYPs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX8PeAuaTVAhWMLVAKHURCC18Q6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=%22i%20find%20that%20our%20announcer%20was%20at%20fault%22&f=false
Of course, some would argue (and have argued) that the word's decades-old status as an acknowledged slur in the UK doesn't have anything to do with its use as part of an expression. For reasons that have already been discussed in these posts, however, the word doesn't lose its connotations just because it's embedded in an idiom, particularly one that most people have never heard.
Morris was born in 1957, almost twenty years after the BBC acknowledged that the word in question was offensive. She should not have used it, and it is right that she is being taken to task for doing so.
Graeme said,
July 25, 2017 @ 8:43 am
Fred above said he is 'gobsmacked' at the ability of some to be 'blind' to the emotional damage unintentional use of language with discriminatory roots can cause. As I agree with Geoff Pullum on the importance of intent, perhaps I shouldn't say this. But using 'blind' to mean ignorant is the very failing alleged.
Lameen said,
July 25, 2017 @ 11:15 am
Levantine: re "Do we need to actually see images of people being tortured or killed in order to understand what's happening in the world?"
That's a helpful comparison in some ways, but I don't think it goes in the direction of your argument. Of course we don't want images of people being tortured or killed to be thrown at us every time we turn on the telly – that would both traumatize people and, worse, make such sights seem banal. But banning such images – to make the analogy precise, banning them from academic blogs – would be a terrible idea. For human rights defenders, such images can be absolutely crucial as proof of what's going on: they're a lot harder to argue with than mere eyewitness testimonies. Occasionally, they've even made it possible to hold powerful abusers to account; certainly, without such videos the BLM movement would have had far less momentum.
languagehat said,
July 25, 2017 @ 12:25 pm
That's an excellent point, but I'm not sure it's relevant here. Someone who has not encountered such images can only imagine their impact by actually seeing them, so showing them uncensored can be a necessary step to action; in the case of linguistic triggers (or, if you prefer, abusive terms), 1) we all know what they are even if they're not written in full, so there is no benefit from seeing them written out; and 2) no one who is not personally affected by them can know what it's like to be so affected, whether or not they are written out. In sum, there is no benefit from writing them out, and there is a clear downside in the effect on those personally affected by them.
Levantine said,
July 25, 2017 @ 12:46 pm
Lameen, I certainly agree that videos of police violence have proved extremely powerful to movements such as BLM. I've watched many such videos myself, but I've always seen them in a form that obscures the most gruesome details, especially, if applicable, the moment of death. The manner of obscuring varies from case to case — the video might fade to black while the sound continues, or certain visuals might be blurred. I personally don't need to see someone's life expire to get the point.
There are, of course, certain cases where the full details really must be shown and seen, as when prosecuting police officers in court. By the same token, it may be necessary to print the N-word in such contexts as legal documents and certain scholarly books and journals (though clearly not all linguists feel this to be the case). But even a learned blog like Language Log cannot be counted among these contexts. This is, after all, an internet forum, and as recent comments have proved, there are those who will use the pretext of scholarly debate to write and discuss the slur in ways that serve highly racist agendas. Yes, such commenters have been in the minority, but their contributions have, I think, more than demonstrated the slur's capacity to cause offence and inflict harm.
Lameen said,
July 25, 2017 @ 12:51 pm
Languagehat: Point 2) is a key difference between the two cases, absolutely. I still disagree with point 1), though: even in America there are probably a few people sufficiently sheltered not to be able to identify the referent of "n-word", and Language Log has readers all over the world. (It's already been suggested that they should just Google it; but of course, doing so makes LL less welcoming to them, especially if, like a surprising number of people, they aren't much good at using search engines. The tradeoff may well be worth it, but yes, there really is a downside that way too.)
Lameen said,
July 25, 2017 @ 1:11 pm
Levantine: There have been some egregiously racist comments, absolutely. I don't know about you, but I feel pretty confident that there would have been at least as many such comments if both Geoffs had pointedly written "n-word" throughout each of their posts. Automatically blocking comments with the word written out in full might have discouraged them ever so slightly, but even then I wouldn't bet on it.
Levantine said,
July 25, 2017 @ 1:27 pm
I think you're right that the racists would have written their nonsense in any case, but they wouldn't have enjoyed the kind of scholarly cover that the original posts have unwittingly afforded them.
languagehat said,
July 25, 2017 @ 1:41 pm
The tradeoff may well be worth it, but yes, there really is a downside that way too.
Well put, and I find myself in agreement.
a George said,
July 25, 2017 @ 6:12 pm
It is very interesting, but it seems that the present thread is more emotional, and the subsequent thread is more academic. It is nice to see that LanguageLog is so capacious, but I much prefer the academic approach. But then, I am not in the line of fire and I perceive no personal attack when the abominal word is mentioned. However, I sort of dislike having alien words put into my statements by commenters, be it in square brackets or not.
I might feel a personal attack if I am greeted in a bar with "well, if it isn't old Carrot", although my hair is white by now. This has a bearing on a small but derailed "discussion" on this thread concerning the similarity of psychic wounds caused by slavery (the traditional plantation-owner type) and the treatment of juniors in certain British public schools at one time. I have not had any reply, but one statement by Levantine in the academic thread (July 24, 2017 @ 3:40 pm) puzzles me: "We've had people claiming that the treatment of British schoolboys was no worse than slavery". I started the analogy, and I was discussing the _effect_ of such treatment on the individual. It is wrong to confuse the treatments and their respective effects.
More to the point in the present thread: I am grateful to Levantine for the reference (July 25, 2017 @ 7:47 am) to the chapter by Caroline Bressey in "New Geographies of Race and Racism". However, in a different place in that same chapter (p. 30) discussing a recent remake of a film, in which a more or less prominent dog was called "Nigger", she says "Personally I agree with Jonathan Falconer that 'N' the dog should keep his name. If such a film is to be (re)made, it is important for the sake of historical accuracy, not only in and for itself, but also as a reflection of the ignorance and racism that existwed in British society during the 1940s". Now, such a film is for general consumption, not aimed at racists who might be confirmed in their attitude, nor is it intended to hurt those who choose to be or are usually hurt, nor is it provided for academic discussion, where some have grudgingly accepted correct spelling. Bressey uses it on and off, apparently — not all pages are available in googlebooks, and the notes and references are also gone.
Levantine said,
July 25, 2017 @ 6:43 pm
I really shouldn't take the bait, but here goes.
Even in its supposedly mitigated form, your analogy is grossly inappropriate, for reasons so numerous and obvious that listing them would be an exercise in absurdity. (For non-Brits unfamiliar with the term, the "public schools" in question are actually the UK's most elite private schools, the type that princes and future prime ministers attend.) And to suggest that being insulted for your hair colour is a relevant parallel? Disgusting.
I provided the link to those pages only because they recounted the incident I referred to and quoted the relevant letter. The author's own opinions were not what I was pointing to, as I think was clear from my framing remarks.
a George said,
July 26, 2017 @ 6:21 am
Well, no bait was intended, and to me it looks as if, had it been a bait, it was certainly not taken. "…. an exercise in absurdity" is to me woefully inadequate as a response. But thanks are due to Levantine who did what I ought to have done from the very beginning, define what "public school" in BE means (or meant?). But apart from princes and future prime ministers there were also wealthy Middle East sons and sons of chiefs of Africa who were sent to such schools because they could afford it and it gave status, and my impression is that their lives were also not very happy, simply because they were from a different background. They did not really belong. And their fathers were awfully far away.
I am very surprised that Levantine so vehemently refuses to address the question whether the psychic wounds from enslavement of imported Africans and their offspring might be comparable to the psychic wounds from having spent time as an underdog in a British public school. In days where PTSD is brandied and applied not only to ex-warriors (it took some time for me to realise that the vets discussed above were not animal doctors), but to all kinds of victims, I cannot understand that there can be no comparison. The feeling of fear and discomfort is a personal thing, and it can be overcome without or with external help from psychiatrists. Otherwise the implication is that such feelings in a whole population group is mass hysteria. And we do not want to go there, do we?
But it gets worse (in the opinion of many). We have been asked to empathise with those who suffer from the slurs that have been discussed in these threads. Should we feel empathy with the individual's hurt and fear or with the individual's inability to cope with those feelings? To me it looks as if coping is all-in-all healthier for the individual, but those who are dependent on a continued presence of hurt and guilt will obviously fight for their political position. Frankly, I have difficulties seeing those who have a political power based on guilt in others let go of that power base, which would happen in the long run if those presumably affected were coping.
The discussion of the author Dr. Caroline Bressey (do look her up on the web!) really belongs in the "academic" thread, because whereas Levantine used her chapter to prove that the BBC apologised for their phrasing in the 1940s I used the same chapter to indicate that she, at least in 2008, as an academic accepted the full spelling-out of the abominable word when it was in the proper context. And mind you, the context was not merely academic!
Levantine said,
July 26, 2017 @ 6:43 am
Black people are forced to cope on a daily basis with those slurs, and with a lot worse. Not only do they cope, but they put up a damn good fight in the face of relentless systematic racism. It's not because they can't handle it that I and others won't write the slur; it's out of a desire not to cause unnecessary hurt, no matter how well that hurt may be coped with.
John said,
July 26, 2017 @ 8:30 pm
a George, I'm mystified why you continue to try to force this equivalence. Look at your own words: the "enslavement of imported Africans and their offspring" vs. "having spent time as an underdog in a British public school." That is, the enslavement of millions of people and their descendants, under brutal, often deadly circumstances, vs. a limited period of time spent at an elite educational system, where some individuals are treated horribly by others. I say this not to belittle the hurt that may have arisen from being in a British public school, but rather to say again that the comparison is absurd on its face—you're the first person I've ever seen make it—because it relies on eliding so much history.
Furthermore, you completely disregard the systemic racism that black people face in the US. Suggesting that "fear and discomfort" are personal things that have to be overcome, and that otherwise "such feelings in a whole population group is mass hysteria," ignores that these are very rational responses to the situation (and belittles them in the process). You have the logic backwards on this one. People are discriminated against because of the color of their skin; they respond to that discrimination, in different ways depending on the individual. But if there is a commonality among the responses it is not "mass hysteria" but rather because, in the first instance, they are not being treated as individuals but rather as members of a group.
You ask, "Should we feel empathy with the individual's hurt and fear or with the individual's inability to cope with those feelings?" I don't know about you, but I don't choose to empathize with people based on this question, or anything like it—the act of empathy seems to me to preclude making the kind of judgment that would entail. If you're going through that kind of mental calculation before deciding whether or not to empathize with someone, you're already far from what I understand as empathy. Perhaps "sympathize" would be a better word for what you seem to advocate here, although the murky waters of deciding whom to feel pity for—and the condescension that entails—are ones I'd rather not swim in.
Levantine said,
July 26, 2017 @ 8:44 pm
Thank you, John, for that full, eloquent, and considered response, which is the sort of thing I wish I'd felt able to write (calmness in such situations isn't one of my strong suits).
languagehat said,
July 27, 2017 @ 8:18 am
Once again, I agree with Levantine. I refuse to waste time engaging with a George any more, but I'm glad someone's still ready to point out what's wrong with his (at best benighted, at worst disingenuous) arguments; it won't do him any good, but other people read these threads and can use the counterpoint.
a George said,
July 27, 2017 @ 10:41 am
Thank you, gentlemen, I have had the most illuminating experience and I have learnt approaches to the act of communication, scientific, private, public that I would not have learnt otherwise or even dreamt about! Rather than accepting the visceral views that have been presented, I am much more impressed with the reflected views of Lameen July 21, 2017 @ 12:42 pm who has drawn conclusions not dissimilar to those I have found in e.g. Caroline Bressey. I am not a user of social media. I have also been told that systematic racism is the curse of the U.S. of A. and that it has no match in any other cultures. And I have been informed that empathy is apparently much closer to unreflected commiseration than I thought. I shall make a note in my Roget's Thesaurus (I would have called it "Roget's", pure and simple, but some dislike slang).
It has definitely done me good! But my respect for ad hominem attacks has not increased. Some will undoubtedly find solace in the eloquence that Levantine and languagehat have agreed with; some will take my more callous view. One cannot disagree with frank and open-minded discussion, can one? I apologise for misprints that I have now discovered in my previous comments.
Peter Gerdes said,
July 29, 2017 @ 4:01 am
I'm not actually sure you technically contradicted Pullman. His actual claim were that it doesn't make HER racist and that it's not a racist ACT. I believe that both those claims are true AND that it is a "racist remark."
How so? Because being a racist or committing a racist act require a certain intentional attitude, i.e., they require an intent to, or at the very least an indifference to, denigrate a person or group based on their racial background or an intent to bring harm to a racial group qua group membership. In contrast, a "racist remark" is a remark that has racist content/meaning (yes that is a bit tough to define but we don't need to reach that question here).
Thus someone who doesn't realize the remark they are making is a racist remark is, though possibly doing harm to members of a certain race by accident has not actually demonstrated themselves to be a racist nor to have committed a racist act. (I say possibly doing harm because there are other downstream effects, e.g., making a racist remark and then being immediately and strongly punished might have the net effect of preventing down the line harms).
Peter Gerdes said,
July 29, 2017 @ 4:07 am
@John,
Not going to join the debate generally but surely you aren't going to claim that historical enslavement, murder rape etc.. always is more psychologically damaging to those who identity as descendants of that historical trauma than actually being tormented in your lifetime? Do you also believe that the trauma of being jewish and reading Exodus is therefore also much much worse than this schoolboy experience? Most Jews I know don't have *any* feeling of psychological trauma or damage at all as a result of that alleged incident whether or not they believe it really happened.
Obviously time is a factor and as generations replace each other even an initially far worse trauma can become psychologically less traumatic to those descendants.
I don't care about or support the rest of this argument but that point seemed so clearly wrong I had to respond. I'm not claiming that either is worse merely that you have certainly not given a compelling argument.