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