Admittedly the term, heretofore referred to, if at all, as the ‘it’ word, is freighted by a long history of narrow, derogatory usage, in certain circles, leaving little room for ambiguity or contextual nuance, to the effect of being proscribed in polite society, of itself taken to be offensive regardless of context. Nonetheless, in other circles, especially in the vernacular of a certain minority, it enjoys colloquial utility enhanced by a broad range of situational nuance, to such an extent that it is one of the most commonly spoken words, after ‘fuck’, in the American language. Ironically, the term most emblematic in White usage of debasement has come in Black usage to symbolize the essence of hominess, an integral element of soul food. At the same time, it is indicative of the seemingly unbridgeable divide between the races, while the entitlement to its usage or the proscription thereof serves to illustrate and to solidify those boundaries.
Those supportive of trans-rights maintain that identity is first a subjective reality that society is obliged to recognize, as opposed to those who cling to the quaint notion of biological reality. Similarly one might maintain a claim to personal freedom of racial identity, whether a binary, either or choice, or a right to racial indeterminacy—that one may choose to maintain a fragmented identity, expressing behavioral characteristics beyond those defined by strictly segregated stereotypes corresponding to those assigned at birth.
While the argument can be indulged that sex, as defined in terms of DNA is an immutable fact, irrespective of one’s self-identification, hormonal manipulations, or pluming adjustments, the same may not be categorically said of one’s ‘race’ as the term is commonly understood. Some would argue that race is but a social construct while others—some of the same as would see sex defined by DNA—argue that race is first genetically defined, is real beyond social perception. Ironically, it is from the former that come the loudest insistence of racial solidity, while the latter emphasize the fluidity of racial boundaries, speaking of variations within breeding populations as contrasting to those between isolated populations and the rapid deterioration of distinctions when those barriers are removed.
While the physical nature of race enjoys a degree of consensual clarity among scientists engaged more directly in the biological underpinnings of that which is addressed within the citadels of the social sciences, proscriptions against cross-racial usage of racially indicative words and tropes seem muddled, seeming to make common cause with traditional segregationists. But, if I might borrow an arrow from the quiver of the latter, “one drop your black.”; a fortiori, any ‘white’ person tracing their linage far enough back, while under no requirement to surrender their passport, should be free to self-identify, to appropriate, to employ cross-racial tropes, is entitled to do blackface standup. Or to play Othello.
Having descended from a long line of ignorant savages, I am cognizant of the extent to which we are inclined to hold to any small emblem of civilized distinction, only begrudgingly sharing that which, from our blinkered perspective, we take to be of limited resource. And that descendancy including rural Southern whites competing with Negroes within the same niche as laborers, field hands, small land owners or sharecroppers, sharing the same Bible but not the same church—living cheek by jowl, one and the other, while striving to maintain a porous barricade against the reciprocal flow of genetic information and cultural appropriation.
To the extent that civilization advances as a dialectical ratcheting up of social concepts, there is a tendency to hold fast to recently acquired assumptions, especially if hypothetical assumptions are seen as socially effective in the eradication of previous, traditionally held positions subsequently recognized as developmentally restrictive prejudices. The problem arises that in dialectic progression the new becomes the traditional orthodoxy to be defended as a new chapter in the continuation of the last war. In promoting the restitutive enablement of black integrity, social academics, activists, and fellow travelers are prone to hold fast to ridged portrayals of blacks as a unitary group corresponding to an overarching stereotype of racial identity, leaving little room for nuance, let alone a vision of individuals free of categorical restrictions to the pursuit of their interests in an open, pluralistic society.
There is a drift toward euphemistic replacement of words and a narrowing and specificity of word usage concordant with modes of thinking in categorical terms, exclusive of ambiguity, in order to eliminate exceptions to useful generalizations. Such constitutes an effective tool for those who would shape the cultural fabric to their own ends. That which is unique to the particular is inadmissible to the generalization. Admittedly particulars are the datapoints of generalizations, but generalizations, that which may be said of all within the category, having been established, particulars cease to be unique, are but supportive data points. Generalizations are powerful inversely to their exceptions, which, in the interest of effective application, must be ignored, eliminated, or discredited. And with words: define the word, define the thought; define the possibility of what may be said, of what thoughts may be capable of being formed from those words, limited to thoughts consistent with the integrity of the generalization. Generalizations, powerful tools in themselves, may, with others, and with selected, illustrative particularities, be bundled together to form an authoritative nexus, currently of note, in service to the cause of social justice.
Afternote: Plucked from the ether, the following: “‘The Nigger of the Narcissus’ is one of Conrad's lesser-known novels. This is the first and last time the title will be fully spelled out in this article.”
Man, I had to close my balcony door for this snippet as I didn't want my multicultural neighbours hearing it :)
The word does hold rather a lot of power, doesn't it? For some they lose their minds, for others it becomes a way to bully and destroy others.
Kind of like the 'c' word for women, although I don't think we have as much power to police a 'bad word' as much as POC. But I'm with Nishad G, if it's THAT bad, no one can say it, or everyone can say it.
Given how quickly the left rendered highly charged words like racist, transphobic, violence, assault, genocide, assault, and misogynist largely meaningless, if we announced an n-word free-for-all right now, the word would cease to have power by Labour Day.
I can't think of an analogue globally to the word, in the sense of reappropriating a hateful slur to a 'term of endearment'. The K-word (k*ffir) in South Africa is legally sanctioned. Coloured Namibians don't identify as *baasters*; they embrace themselves as Coloured.
It's why the N-word is such a peculiar case. As is true with any charged term of language, either anyone can say it or no one does.
There is some kind of disconnect here. We are discussing a word. A word that has become "Negronite", in that some people believe it can harm or seriously weaken someone.
But we're not discussing the literal thousands of murders, indiscriminate shootings, car jackings, beatings, rapes, lootings, and robbing of said people whom claim that someone hurt their feelings with this word.
There is no right to feel safe. None. That is the biggest fallacy, and the foundation, of the entire "woke" movement. Just because something is desirable does not make it a right.
You have a right to pursue safety, just like you have a right to pursue happiness. But you have no right to a guaranteed outcome, let alone a "feeling".
If I'm a professor, I'd play the same game. As soon as the student "challenged" me, I would sit down, curl up and whine "You are making me feel unsafe, and I am going to report you! You do not have the right to make me feel unsafe!"
And ask the weasel of an administrator: "Is the right of which you speak a natural right or a civil right?"
Universities need to add two words to their vocabulary, and use them frequently: "Grow up!"
After many years teaching design studios, I had a student in a first year 3d studio who attacked “the system” ( and me) because I used the word “excavate“ in a program statement. She actually believed it was put there to speak down to her since she didn’t know the meaning ( or own a dictionary) Now I realized that the relationship between professor and student was broken and replaced by a weird commercial agreement..Too many low IQ entitled students with high self esteem feed this anger and disrespect !
While driving for Lyft, it reminds me of many times I would pick up a car full of female white college students who wanted to listen to Gangster rap. They knew all the words while hammered and going hard in the back seat and the 3rd row! They never asked and simply said "crank that up"
"they have a right to feel safe." Infants and small children have a natural right to feel safe, but not maturing children nor young adults. You don't grow into adulthood in any real sense if you are in such a protected environment that you feel safe, you never develop the intelligence or will to stand on your own feet - and stand your ground. Colleges should not be nursery schools.
When I was growing up in the South, the common term for a Black person was Negro or Colored, then Afro or African-American. My parents were Conservative but respectful and we were taught never, ever to use the "N" word. To this day I will use much foul language when the situation calls for it, but never that word.
I have a real problem with this situation described for two reasons: First, a Black person can use the word to all degrees, even against each other, while if a White does it in a legitimate context, they are condemned.
The second concern is this problem with "safety". University is for learning and growing, and to report a professor for using a word in the context of education is ludicrous. The person who needs to be educated is the student in this case.
There seems to be a general consensus that "blacks" have the right to use the infamous magic word. OK. If we grant that "right" or privilege to "blacks," we have to define exactly who is "black" and allowed to use the n-word. How much "black blood" is needed in order to use the n-word, especially given that it is a favorite hobby of black elites to denounce many white-identified people as "blacks" supposedly "passing for white"? If we concede that "black blood" gives one the right to use the n-word, why shouldn't Latinos and Arabs be able to use it since nearly all of them have the dreaded "black blood" to various extents?
A general excuse cited for NOT punishing blacks who use the n-word is that it is some kind of comforting, comradely expression of racial affection and solidarity that blacks use with each other. What about the blacks who scream at your biracial children, "You think you white. You ain't nothing but a n*****!" Are people known to have "black blood" expected to take that kind of treatment with masochistic, slavish docility? School administrators will do nothing to protect them because it is understood that blacks have the "right" to abuse their own "property."
Traditional mulatto elites often use the n-word to refer to the real blacks and they use it as an expression of contempt for the people with whom they felt forced to share a hated name and "racial" status. Should they be punished for this, or is it simply an "internal" embarrassment to be swept under the rug?
If black American rappers choose to create "art" using the n-word and sell that "art" to anyone who can buy it, why shouldn't the buyers have the right to repeat those songs/raps for their own enjoyment? They paid good money for them. Instead, there seems to be an agreement that a "white" or otherwise "non-black" buyer should be crucified for repeating the n-word in a rap song.
Knowing something is coming is the leverage of censorship.
The identification and/or acknowledgment of impending censure, cancelation or attack can be a convoluted process.
When trauma, offensiveness and righteous indignation are constantly being extrapolated, self diagnosed and then validated without examination, discourse or debate, it becomes impossible to know when “it is coming” - whatever the it is.
(I think I channeled Bill Clinton on that last one 😬😳)
One is usually aware of how to say something when they know the who and the setting (where), but now the why behind any response is as fluid and unpredictable as rapids in merging rivers.
Thus the conversation in one’s head, combined with the actual conversation, makes human discourse with others an exhausting endeavor.
Don’ Say “_______”
Admittedly the term, heretofore referred to, if at all, as the ‘it’ word, is freighted by a long history of narrow, derogatory usage, in certain circles, leaving little room for ambiguity or contextual nuance, to the effect of being proscribed in polite society, of itself taken to be offensive regardless of context. Nonetheless, in other circles, especially in the vernacular of a certain minority, it enjoys colloquial utility enhanced by a broad range of situational nuance, to such an extent that it is one of the most commonly spoken words, after ‘fuck’, in the American language. Ironically, the term most emblematic in White usage of debasement has come in Black usage to symbolize the essence of hominess, an integral element of soul food. At the same time, it is indicative of the seemingly unbridgeable divide between the races, while the entitlement to its usage or the proscription thereof serves to illustrate and to solidify those boundaries.
Those supportive of trans-rights maintain that identity is first a subjective reality that society is obliged to recognize, as opposed to those who cling to the quaint notion of biological reality. Similarly one might maintain a claim to personal freedom of racial identity, whether a binary, either or choice, or a right to racial indeterminacy—that one may choose to maintain a fragmented identity, expressing behavioral characteristics beyond those defined by strictly segregated stereotypes corresponding to those assigned at birth.
While the argument can be indulged that sex, as defined in terms of DNA is an immutable fact, irrespective of one’s self-identification, hormonal manipulations, or pluming adjustments, the same may not be categorically said of one’s ‘race’ as the term is commonly understood. Some would argue that race is but a social construct while others—some of the same as would see sex defined by DNA—argue that race is first genetically defined, is real beyond social perception. Ironically, it is from the former that come the loudest insistence of racial solidity, while the latter emphasize the fluidity of racial boundaries, speaking of variations within breeding populations as contrasting to those between isolated populations and the rapid deterioration of distinctions when those barriers are removed.
While the physical nature of race enjoys a degree of consensual clarity among scientists engaged more directly in the biological underpinnings of that which is addressed within the citadels of the social sciences, proscriptions against cross-racial usage of racially indicative words and tropes seem muddled, seeming to make common cause with traditional segregationists. But, if I might borrow an arrow from the quiver of the latter, “one drop your black.”; a fortiori, any ‘white’ person tracing their linage far enough back, while under no requirement to surrender their passport, should be free to self-identify, to appropriate, to employ cross-racial tropes, is entitled to do blackface standup. Or to play Othello.
Having descended from a long line of ignorant savages, I am cognizant of the extent to which we are inclined to hold to any small emblem of civilized distinction, only begrudgingly sharing that which, from our blinkered perspective, we take to be of limited resource. And that descendancy including rural Southern whites competing with Negroes within the same niche as laborers, field hands, small land owners or sharecroppers, sharing the same Bible but not the same church—living cheek by jowl, one and the other, while striving to maintain a porous barricade against the reciprocal flow of genetic information and cultural appropriation.
To the extent that civilization advances as a dialectical ratcheting up of social concepts, there is a tendency to hold fast to recently acquired assumptions, especially if hypothetical assumptions are seen as socially effective in the eradication of previous, traditionally held positions subsequently recognized as developmentally restrictive prejudices. The problem arises that in dialectic progression the new becomes the traditional orthodoxy to be defended as a new chapter in the continuation of the last war. In promoting the restitutive enablement of black integrity, social academics, activists, and fellow travelers are prone to hold fast to ridged portrayals of blacks as a unitary group corresponding to an overarching stereotype of racial identity, leaving little room for nuance, let alone a vision of individuals free of categorical restrictions to the pursuit of their interests in an open, pluralistic society.
There is a drift toward euphemistic replacement of words and a narrowing and specificity of word usage concordant with modes of thinking in categorical terms, exclusive of ambiguity, in order to eliminate exceptions to useful generalizations. Such constitutes an effective tool for those who would shape the cultural fabric to their own ends. That which is unique to the particular is inadmissible to the generalization. Admittedly particulars are the datapoints of generalizations, but generalizations, that which may be said of all within the category, having been established, particulars cease to be unique, are but supportive data points. Generalizations are powerful inversely to their exceptions, which, in the interest of effective application, must be ignored, eliminated, or discredited. And with words: define the word, define the thought; define the possibility of what may be said, of what thoughts may be capable of being formed from those words, limited to thoughts consistent with the integrity of the generalization. Generalizations, powerful tools in themselves, may, with others, and with selected, illustrative particularities, be bundled together to form an authoritative nexus, currently of note, in service to the cause of social justice.
Afternote: Plucked from the ether, the following: “‘The Nigger of the Narcissus’ is one of Conrad's lesser-known novels. This is the first and last time the title will be fully spelled out in this article.”
How is it only Negros can say 'nigger'? See my post.
Man, I had to close my balcony door for this snippet as I didn't want my multicultural neighbours hearing it :)
The word does hold rather a lot of power, doesn't it? For some they lose their minds, for others it becomes a way to bully and destroy others.
Kind of like the 'c' word for women, although I don't think we have as much power to police a 'bad word' as much as POC. But I'm with Nishad G, if it's THAT bad, no one can say it, or everyone can say it.
Given how quickly the left rendered highly charged words like racist, transphobic, violence, assault, genocide, assault, and misogynist largely meaningless, if we announced an n-word free-for-all right now, the word would cease to have power by Labour Day.
When the student said, “Professor, that's racist.” -- was it ever clarified what aspect of Jon's utterance was racist?
1. Was it that he uttered the n-word in class?
2. Or was it that he made the argument that racial identity is fluid (or appears that way)?
His class sounds like the sort of analysis of culture that is really thought-provoking..
I can't think of an analogue globally to the word, in the sense of reappropriating a hateful slur to a 'term of endearment'. The K-word (k*ffir) in South Africa is legally sanctioned. Coloured Namibians don't identify as *baasters*; they embrace themselves as Coloured.
It's why the N-word is such a peculiar case. As is true with any charged term of language, either anyone can say it or no one does.
There is some kind of a weird social power play going on with this word. A form of bullying, as John says.
No one is insulted when hearing this word spoken "in reference" (as Glenn puts it), much less feels "unsafe".
There is some kind of disconnect here. We are discussing a word. A word that has become "Negronite", in that some people believe it can harm or seriously weaken someone.
But we're not discussing the literal thousands of murders, indiscriminate shootings, car jackings, beatings, rapes, lootings, and robbing of said people whom claim that someone hurt their feelings with this word.
I suppose, this is a good as it gets.
There is no right to feel safe. None. That is the biggest fallacy, and the foundation, of the entire "woke" movement. Just because something is desirable does not make it a right.
You have a right to pursue safety, just like you have a right to pursue happiness. But you have no right to a guaranteed outcome, let alone a "feeling".
If I'm a professor, I'd play the same game. As soon as the student "challenged" me, I would sit down, curl up and whine "You are making me feel unsafe, and I am going to report you! You do not have the right to make me feel unsafe!"
And ask the weasel of an administrator: "Is the right of which you speak a natural right or a civil right?"
Universities need to add two words to their vocabulary, and use them frequently: "Grow up!"
After many years teaching design studios, I had a student in a first year 3d studio who attacked “the system” ( and me) because I used the word “excavate“ in a program statement. She actually believed it was put there to speak down to her since she didn’t know the meaning ( or own a dictionary) Now I realized that the relationship between professor and student was broken and replaced by a weird commercial agreement..Too many low IQ entitled students with high self esteem feed this anger and disrespect !
Michael Jackson had an entire album CD removed from the shelves because he used a slur used against Jewish people in one song.
While driving for Lyft, it reminds me of many times I would pick up a car full of female white college students who wanted to listen to Gangster rap. They knew all the words while hammered and going hard in the back seat and the 3rd row! They never asked and simply said "crank that up"
"they have a right to feel safe." Infants and small children have a natural right to feel safe, but not maturing children nor young adults. You don't grow into adulthood in any real sense if you are in such a protected environment that you feel safe, you never develop the intelligence or will to stand on your own feet - and stand your ground. Colleges should not be nursery schools.
When I was growing up in the South, the common term for a Black person was Negro or Colored, then Afro or African-American. My parents were Conservative but respectful and we were taught never, ever to use the "N" word. To this day I will use much foul language when the situation calls for it, but never that word.
I have a real problem with this situation described for two reasons: First, a Black person can use the word to all degrees, even against each other, while if a White does it in a legitimate context, they are condemned.
The second concern is this problem with "safety". University is for learning and growing, and to report a professor for using a word in the context of education is ludicrous. The person who needs to be educated is the student in this case.
There seems to be a general consensus that "blacks" have the right to use the infamous magic word. OK. If we grant that "right" or privilege to "blacks," we have to define exactly who is "black" and allowed to use the n-word. How much "black blood" is needed in order to use the n-word, especially given that it is a favorite hobby of black elites to denounce many white-identified people as "blacks" supposedly "passing for white"? If we concede that "black blood" gives one the right to use the n-word, why shouldn't Latinos and Arabs be able to use it since nearly all of them have the dreaded "black blood" to various extents?
A general excuse cited for NOT punishing blacks who use the n-word is that it is some kind of comforting, comradely expression of racial affection and solidarity that blacks use with each other. What about the blacks who scream at your biracial children, "You think you white. You ain't nothing but a n*****!" Are people known to have "black blood" expected to take that kind of treatment with masochistic, slavish docility? School administrators will do nothing to protect them because it is understood that blacks have the "right" to abuse their own "property."
Traditional mulatto elites often use the n-word to refer to the real blacks and they use it as an expression of contempt for the people with whom they felt forced to share a hated name and "racial" status. Should they be punished for this, or is it simply an "internal" embarrassment to be swept under the rug?
If black American rappers choose to create "art" using the n-word and sell that "art" to anyone who can buy it, why shouldn't the buyers have the right to repeat those songs/raps for their own enjoyment? They paid good money for them. Instead, there seems to be an agreement that a "white" or otherwise "non-black" buyer should be crucified for repeating the n-word in a rap song.
Knowing something is coming is the leverage of censorship.
The identification and/or acknowledgment of impending censure, cancelation or attack can be a convoluted process.
When trauma, offensiveness and righteous indignation are constantly being extrapolated, self diagnosed and then validated without examination, discourse or debate, it becomes impossible to know when “it is coming” - whatever the it is.
(I think I channeled Bill Clinton on that last one 😬😳)
One is usually aware of how to say something when they know the who and the setting (where), but now the why behind any response is as fluid and unpredictable as rapids in merging rivers.
Thus the conversation in one’s head, combined with the actual conversation, makes human discourse with others an exhausting endeavor.
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.