Aside from the social power play surrounding its utterance, this word is also simply interesting in its various meanings, from the blatant insult to many subtle ones.
However, because of the power play--by which its mere utterance is prohibited--analytic discussion of the word is just too cumbersome to be worth the effort.
"this word is also simply interesting in its various meanings"
Indeed. Meanings, pronunciations, the whole bit.
"analytic discussion of the word is just too cumbersome to be worth the effort"
Good friends (and decent people) in private settings can certainly engage in good-faith thoughtful discussions about that word. I don't think that has changed. The extremeness in sensitivity that we see now is a fairly recent development, as far as I can tell.
I'll never forget being at a club about 15 years ago. A Hispanic female bartender was serving me, and suddenly, this Hispanic male walks in and greets her rather enthusiastically. (They both looked like they were in their early 20s.) They were obviously close friends who hadn't seen each other in ages.
In any case, the so-called n-word was flying every which way throughout their conversation. No hesitations. No whispers. Totally unencumbered. And to be clear, I am sitting about at most two feet away from them.
They were using it as a term of endearment (like a whole lotta Black people did and do). Did it bother me? No. In fact, I thought it was kinda hilarious to see hip-hop culture seep so deeply into their worlds.
I later found out that young Asians and young Whites did this as well--intraracially *and* interracially. But something happened in the 2010s & 2020s to change all that. It's just not acceptable anymore, for whatever reasons.
I don't think it's necessarily a sign of enlightenment or progress. But it is the new standard. It is what it is.
And so you've done it, Charles! You've waded into an "analytic discussion" of the word.
That intra-racial use spreading to (almost always young) whites, Hispanics, and Asians is interesting. I remember it too (although I was too sensitive and already too old to use it myself). This suggested that meanings were spreading that would water down the earlier disparaging senses of the word, but as you mention, something happened in the 2010s and 2020s that changed that--one hundred percent in the opposite direction, to the point that the word cannot now even be uttered "in reference", as Glenn puts it.
But we've hardly even begun to scratch the surface here about this fascinating word. Long dissertations could be written.
---
Notes:
1. These would be weird dissertations, because they would be littered with a euphemism ("the N-word") for what they were actually talking about. And if the dissertation touched on the social issues surrounding saying the word or writing it out "in reference", the dissertation itself would have some sort of strange self-referential aspect to it. And down the rabbit hole we go.
2. It's time that this topic appears on the Glenn Show, because when I think of scholarly study of the history and uses of this word, John McWhorter always comes to mind--both because he's the only linguist I know of (besides Chomsky) and because he's constantly engaged in race issues.
It only has 'power' when given. Like any word. It has always been a 'political' term, but now its power serves the opposite of its former use as epithet. And as such, the distinction btwn use and reference is patently clear to EVERYONE. Which is exactly the intent of still imbuing the word with power.
Noted. And also in agreement. Also why we get nowhere. Black Americans, for the most part, dont want to give up that power. And that is unsustainable. Redemption/Reconciliation....or Retribution/Retaliation. Cant have both.
A. I don't see it as power whatsoever. Not real power. A kind of meaningless leverage at best.
B. Most African-Americans would not freak out over the way Jon used the term. I'm 99% certain about that. The academic world is something unto itself. There are a lot of rules that people can't relate to; a lot of students would agree.
But just for the record, I think race is a bs concept that too many folk bought into centuries ago. Thus, it's never about "us" vs "them" to me--it's about logic and being reasonable.
Unfortunately, far too often, people get used to the illogical, and no particular so-called race is immune.
Fair enough. I just don't want to exaggerate the importance of a word.
In Germany, you can't have a swastika. That might seem extreme here in America, but they have a deep history with the swastika as we do with the so-called n-word, Confederate flag, etc.
Granted, the inconsistency of its use is annoying and the consequences that can fall on some and not others is bizarre. But in the end, we are literally talking about a word. It's just as easy to not say it as it is to say it.
It's a class marker more than anything else, people of the upper classes (or social climbers) don't (or didn't) use the word in polite conversation, and its use was sharply proscribed, it marked you out as white trash. Mind you, those same classes were deeply racist in practice - my grandmother was a segregationist as much as any white nationalist today, she was an ardent believer in white supremacy, and joined Planned Parenthood in 1923 partially as a solution to the "Negro Problem". The same could be said for nearly all of my extended family - one of my uncles was the 1955 chairman of the Kansas City White Citizens Council. I guess I didn't pick it up by osmosis since I was pretty much brought up by the black servants, owing to parental incompetence, one of whom read everything that Grandmother threw away - the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Proceeds of the Naval Institute, and the like - and we'd talk about it doing errands and suchlike. We traded off the NYT Sunday Crossword, I'd get it on alternate weeks. So after he'd died, I mentioned this to a cousin who had a Masters in Education from Columbia University, and she said "Oh, you're just full of nonsense, you're silly, you know very well that Walter couldn't read, he's black" and that was the end of my conversation with her. Such ignorant people, even though they'd gone to Ivy League schools... and so forth and so on. I doubt they've changed in the 40 years since.
I'm seriously thinking about it, have been since yesterday, the memories come back in a flood, and it's kind of eating at me, since I have an opinion about this "woke" stuff - and I think most of it is contrived and fake - and it teaches people to be "racially aware" - and that's what comes before racism itself. And we could end up resegregating society with people in the different categories unable to converse honestly and forthrightly with one another. And this might serve another group's purpose - in the words of Sun Tzu, "if your opponent is united, divide him." I think it's no coincidence that this came out of the elite universities and has major corporate support - and then there's Fannie Kemble, writing on the construction of the Brunswick Canal in the 1830s... Lots to think about, it's going to come out in a confused jumble and the job will be to organize it in a coherent whole.
Maybe I'll put something on my substack page, there's a lot more, and I'm either blessed or cursed with a photographic memory, the scenes play back like movies...
I wouldn't go so far as to pin cowardice (or a lack of integrity) on the administration. The rules that wrecked Jon were likely the result of the Zeitgeist (and the fact that most people don't like losing their jobs).
The problem is the bizarre sensitivity (and inconsistency) that surrounds the word.
The word has power. Crazy power.
But its usage is soooo convoluted. So vastly different from any other cuss word.
No, Jon did not deserve to be censured. But he had to know it was coming.
Aside from the social power play surrounding its utterance, this word is also simply interesting in its various meanings, from the blatant insult to many subtle ones.
However, because of the power play--by which its mere utterance is prohibited--analytic discussion of the word is just too cumbersome to be worth the effort.
"this word is also simply interesting in its various meanings"
Indeed. Meanings, pronunciations, the whole bit.
"analytic discussion of the word is just too cumbersome to be worth the effort"
Good friends (and decent people) in private settings can certainly engage in good-faith thoughtful discussions about that word. I don't think that has changed. The extremeness in sensitivity that we see now is a fairly recent development, as far as I can tell.
I'll never forget being at a club about 15 years ago. A Hispanic female bartender was serving me, and suddenly, this Hispanic male walks in and greets her rather enthusiastically. (They both looked like they were in their early 20s.) They were obviously close friends who hadn't seen each other in ages.
In any case, the so-called n-word was flying every which way throughout their conversation. No hesitations. No whispers. Totally unencumbered. And to be clear, I am sitting about at most two feet away from them.
They were using it as a term of endearment (like a whole lotta Black people did and do). Did it bother me? No. In fact, I thought it was kinda hilarious to see hip-hop culture seep so deeply into their worlds.
I later found out that young Asians and young Whites did this as well--intraracially *and* interracially. But something happened in the 2010s & 2020s to change all that. It's just not acceptable anymore, for whatever reasons.
I don't think it's necessarily a sign of enlightenment or progress. But it is the new standard. It is what it is.
And so you've done it, Charles! You've waded into an "analytic discussion" of the word.
That intra-racial use spreading to (almost always young) whites, Hispanics, and Asians is interesting. I remember it too (although I was too sensitive and already too old to use it myself). This suggested that meanings were spreading that would water down the earlier disparaging senses of the word, but as you mention, something happened in the 2010s and 2020s that changed that--one hundred percent in the opposite direction, to the point that the word cannot now even be uttered "in reference", as Glenn puts it.
But we've hardly even begun to scratch the surface here about this fascinating word. Long dissertations could be written.
---
Notes:
1. These would be weird dissertations, because they would be littered with a euphemism ("the N-word") for what they were actually talking about. And if the dissertation touched on the social issues surrounding saying the word or writing it out "in reference", the dissertation itself would have some sort of strange self-referential aspect to it. And down the rabbit hole we go.
2. It's time that this topic appears on the Glenn Show, because when I think of scholarly study of the history and uses of this word, John McWhorter always comes to mind--both because he's the only linguist I know of (besides Chomsky) and because he's constantly engaged in race issues.
It only has 'power' when given. Like any word. It has always been a 'political' term, but now its power serves the opposite of its former use as epithet. And as such, the distinction btwn use and reference is patently clear to EVERYONE. Which is exactly the intent of still imbuing the word with power.
"It only has 'power' when given. Like any word." Exactly.
We are not in disagreement. Yes, it's ridiculous. That's not the issue.
Rules/Laws don't always makes sense. They don't have to. But they're there.
I am only saying that Jon had to know what was likely to follow (even if it was a slip). He's not first to go through this.
Noted. And also in agreement. Also why we get nowhere. Black Americans, for the most part, dont want to give up that power. And that is unsustainable. Redemption/Reconciliation....or Retribution/Retaliation. Cant have both.
A. I don't see it as power whatsoever. Not real power. A kind of meaningless leverage at best.
B. Most African-Americans would not freak out over the way Jon used the term. I'm 99% certain about that. The academic world is something unto itself. There are a lot of rules that people can't relate to; a lot of students would agree.
But just for the record, I think race is a bs concept that too many folk bought into centuries ago. Thus, it's never about "us" vs "them" to me--it's about logic and being reasonable.
Unfortunately, far too often, people get used to the illogical, and no particular so-called race is immune.
We are talking cultural power here. Nothing else.
Fair enough. I just don't want to exaggerate the importance of a word.
In Germany, you can't have a swastika. That might seem extreme here in America, but they have a deep history with the swastika as we do with the so-called n-word, Confederate flag, etc.
Granted, the inconsistency of its use is annoying and the consequences that can fall on some and not others is bizarre. But in the end, we are literally talking about a word. It's just as easy to not say it as it is to say it.
It's a class marker more than anything else, people of the upper classes (or social climbers) don't (or didn't) use the word in polite conversation, and its use was sharply proscribed, it marked you out as white trash. Mind you, those same classes were deeply racist in practice - my grandmother was a segregationist as much as any white nationalist today, she was an ardent believer in white supremacy, and joined Planned Parenthood in 1923 partially as a solution to the "Negro Problem". The same could be said for nearly all of my extended family - one of my uncles was the 1955 chairman of the Kansas City White Citizens Council. I guess I didn't pick it up by osmosis since I was pretty much brought up by the black servants, owing to parental incompetence, one of whom read everything that Grandmother threw away - the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Proceeds of the Naval Institute, and the like - and we'd talk about it doing errands and suchlike. We traded off the NYT Sunday Crossword, I'd get it on alternate weeks. So after he'd died, I mentioned this to a cousin who had a Masters in Education from Columbia University, and she said "Oh, you're just full of nonsense, you're silly, you know very well that Walter couldn't read, he's black" and that was the end of my conversation with her. Such ignorant people, even though they'd gone to Ivy League schools... and so forth and so on. I doubt they've changed in the 40 years since.
Wow. Sounds like you have a book swirling around in you, stream.
I'm seriously thinking about it, have been since yesterday, the memories come back in a flood, and it's kind of eating at me, since I have an opinion about this "woke" stuff - and I think most of it is contrived and fake - and it teaches people to be "racially aware" - and that's what comes before racism itself. And we could end up resegregating society with people in the different categories unable to converse honestly and forthrightly with one another. And this might serve another group's purpose - in the words of Sun Tzu, "if your opponent is united, divide him." I think it's no coincidence that this came out of the elite universities and has major corporate support - and then there's Fannie Kemble, writing on the construction of the Brunswick Canal in the 1830s... Lots to think about, it's going to come out in a confused jumble and the job will be to organize it in a coherent whole.
Maybe I'll put something on my substack page, there's a lot more, and I'm either blessed or cursed with a photographic memory, the scenes play back like movies...
He had to know the administration was completely without intellectual integrity? Probably so.
I wouldn't go so far as to pin cowardice (or a lack of integrity) on the administration. The rules that wrecked Jon were likely the result of the Zeitgeist (and the fact that most people don't like losing their jobs).
The problem is the bizarre sensitivity (and inconsistency) that surrounds the word.