Actually no, it shows that a social group – black Americans – has been able to assert a lot more power and success in demanding equal rights. That success has included shining a light on denigrating words and imagery as applied to them, a form of success that indigenous people have yet to achieve (for some obvious reasons). IOW, the reason most people have a harder time now even typing “the n-word” than they do the s-word or the r-word when they apply to indigenous people is because black people have had much more success in getting people to recognize how insulting, degrading and harmful racist bigotry is, including the terminology that expresses it. The s-word and the r-word, and related imagery, associations and so on are just as destructive; the rest of us just haven’t been made to understand that yet.
Sigh.
For all the assertive verbiage you type here, you sure are good at simply ignoring counterarguments that you apparently can’t find a way to refute. You just go on repeating yourself, over and over again. It’s pretty boring.
I can’t refute what you are saying because it is a matter of opinion.
Words can be used to slander a whole race, but that doesn’t mean those words aren’t accurate in other scenarios - some times even backing up the racist using of the word.
“Thug” has been used as short had for any young black male. Of course that is wrong, most are not “thugs” in any sense of the word. Of course there are people of all races who not only fit the definition of a thug, but SELF IDENTIFY as one.
You can’t just blanket label as such and such “bad” or “racist”, when in reality that isn’t the case. Is it the case SOME of the time? YES, and feel free to call attention to it’s misuse and when it is used to hurt. But because some people use it to hurt others, doesn’t mean we should just add it to the bank of “Words you can never say”. It never works. Even if you lock up words like stupid, idiot, ugly, etc, new words will just emerge.
Even the dread n-word has lost much of it’s teeth. I guarantee you, if we added up the number of times it is uttered in a day in 2016, it’s use as a racial slur is now the minority of times. At some point if the language continues to evolve, it may actually become benign to the point we use it in common speech like “dude”.
I’m not saying there isn’t a difference, but to suggest it’s not even an ethnic slur, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF DESCRIBING AMERICAN INDIANS, stretches credulity just a little.
I tend to agree with @anon15383236 that the difference has mostly to do with the fact that blacks have very successfully lobbied for recognition of their shared humanity, whereas American Indians have not been as successful in terms of public relations.
The N-word and the S-word are used equivalently, though: to try to deny the respective groups rights, autonomy, and recognition. In one case because they’re “just <n-words> and not fit to govern themselves”, in the other case because they’re “just <s-words> and not capable of properly improving the land they live on.”
“Savages” more effectively and more universally implies that the people so named are incapable, in their present state of understanding a liberal constitutional order, and must be repressed violently. “Niggers” carries the same implication, but only if you buy into white supremacy in the first place. “Niggers” is (aptly) threatened with obsolescence-- “savage” will live on, though it will describe acts of individuals, rather than societies.
I agree it can be used in the way described as above. Again I agree characterizing all Native Americans as savages is wrong and racist. If someone made the two above statements I would agree 100% they are wrong.
Using the word to describe a specific group of people conducting violent attacks on others I think is a fair use of the word. Again, if these exact same attacks were performed by white people NO ONE would care the word savage was used. While one could find a less harsh term (hostiles?), it fits the definition. (fun fact, word root is from the Latin for “from the woods”)
Though I don’t know why I am even attempting to defend this use. I guess I like to argue for one, and for two I hate the labeling of words. I am not here to defend their specific use. I can even see why it is offensive and I personally would have used something different. My big beef and point was the bolded line I made several posts ago.
I suspect it’s a kneejerk reaction to a perception of “PC culture,” supposed “liberal” curtailments of “free speech” and the like, and then a masculine tendency to dig in when challenged, but yeah, I don’t ultimately know why either…
First, thank you. I was going to find that gif, but you beat me to it.
Second, @Mister44, this conversation reminds me of when kids say “dam the river” as a way of technically getting away with something they have been told not to say (damn vs. dam). And while the technicalities may be true, there is still a giant, “I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE” hanging over the statement.
Words can hold many meanings. And as a wordsmith I am unsympathetic to those that ignore the most common or powerful meaning of a word.
I don’t care for it either, but sometimes they just lose their meaning. Shit, can I use Riot today without it meaning something else than its original?
However that’s one of the things I love about language. Some words get put out to pasture, but we get new ones.
