A Dialogue on the infamous “N” word

@argome321,

For what it's worth, Arg, some guy named "Nianda" did a 3-part documentary on contemporary attitudes about "nigga."

Quote:

Now a “term of endearment” the word, “nigga” is thrown around like “hello” among circles of young people--"That’s my nigga, that’s my homie, that’s my brother.” But he says, “With the older generation, 35 and up, it’s more so like a negative word, a term that we shouldn’t be using."

The word provokes emotions, emotions of pain and hurt for older generations, emotions that seem to be lacking among the consciousness of youth. ... when they do know [the history of the word] it’s still kind of like ‘That doesn’t have anything to do with me. That was then.’ They don’t really have an emotional connection to the word....A lot of them don’t know that it’s negative. And if they do know it’s negative, they don’t really care that it’s negative.

http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/news-wire/50032-the-nigga-project.html

I am told that many young blacks today don't even see the word "nigga" as being race-exclusive. For a white, or an Asian, or a Hispanic to call his friends "nigga" is seen by them to be perfectly acceptable and proper.

For most youths, at least, the word seems to have lost all of it's "power" to insult or provoke. That's great in my book.

But, of course, that won't stop some old fogey from solemnly pronouncing that some youngster who uses the word is a "racist."

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Who can keep up?

I am still getting my tongue around African-American. What about Aztec-American or Spanish-American or are these combined into Mexican-Americans ? Or English-American...you know from an outsiders point of view it seems strange...you are all members of the USA.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

...it’s still kind of like ‘That doesn’t have anything to do with me. That was then.’

I'm also told that a similar phenomenon occurred in successive generations after the Civil War. Southerners (or northerners, for that matter) who actually lived through the war would admonish their children, grandchildren, etc., not to have any interaction with, or put any trust in, those "damn Yankees."

There came a point where their progeny just didn't understand why they couldn't treat the "other" people as "friends." Sometimes it's best not to insist that the past "never be forgotten."

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

From Frank Apisa
“Whites have that same problem...sorta, Argome.

There are whites who think that the use of the word is just fine when among all whites...and use it without regard to whether or not other whites might be offended. Usually it comes up when a joke is being told...where all of a sudden the word is just dropped. Fact is, jokes like that often have Polish or Italians as the punch line...and some of the ugly words for those ethnic groups are used.

I have a lot of Jewish friends...and I notice that they often talk about Jews this...or Jews that. But when I or any other non-Jew is speaking, it is almost required that we work the wording so that the "ish" can be added. Using just Jew...can get a noticeable silent moment or questioning look.

Anyway, I'm gonna concede this one. I don't for one second think that America will be appreciably closer to decent racial relations if blacks stopped using the word as for of camaraderie or solidarity, but I understand the point you and Layman are making.”

I can’t agree with you more. It shows the more we are different the more we are all alike.

Quote:

From Layman:
“To me there is a difference between being "race conscious" and being "racist." I'm not sure everyone makes that distinction.
Yes, that applies to all races, but how can we not be race conscious in todays internet world?
Is that a willing ignorance?

Some people will get all belligerent if you even mention that a certain person is white or black: WHY THE HELL SHOULD THAT MATTER, YOU RACIST!?

That may be due to our genetic makeup, a predisposition to protect our own. Also it may be due to cultural orientation. If they look different they must be outsiders.

Quote:

From Layman:
Just another instance of people trying to portray themselves as more humane, more sensitive, more wise, more insightful; (etc), in short as SUPERIOR human beings, if you ask me.”

People show many faces to hide from others what they don’t want others to see about themselves.

Quote:

From Layman:
Here's one problem with people jumping to a conclusion of "racism" by virtue of the mere utterance of a word:

Mark Twain was opposed to slavery. He wrote "Huck Finn," in part, to show that blacks were humans. Throughout the book "Nigger Jim" shows about 10 times as much compassion, wisdom, and other admirable qualities as most of the whites portrayed in the book.

Yet there have been a number of movements to "ban" Huck Finn from school libraries because it is allegedly "racist"--based on the mere use of "nigger." That kind of rote thinking is quite prevalent today, even if not to that degree (i.e., to the degree of trying to get Twain's books "banned').

That is an excellent example how racism has a grip on so many.

Quote:

From Layman:

I agree, Arg, with this exception: I would say it "can be" representative...not that it IS representative... To me there's a significant difference.

In the video I posted, for example, nigga and nigger were both used, by both blacks and whites, without anybody getting offended or claiming they were being "oppressed" by the mere mention of the word.

Know what I'm sayin?

That last black guy, for example, did not use "nigger" as if it only applied to one race. I'm with him. It doesn't have to be used the way it was historically, and, if it is NOT used that way, then it is not. It's a mistake to deny that and say it can ONLY be used in ONE way.

Obviously he did not grow up in the 50's and 60's, so it'a no real surprise, I suppose, that he doesn't see the word in the exact same light as you do.

But here’s a problem I see layman, as you have pointed out the gentlemen who did not use the word nigger, he didn’t grow up in the 50’s and 60’s but that cannot be a reason… What it does show is that we do not know our history. Our children do not have an historical reference of our plight. Perhaps that is part of the problem.

I am against banning books and censoring words. I prefer and hope that with education people would make good decisions. I would hope that just because you can say or do something that you would relent from saying or doing things because there may be better ways to say or do things.

For those who use the word nigga but say others can’t use it are well aware in my opinion of its’ many connotations and most of those connotations are negative. Thus they are playing the race card. For myself, I don’t use the word for the word has too much baggage, too much of a stench from its’ historical perspective as to be used in any vernacular idiomatic form of every day common dialogue. But that is merely a personal preference.

Quote:

From Layman:
Did you happen to look at that video interviewing Jason Whitlock that I posted. Among other things, he complained that guys like Sharpton and Jackson were trying to "drag people back into the 50's," while ignoring contemporary problems faced by blacks.

Yes I did, I have seen and read his opinion on the matter often and I whole heartedly agree with him.
I have echoed those same sentiments over and over countless times.
He is against the whole gangsta rap subculture.
What it comes down to is that it doesn’t matter what others say, well intended or not, we need to take care of our own house.

Finally, on word usage: during the 1930’s Unions were a dirty word. Those who joined were criticized and called Pinkos because of communism and socialism spreading across seas.
Today Unions are American as Apple Pie. Go figure.

0 Replies

In former colonies children are sometimes threatened by being told the white man will come and get them if they don't behave. Of course this doesn't work that well if there are white men around, but for one young child I was the first he had seen and he was screaming and terrified. No harsh historical words there, no nigger, but a condemnation of me in a place where I hadn't been before. I have noticed no reluctance for blacks to talk about white man bullshit or white trash even with one present.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

For what it's worth, Arg, some guy named "Nianda" did a 3-part documentary on contemporary attitudes about "nigga."

It does echo one of my themes. We don't have a real appreciate of our history in my opinion. What is that adage about failing history and being doom to repeat it?

You're a traditional blues lover I take it? Doesn't it give you mixed emotions that since the 1960's Blues is supported mostly by American whites and British musicians more so then American Blacks? Economically and exposure wise
it was and is helpful.

I bet if you were able to take a survey you might find that white blues guitarist have a better grasp of blues history then the average black person after the 1960.
What would think the average black person knowledge of the Blues would be today? Ask them if they even care?

I don't believe you have to study history to know where you are going or how you are going to get there. I do think it helps in avoiding some of the pitfalls of your journey.

1 Reply

Just as an aside...

...Nancy and I (often with friends) go on Jazz cruises on the Hudson during the summer. One of the local Jazz stations is the sponsor.

Lots of white and black performers...and the audience is about half black and half white.

Perfect setting for harmony among the races...and that is exactly what happens. The interplay between races is spectacular...and conversations between strangers (other than being jazz fans) of both races is a beautiful thing to see.

The jazz is mostly light jazz (I prefer classical or New Orleans jazz)...but a cool ride on the Hudson after a warm summer day is my idea of what Heaven will be like...if there is a Heaven.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

yep, and during the dry period, Prohibition, the speakeasy were offering illegal booze and Jazz. Drunk

Also I think we are natural enemies because I think you said you are a Giant fan? Well, I'm a Jet fan LOL
Just kidding. You win the Super Bowls I win the Back pages of the NY Dailies.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

What is that adage about failing history and being doom to repeat it?
I do think it helps in avoiding some of the pitfalls of your journey.

Lincon said: "Experience is dear teacher, but a fool can learn no other way." "Other" ways might be aforethought, learning from others who have already experienced things, and, of course just history in general.

I agree with you that a knowledge of history is quite beneficial, and I'm not advocating ignorance on that score. The point I was making with Civil War survivors was not to advocate ignorance per se. It was about prolonging (or not prolonging) the intense animosity it generated. You can know the facts, even be a great Civil War buff, without hating those on one side or the other.

If I read Civil War history in such a way that I got all worked up about the "atrocities" committed by the northern troops and began hating current-day Yankees for it, that would not be conducive to healing the wounds. The south, having lost, kept "re-fighting" the war for decades. Many would argue that the reconstruction era made southerners even more disposed toward KKK riders, Jim Crow laws, and making blacks a "scapegoat" than they were before. The resentment ran extremely high.

At some point the hate, and the dwelling on "past" injustices or indignities, must stop if there if there is to be progress in race relations. Don't get me wrong. Unlike some, I think great strides have been made since 1870, 1900, and 1950 toward that. But there is still more progress to be made.

I personally think it's a good thing that many modern blacks don't have a strong emotional reaction to past injustices. I think it's actually one sign that real progress has been made. What's done is done, as regrettable as it might be. At some point you just have to move on. Fanning the emotional flames of bygone eras doesn't help (whether white flames or black flames). The people who lived through it will never forget, but the people who aren't going through it are less inclined to hate, mistrust, etc. Which can only be a good thing if you want to unify, rather than divide, people.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I personally think it's a good thing that many modern blacks don't have a strong emotional reaction to past injustices. I think it's actually one sign that real progress has been made. What's done is done, as regrettable as it might be. At some point you just have to move on. Fanning the emotional flames of bygone eras doesn't help. The people who lived through it will never forget, but the people who aren't going through it are less inclined to hate, mistrust, etc. Which can only be a good thing if you want to unify, rather than divide, people.

I do not know if the last part of your statement (the people who aren't going through it are less inclined to hate, mistrust, etc.) is true or just wishful thinking on your part.

I hate tautologies because they seldom explain anything...in fact, I think they don't explain a dam thing . But Human nature is what it is. I think human nature's mistrust is hard wire...and for good reason.

2 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

I do not know if the last part of your statement (the people who aren't going through it are less inclined to hate, mistrust, etc.) is true or just wishful thinking on your part.

Well, it would make sense to me if it were true. If it were not true, I would find that quite puzzling. Who knows "for sure?" But, like I said at the outset: All the interactions in that video I posted seemed quite amicable, notwithstanding that nigger and/or nigga were being freely thrown around by everyone. Communication was not stifled, and the ones interviewed tended to just laugh it off rather than treat it as "fighting words." To me, that's good. Very good.

Quote:

But Human nature is what it is. I think human nature's mistrust is hard wire...and for good reason

Well, sure, in a general sense. I don't "automatically" trust anybody. They have to "earn" my trust. But they can never earn it if I never give them a chance. That part is up to me.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

All the interactions in that video I posted seemed quite amicable...

This is not intended as a major point or anything, but just as an observation: When the white guy first approached that last guy, he asked thingx like: "have you been to prison, and are you in a gang?" When the black guy said no, he said something like: Well, then, you're not the one I'm looking for. I'm looking for a real nigga, not some uncle tom, oreo, house nigga."

Even though, having already seen the first interviews, I knew where the white guy was going with that, I thought it was rather risky to do. The black guy presumably didn't know that. The black "could" have and, might well be expected to, get offended, defensive, and perhaps even threaten violence.

But he didn't. He just took it in stride, and then the white guy explained that he wasn't trying to perpetuate stereotypes, but rather was trying to overcome them. They agreed on many things. None of that could have happened if the black guy just reacted in automatic, "knee-jerk" fashion. I'm glad he didn't.

If you can have pleasant interactions with someone, you are much less likely to see them as a threat/adversary. Sometimes it just takes getting past that initial impulse to react AS IF there is a known threat.

1 Reply

Just want to introduce a comment here...that may be slightly off topic...but apropos of the conversation taking place.

For a while now, I have made a conscious decision to take most of history (whether I am reading it or being told it by someone who seems to know)...

...to be "what may have very well been"...rather than taking it as absolute fact. I treat is sorta like a historical fiction novel...where the writer has to embellish and make guesses about the kinds of conversations that occurred between leading characters of history.

The dictum “Winners write history” is all too true…and even the most scholarly of histories and biographies have to “suppose.”

Taking this frame of mind as a matter of course helps me to keep in mind that history is history. Whatever actually happened…happened. Our knowledge of what actually happened will almost always be filtered by the reporting...and by the biases and (sometimes) agenda of the reporter.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

...to be "what may have very well been"...rather than taking it as absolute fact. I treat is sorta like a historical fiction novel...

I agree, Frank, and even that is really an "at best" type of scenario. As you also note:

Quote:

The dictum “Winners write history” is all too true

That just means it's all the more likely that you will be hearing deliberate distortions and outright fabrications, not to even mention all that is omitted on a selective basis.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

If you can have pleasant interactions with someone, you are much less likely to see them as a threat/adversary. Sometimes it just takes getting past that initial impulse to react AS IF there is a known threat.

That may be true, but I don't know how honest and sincere a reaction you can get when there is a mic in your face. I wish they could have used a hidden camera.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Quote:
...to be "what may have very well been"...rather than taking it as absolute fact. I treat is sorta like a historical fiction novel...

I agree, Frank, and even that is really an "at best" type of scenario. As you also note:

Quote:
The dictum “Winners write history” is all too true

That just means it's all the more likely that you will be hearing deliberate distortions and outright fabrications, not to even mention all that is omitted on a selective basis.

Isn't that most obvious with the fact that we have Black history and Black history month.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

That may be true, but I don't know how honest and sincere a reaction you can get when there is a mic in your face. I wish they could have used a hidden camera

Yeah, Arg, the whole thing is artificial and contrived but I still got the feeling that the people being interviewed were sincere.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

to be "what may have very well been"

Damn straight !
History becomes increasingly blurred from the Napoleonic times back. We usually only have one opinion and where there are multiple opinions there usually is no consensus or there are outright contradictions. There are very few State Documents to examine and a lot of history is a best guess. Opinions fluctuate and it can be hard to achieve consensus amongst modern experts.

Military historians will tell you no one person saw the whole battlefield. If we only have one recording how much was their own "fill in the gaps"?

0 Replies

@argome321,

While mulling over some of the ideas expressed here I was thinking and rethinking my position on how and why I feel about the word "nigger"?
I was thinking why, beside its' obvious history, why the idea of empowering this word, turning it into a term of endearment, why am I so against accepting it in any manner or form then other then its' offensive context?

I think Layman pointed out that one cannot,to some degree, determine one's intent by mere words. I hope I understand you correctly and am not misconstruing your words.

I disagree if indeed that is the case. I will try to lay down the basis for my thinking as best I can here.

I think words are what we have to communicate our intentions whether we are good at it or not. We hear and or read the words, we look and or listen, for intones and inflections trying to analyse their context to understand what one is saying to us. We look to read in between the lines. We look to word for what they say as well as what they don't say. Words also contain psychological context related to the culture of a given group whether it is the main culture of a given group or the subculture of that group. With usage of words there comes a certain so called inherit and innate set of rules that are attached to idioms of this or that culture and mores or with the subculture. Identification is one of the most important aspect of them...I would venture to say. And thus by sheer identification we have definition, color and separation for good or bad.

Did you know that the word scissors and the word decision have the same root word?

I digress.

Then There are individuals who feel outside their own culture and feel they don't belong to any culture or subculture. There are individuals from other cultures who may not understand the rules of other existing culture.

Another problem with subculture identifying is that the default position can be based on bad inductive reasoning. Because I have something in common with others we must all be alike in this or that particular manner... Stereotyping? It doesn't allow for much individuality based on presumptions that aren't usually true.

One problem arises that concerns me more so then all the others objections that I have is that others too often assume that the presumptions are real. As all groups do they believe certain stereotypes about themselves and others and only continue to perpetuate those belief.

My argument is one about individualism and Identity. What if one doesn't want to play the game? What if one doesn't want to negotiate the rapids and currents of the cultures he comes in contact with? What if has a strong desire to remain to be himself?

Why do people readily assume that because a person looks a certain way that he is this or that?

Why assume anything?

I see a problem with many subculture. That is that there seems to be built in ID markers. I'm saying that members of the same or similar subculture share the same or similar traits that distinguish them from the main culture...for better or worse.

I will not go into detail about how the gang culture influence individuals who cannot escape their environs and all that that entails culturally. I will assume. rightly or wrongly, most here understand those dynamics.

So let me see If I have laid down enough of my premise to justify my conclusion or explain it at best.

When some one greets me I don't want any one to assume anything about me. I do understand this is what it is to be human and to do so... for why people do this.

I don't want people, regardless of their intention, good or bad to assume that they know me because of my skin color.

I do not want people, Black or otherwise to come up to me thinking I am athletically inclined or that I listen to rap music because of the color of my skin. It doesn't matter what race.

It is bad enough that one culture will stereotype you but it is equally bad
if a culture who believes you belong to their culture does it to you.,.handicapping you...because by doing so you are unable to see an entire person.

By doing such you ignore other characteristics of the individual. You are minimizing that person and your self.

So now we come the the word "Nigger"?

Given the history of this word, given the baggage that comes with this word,
for me there can be no empowerment of this word.

Yes, history is most often distorted and almost impossible to verify what happen at any given time, but the ramifications of slavery is undeniable.

One, for all those who use the word and say only black people can use the word knows its' history.

Two, for all those who use the word and just don't care...well, what does that say about them?

Three, for those who don't know the history shame on them because ignorance isn't bless nor does wishful thinking make things real.

Accepting the Word, empowering the word nigger/nigga is a misguided attempt to symbolize the cannibalization of that word.

So referring me to "my nigga" whatever the intention, because given to todays' climate, one should know that not everyone agrees with the assessment that nigga is a term of endearment. Either he doesn't know or doesn't care.

If he doesn't know then he should find out or not assume any such thing about me or anyone for that matter.
Because we act on what we believe.

If one accepts the term merely because of the color of his skin or for fear of being ostracized etc, that may be ok for him or her, but is it wise?

Hmm, the constant pull of the yin and the yang of individualism vs socialism?

I digress.

I detest any titles that pigeon hole people, but more so with terms that are so offensive, degrading, dehumanizing, deconstructing, inflammatory etc.

There are other terms more deserving of being used for a term of endearment and that do not come with such baggage.

I think Layman said that something like that eventually with the new generation use of the term that the old meaning would fade way because they didn't know its' history or you hope that it would? I may have misunderstood Layman here.

But if not,not knowing if either one of us would be right, I say knowing and understanding might be a better solution, reacting out of knowledge then ignorance. But only time will tell.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Boy, Arg, you've really said a lot here. I will try to respond to some of it, in a general way.

To begin with, I'm not advocating use of the word "nigga," and certainly not "nigger."

The question to me is more like: Should I condemn those who do use those words? To me that would strictly depend on the context, not the mere use of the word itself.

Here are the main problems, as I see it, Arg. I agree with you that it would be ideal if no presumptions were made by, or about, other people. Of course that will never completely happen, its just an ideal.

1. But one point is, I don't want to assume anything about others, based merely on the use of a word, either. Nor do I want them assuming anything about me, on that basis alone.

2. A second point is that I don't want others trying to force their subjective way of seeing things onto me. If they hate snakes, for example, fine, but don't tell me I have to hate snakes, just because you do. People have different values and different perceptions. I allow for that. Some people don't.

In your case, you are free to forever condemn use of any words you want, but why automatically condemn others with different perceptions? When you talk about learning history, you are really going beyond that. You want others to adopt your "emotional" response to that history. How can they, and why should they, if they don't have the same "emotional" response to the history?

3. More generally, to insist that the word is so inherently objectionable as to be ineffable is to EMPOWER that word far more than any use of it, I think. If a word is freely used to the point where it is trivial, that's when it loses it's "power." The same is true if the word takes on a whole different meaning. Why object to that? Why insist that the old, divisive meaning be propped up and maintained forever? Then people start to get "divided" on the basis of virtually nothing substantial, as Jason Whitlock pointed out. Why perpetuate that?

1 Reply

A Dialogue on the infamous “N” word

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know