Hacker News Reader

Comment by legerdemain | Hacker News Reader

"Kushi" is still a current slur against black people in Israel and other Hebrew-speaking areas.[1] It's a bit like calling someone a "chinaman." Also, some people point out the sound similarity of קוֹף (monkey) and כושי (Kushite).

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbi-compares-african-a...

View on HN

I wouldn't say this is accurate. Well, some might use it that way, but as a kid this is the word we were taught for black folk with no harm intended, it's also the name used in the bible--I believe it's originally from the bible.

The Troubling Resurgence of Racial Slurs Like ‘Shvartze’ and ‘Kushi’[1]

Hasidic singer slurs Obama at Jerusalem concert[2]

Terra incognita: Israel’s k-word: Can Holon teach us a lesson in racism?[3]

https://forward.com/opinion/361625/michael-twitty-black-jewi...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hasidic-singer-slurs-obama-at-...

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/columnists/terra-incognita-isr...

drorco didn't say no one uses it as a slur, they were relaying their experience having been taught the word means no ill will. I don't really see a reason to try to prove his experience wrong.

They claimed that describing this word as a slur is inaccurate. This word is commonly used and described as a slur.

I think what happens is that overtime certain groups have taken "ownership" over the word by using it as a racial slur but originally it just means "someone from Kush". In Hebrew if you take a location and add "I" as a suffix it means someone originating from that place, e.g: "Americai"-> someone from America, "Kushi"-> someone from Kush which is a country occasionally used in the bible to refer to Africa.

I guess in English there are also such words that originally had no use as a slur but later "denominated" to racial slurs.

The reference to Kushi->Kof (monkey) is totally off. Doesn't sound similar at all for my native Hebrew ears.

Look, this is just childish equivocation. A lot of words that are considered offensive also have (or used to have) other, innocuous meanings. What you're doing is like a child saying "Nah-uh, this word just means happy!"

A word is offensive in polite society because a population of people finds it hurtful, or because another population of people uses it in an intentionally hurtful way. Usually it's both. Innocent words can become slurs, and other slurs, over time, can become obscure and lose their power.

For example, the "n-word" in English obviously comes from the Spanish or Portuguese for the color black. Despite that, it's an offensive slur.

The older colloquial term in the English language for Romani people apparently comes from the word "Egyptian." There is no problem with being Egyptian. But many people find this particular word hurtful, and polite society is actively trying to retire it.

Maybe you have personal ideas about what "should" or "shouldn't" be hurtful, but I'm surprised that we don't seem to agree on how people actually use these words in reality. "Kushi" can be a slur even if your grandma's pet name for you was "my little Kushi" and you love that word to death.

This is just the euphamism treadmill in action. The name for an outgroup becomes a slur over time because it refers to an outgroup.

The treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes. African American/Black have been the main terms in American language for 50 years now, with some back and forth between the two, but no further replacement.

It doesn't stop, it just shifts to a different outgroup.

I'm not aware of any societies without outgroups, are you?

What makes you think that won't change? As a Jamaican American, I look forward to the day when people stop referring to me as "black"

Because you prefer “Jamaican”? Or “African American”? Or nothing? I can’t tell what you mean from context.

I don’t think “black” “white” and “brown” can go away as descriptors like “blond” and “redhead”, but maybe someday they will stop being identity categories. America already has large non-native black populations in certain areas (West Africans, Somalis, West Indies, etc.), but I think the country still thinks of Black = African American = descendent of U.S. slaves for now, because the non-native blacks are still mostly focused regionally, like Somalis in Minnesota.

I guess this is another reason for the treadmill: distinctions that were implicit before maybe need to be made explicit as different things become salient.

You said the treadmill stops when you change public attitude, and you imply the terms Black and African American used to refer to black people are acceptable designations for groups of people as of now. I'm making the point that that is completely subjective, as in my case I don't like being referred to as an African American, because I'm not, and black is basically a synonym for "Not african american", yet these are the default terms and you say that there is "no further replacement". My point is that words change meaning all the time, we are not heading into some inevitable singularity where all of these words over here are objectively good in all situations and all of those words are objectively bad in all situations and this will remain so for eternity - language is not that stagnant nor black and white, and for me that is a good thing. It is 100% your personal opinion that you find the terms Black and African American acceptable designations for groups for the foreseeable future, but don't project your personal opinion onto others - I personally look forward to the day where people refer to me as Jamaican and not just "black" or mistakenly, African American, and in the same way there are those who hold the opposite opinion and those who don't want to be generalized at all. That you personally like or dont like a particular label has no bearing on whether or not everyone else agrees with your opinion.

Tl;dr your statement "The [euphemism] treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes" actually means "The euphemism treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes in such a way that I am personally comfortable with it's final state", because in reality the treadmill will never stop, someone will always push to keep it going, it's the reason why language shifts and changes over time.

From your first article:

>“Kushi,” or Kushite, became one of several Hebrew vernacular terms for “African” or “a black.” On its own — like shvartze, which is Yiddish — the term is not inherently offensive or derogatory, in the same way the word for “European,” in West African languages, is not at face value an epithet, but merely an implication of outsider status.

>Context, context context. When flashpoints emerge, these words take on a life far beyond being descriptors.

The term כוש as a reference to a place is indeed biblical. And it's quite possible you grew up before it was a slur. But language shifts, and in 2020 using the term כושי (kushi) to refer to a black person is not ok.

Same for the term shvartze in Yiddish, referenced elsewhere in this thread. I grew up with this term in my vocabulary and no harm was meant. But I wouldn't say it today, at least not if I was speaking English otherwise. In a fully Yiddish conversation I'd cut the speaker slack, though, especially if the speaker comes from a relatively secluded community that isn't experiencung the same drift in language the rest of society is.

Point is, context matters. You need to pay attention to how words change over time and how they'll be perceived by your audience.

>t's a bit like calling someone a "chinaman."

The Talmud speaks of an Etrog "Hakushi" to describle a black Etrog (Jewish ritual fruit). Not necessarily one that comes from "Kush".

"Kushi" is not more a slur than "Black". That is to say it is NOT a slur, although it CAN be used in a negative fashion when used in a sentence in conjunction with stereotypes associated with the black community. It all depends on the context of what is said.

It is totally not resembling "chinaman" in the context of it being used for describing negative stereotypes associated with the term. Though it is also not like "englishman" which is usually used in connotation with positive stereotypes.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that some people are adamant that the word "kushi" is harmless and wonderful, and that black people shouldn't feel hurt when this word is used to disparage them.[1]

http://www.jewishmag.com/180mag/kushi/kushi.htm

You're missing the point spectactularly. Words do not exist in groups of "These are always ok to say" and "Never say these", their meaning depends entirely on context. You should be aware of this considering the main derogatory term for African Americans and other black people is also used as a synonym for "brother" depending on the context it is said. If you're saying that Jewish people should phase out this word because some people use it in a negative way, that's a flawed argument, it's akin to saying we should ban anything that can be used a weapon - meaningless considering anything can be used as a weapon.

Rather than trying to convince people that certain words are always ok or not ok to use, you should give reasons for others to reconsider their usage of the word and prompt them to think of the context before using the word. Then you let them make the choice of when to use it.

Agreed that "Kushi" is a slur in 2020 and should not be used.

Never heard the connection with קוף before, though. Who are these some people that point this out? The linked article does not draw a connection between these two words because they ostensibly sound the same (barely), the only connection is that Yitzhak Yosef used the term כושי and in the same sermon compared black people to monkeys. The conclusion is that he's a racist and uses a comparison that I'm pretty sure is not restricted to a particular language.

these words do not sound even remotely similar.

source: I'm Israeli, fluent in Hebrew.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com