A Dialogue on the infamous “N” word

I don't think it is as much about an emotional response, though emotions are involved, as much as it is about using the words in and out of context while there are words already in existence to express a certain meaning and while erasing the history of that word in history. I don't see the need to change the meaning of the word, nor need to rewrite or erase that history because it might offend some one.

The question remains "why that word"?

Sometimes in a criminal cases, in very violent acts of crimes, the jury will not be shown very graphic pictures of the case for fear it might prejudice the jury
Why not? if the crimes is so vicious why not show the pictures?

The Question becomes "Least we forget?"




"If a word is freely is used to the point where it is trivial, that's when it loses its' power" is debatable. from my point of view, and probably a minority point of view, to use that word isn't empowering at all. To me by using it only shows that the word has power over one. I personally don't bother with what I don't want or need. Nor am I obsessed with it. It is like an old bad relationship, a sadistico-masochistic one at that, that does no good and only brings harm. Why would you need it? It's trash... discard it.

As far s words taking on entire new meaning is also debating. How many times here on this very site others love to cite original definitions?

The Question why is there a need to even go there?

Jason Whitlock did an entire and excellent diatribe on the Gansta mentality in response to the time of the Miami Dolphins Richie incognito incident. He was 100% correct in my opinion. I'll look for the link and post it when I find it. I got the impression he condemned that entire culture.

Did you ever look at this topic, Arg?
http://able2know.org/topic/267741-1#post-5888279



But, Arg, the "original meaning" was merely descriptive and neutral, like "homosexual."

Did you see the film "Django?" Very entertaining, I thought. It was set during slavery days, and the term "nigger" was used throughout--even by blacks referring to other blacks. Back then the word, as such, just meant about what the word "black" means today--just a description.

The fact that some hateful people can take a particular word and spit it out as though it was referring to the devil, in itself, says nothing (to me, at least). Listen to some neo-Nazi use the word "jew," for example. He says it as though he is referring to a pile of crap. But that doesn't make ME think jews are crap. I just think the skinhead is, that's all. And I would think just the same if he used the word "kike" instead. That would make ME dislike jews. The word "kike" has no power, whatsoever, with me.

And it most certainly does not make me think the word "jew" should be eliminated from the language because "some" people seem to hate jews.

Again, I'm not advocating reviving "nigger" as a merely descriptive term. I'm just trying to make a more abstract point.

Some countries have made it a crime to say certain words, or think certain thoughts. Like denying that the holocaust occurred, for example.

I would NEVER agree with doing that, although those people think it's just fine, apparently. You want to use the words "kike," or "nigger?" Go ahead. I would never advocate putting you in prison for that. The "punishment" will follow, without that.

No I didn't see Django because, one I'm not a fan of Oaters, second, from what I read before its' release it was pretty inaccurate for that period. Perhaps Hollywood needed a black hero?I don't know. And I don't trust Hollywood who is dependent upon exploiting stereo types (of all kinds) to make money, as historically accurate.

Did you know that Spike Lees Great Great grand father worked in a foundry that manufactured guns that weer used in the Civil war by rebel soldiers to kill Yankee soldiers?

It was the prevailing circumstances that lead to that... not of free will. It was understandable, a need for survival.

But also lets remember slaves were forced to live in a culture that made them turn on one another. They grew up where they were taught that they didn't fit, they were ugly, they were dehumanized. They could not help but develop a psychosis that was self destructive and self loathing. House slaves vs field slaves. Light skin slaves vs darker skin slave,s many times fighting over scarce resources. All the time living in a hostile environment. How about the term nappy head nigger? How many black men slicked down their hair using lye etc?

Figuratively speaking, when you don't eat the body begins to feed upon itself.

There have been great strides for us as a race.but when it comes to health we
still are a group at the bottom, meandering precariously: with high blood pressure, obesity and in certain areas of the urban cities HIV.

Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated.
This is what Jason Whitlock has been railing against.
There is still too much to do and so far to go.

I do know that history doesn't create the future nor serve as a blue print for the future. At best it may serve as a guide. But there has to be an understanding, an understanding of the dynamics at play. The dynamics which I speak of are of Human dynamics and their interplay. I think that the human condition would be best served if they were played with the same rules and/or dynamics for everyone. But they aren't and that appears to be the crux for me. Life is unfair. It isn't realistic to think otherwise or ever will be. But that doesn't mean we must not try.

I can appreciate affirmative Action and be disgusted by it at the same time.


On the issue of the word Homosexual

Queer is and was used as a slur and it was empowered by those it was meant to insult. So my opinion is consistent, I don't believe in earnest that they are any way,shape or form really empowered or bettered off by ascribing it to themselves as oppose to just deflecting.

But what is important to me is if people's civil rights and if their life is being threaten.

We all know here in the USA about the debate between the NFL Redskin and some Native Americans.

Again I am not for banning any words. I think there should be thought and consideration behind them. Do they offend, incite, condemn. Are they disrespectful? This all depends on the context and who you re saying them to...after all it's a dialogue I guess. Is there a better way to say this because my chosen words carry so much baggage.

Again, I am talking about the psychological ramifications.
Do you understand why broken people are more susceptible?
After WWI the German people were perfect for Hitler to manipulate.

Do you understand battered syndrome?

Ray Race, not only did he knock out his wife (before they were married) he spit on her. (SHE LOVES HIM!)

And the Commissioner was going to correct his mistake and be more vigilant. People made a lot of noise. Save the Super Bowl had one of its' highest rating ever... lest we forget. How quickly we forget.

P.S. the courts over turn the commissioners' penalties.

In the end people will say what they will say. I hope that they really understand what they are saying so later if called upon I don't to have hear the typical rhetoric " That was not what I said. It was taken out of context"

Perhaps it all gets lost in translation.

By some, maybe. But I think the word (synonymous with "odd") started out as a "polite" way of saying (but not saying) someone was a homosexual. Of course there was a time when homosexual conduct was criminal. So it would be a serious matter to just come out and say, outright, that a person was a homosexual.

From Webster's:



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/queer

Here again, age seems to make a difference, eh?

Remember the old television comedy involving radio station WKRP in Cincinnati? The news guy almost committed suicide after word got out that he was queer. Come to find out, somebody in a team locker room happened to describe him as 'a queer old duck'.

Glad they got that straightened out.

And "straightened" was word play, right?

I wish I had thought of that, but it was unintentional.

it appears to be totally negative.
I'll try another dictionay

The question for me is why would anyone want to adopt such terms as nigger, queer and alike, and turn these into positive terms?

I'm trying to understand the psychology behind it?
I think there is something very negative and disturbing behind it.
Many of the reason I have stated prior in this post.

give me a minute, I'll look it up in my parents' big Webster's from the thirties -

ok, I dug it out. Too long and too tiny print for me to copy, but the first definition was oblique.

I think they are trying to destroy the negative connotation by frequent usage in a neutral or positive context. At the moment, I don't believe I agree with them.

Well, Arg, here's one reason I can think of:

1. What wrong with being black? Nothing, even though some people seem to think otherwise.

2. What wrong with being gay? Nothing, even though some people seem to think otherwise.

3. What wrong with being jewish? Nothing, even though some people seem to think otherwise.

I could go on down the line. The main reason that nigger, queer, and kike have bad connotations is because some people, who looked down on and disapproved of those people, made them into "bad" words.

Why should the characterizations of those type of idiots prevail? Why should THEY get to say what a term means? Why should they dictate what is BAD?

I don't think any of those terms (even kike and nigger) were universally used as an insult, but even if they were, what's to insult?

Virtually every ethic group has some "nickname." Mick, Wop, Limey, Hoser, Jap, Kraut, Frog, Yank, whatever. Why aren't all of those extremely objectionable?

See what I'm driving at?

I think there are historical precedents for successfully "turning a term around," actually.

There was a time, not all that long ago, where it was considered to be deliberately disrespectful to call someone, or refer to them as, "black." The "proper" term was "colored person," or negro (both of which some people think of as disparaging these days).

Then came the "black power" movement with it's "black pride." The message was, "Yeah, I'm black, so what? What's wrong with that?"

Today very view people still think that calling someone "black" is an insult.

Save. those definitions came from two different dictionary, one which supplied, not from some people.

Shall we discard every dictionary definition? Where would that leaves us? How would we communicate?

Have you every said Jap to a person of Japanese descent?
If so, where they ok with it?

Have you ever referred to a person of Jewish ancestry as a kike to their face? If so, what did they say to you?

Yes, to both. And I have called whites "honky" and "cracker." And I have called blacks "nigger," and Chinese "chinks."

But I never did it with a mean spirit. And no one took it that way. They're just words, after all. They're harmless, in themselves.

In the next post I will re-tell a story written by Sonny Terry in his autobiography.

As you probably know, Sonny Terry is a black blues musician, born around the turn of the century. When he was about 8 years old, he went blind.

He said that for months he felt handicapped, and "unacceptable." His old friends, trying to be "nice" and not "remind him" of his loss, would just ignore referring to his blindness.

But he still felt alienated and not accepted. While his friends never said so, "out loud," it seemed obvious to him that they felt he was "less than" them.

But at some point, the politeness of his friends faded, and they began to make all kinds of jokes about his blindness. Just jokes, nothing designed to hurt him. He said that it was only then that he felt accepted.

Sometimes "acting" like there's no elephant in the room is what creates all the difficulties. Acknowledging the "facts," without condemning them, goes a long way toward mutual understanding, I think.

So what did they say? How did they react? How well did you know them?

You didn't say 'How's mu Kike?"

I wouldn't say those things to someone I didn't "know" at all--just some person passing by on the street, for example. But, many times I have traded jokes with persons of different races/cultures. They would tell me one, intended to make fun of americans, and I would tell them one intended to make fun of Chinese, for example.

Every race/culture has their stereotype and jokes about (at least some) other culture/race. Why pretend otherwise?

Just as an example, here's a joke that I find rather humorous, based upon ethnic steretypes:

Heaven: A place where the cops are English, the cooks are French, and the Germans are the bureaucrats.

Hell: A place where the cops are German, the cooks are English, and the French are the bureaucrats.

Some people might find that offensive, I dunno. I just find it humorous, that's all.