I totally agree, but if we say that no white person can say the
word in any context, then we say that we cannot have an
intelligent discussion about this seminal work, or for that
matter, Ralph Ellison’s ‘Invisible Man’.
We are right to tip-toe around the word, but when used for
intelligent discussions of racism, and not used to denigrate a
person or people, it cannot be taboo.
Why would you have to say the word to discuss the book? The word isn’t the story, and we can talk about the context all day long.
I disagree. We are having an intelligent (albeit slightly meta) discussion about it right here. There are at least two ways to reference it without explicitly saying or spelling out the word. I don’t regard it as a significant burden.
Here’s the thing. You’re able to use the word in its full ill-repute. But you don’t need to in order to have an intelligent discussion referencing it. So if you do anyway, folks are going to judge that decision.
Go ahead, say “nïgger” if you want to; just be willing to deal with all the consequences and repercussions thereof without complaint.
I’m a Person of Color and I don’t sugar coat my speech, especially not when discussing systemic racism, bigotry and racial prejudice. I don’t shy away from the ugly, bloody history of the US which is signified by the word.
But neither do I just bandy it about willy nilly for shock value; and neither should anyone else.
As others have already informed you, context matters a great deal.
Precisely.
Freedom of speech versus freedom from context and consequences…
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, but I will not defend at all your immunity from the social consequences of it.” ~ Me (here) [okay, not technically a quote]
Heard an interesting discussion on NPR regarding the use of the word “queer.” Another one I would not touch with a 10 foot pole, but the speaker (who was LGBT) said they use it for a short hand, as well as reclaiming the word. Similar to the discussion here, I applaud them for this, but will continue to steer clear of it myself. I know the history and am not going to use it for that reason. I have a neice who describes their self as “gender nonconforming bisexual queer.” I said that is a mouthful, and was told I could just use queer. Thought about it, could not do it, asked if it was ok to just call them by their name. They hugged me. I took that to mean I guessed right?
I don’t want to use the word. I certainly would never use
it to denigrate a person. But to pretend that the word doesn’t
exist is nonsensical. To heighten our sensitivity to the point
that we take offense when it is used to discuss history or
literature (it’s in The Invisible Man , too), but not when
it is used in common parlance and entertainment also begs closer
examination.
I'm reminded of "most gratuitous use of the word 'Belgium' in a
serious screenplay" from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The
word itself only has the power we assign to it.
And so help me, I still find “Blazing Saddles” funny.
As you said, this is meta. We’re not discussing the text of a
work, we’re discussing how to discuss it…
That blood soaked word rappers still use
All it really shows is that we still self abuse
That was the word that was used to kill Kelso Cochrane and Emmett Till
That was the word that the conscience eased
And made people pleased to hung you from trees
That was the word that let the whips crack
No matter what you say you can’t take it back
Um…
No one here is doing that, and no one that I know of IRL does that.
To imply that some people’s conscious choice to not use a historically hateful slur is somehow a denial of reality is highly disingenuous, especially when your original contention was that it’s somehow not possible to have an ‘intellectually honest’ conversation about racism in America without being able to use the word “nïgger” freely.
O_o
That’s a bit of a straw man there, as no one said nor even implied that you shouldn’t.
Blazing Saddles is and will always be a great comedy that serves as a witty social commentary on the racist tropes that have long pervaded the “great American western.”
And Mel Brooks didn’t use the word in his film arbitrarily; he was punching up at a certain subset of people who are foolish enough to feed into mindless bigotry and preconceived stereotypes…
Yeah it’s not that I can’t imagine any scenario in which I’d speak the word aloud, it’s that I have zero desire to. If I joined a book club discussing Harvard Professor Randall Kennedy’s work on the subject I’d probably end up using the word in the subsequent discussions, but it’s not like I’d be looking for an excuse to do so.
So the use of the word in satire is OK, the use of the word by those traditionally derided by its use is OK, but the use of it in discussing the text of great literature is offensive?
Why don’t we just say that the use of it in a derogatory manner is wildly offensive and otherwise, the word should be reserved for thoughtful use and never aimed at a person?
There are other words in this category, too. John Leguizamo named one of his shows " Spic-o-rama", shall I be censored and hated for citing it?
“Thoughtful use.”
I think if white people put thought into it, they wouldn’t want to use it more than anyone had to, and you don’t have to to have a thoughtful discussion about 99% of things. Are you putting thought into your desire to see the word more in life, from white people’s mouths?
Because “thoughtful use” is what everyone is currently suggesting, and thoughtful use means almost zero good contexts for white people to use it, and none of those contexts are “dropping it like any other boring word”.
Criticism and rebuke are not censorship or hate.
No, but firing a teacher is. If I post the word in this discussion of it, I will probably be banned from the boards.
I’m merely suggesting that to say it cannot be used in discussion of racism, of literature, or the word itself, it has raised to a level of irrational hypersensitivity.
Be kind to people. Be respectful. Not hard to do those and still read and disscuss Ralph Ellison.
Your restraint is admirable. /s
Seriously though, this forum belongs to the proprietors of Boing Boing. We visit at their pleasure. Their property, their rules, just as you set the rules in your home or on a site belonging to you. Declining to give someone your platform is not censorship, it’s property rights.
Also, let’s not derail this with a generalized discussion. There’s a thread for that…
That’s not what this teacher was fired for.
News Flash: You can reference it, but there is absolutely no justifiable reason to say it verbatim in discussion. To make an extreme comparison, murder is referenced in courts of law all the time, but you don’t see prosecutors shooting someone in the jury just to prove murder exists.
Get out of here with that weak and clearly disingenuous argument.
