How the N-Word Became Unsayable
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
An increase in awareness of racism and the impact of such names has led to it being abolished completely (the sickly sweet product is now known simply as 'kisses'). Nowadays that word is something you would only use to refer to the historic product name, or to explicitly show how you are 'resisting the woke trend'. It is now a word that that one older uncle might use at a family gathering, but otherwise it's pretty much gone and younger generations will marvel at it ever being used. Such is linguistic change.
An aside: oddly enough Dutch language Wikipedia insists on using this outdated racist word for the lemma on this treat, because (in my experience with on a variety of topics) Dutch language Wikipedia editors are rather conservative in such issues and seem to hate certain linguistic shifts. To this Dutchman it comes across as thinly veiled racism under the guise of encyclopaedic integrity.
This change happened alongside awareness of the change surrounding the 'N-word' in America, so recently in opinion pieces and public debate in Dutch people are using 'N-woord' in Dutch as well. But here something odd happened. The N-word refers specifically to 'nigger' in American use, which in Dutch has a rough approximation in the quite rude and outdated 'nikker', but nowadays here the 'N-word' seems to refer almost exclusively to 'neger' (or 'nigger' when used in English lyrics in a Dutch context, for example by Dutch rappers). Is this broadening of the scope something that happens just here, or is 'negro' also slowly falling under the definition of the N-word in the US?
The taboo surrounding the spelling out of that word leads to 'N-word' leading its own semantic life, which is sometimes a bit confusing. It doesn't matter much in the grand scope of things (both words are frankly unnecessary for the most part outside of historic contexts, and are broadly seen as racist), but I find it interesting nonetheless.
"negro," in American English, is basically equivalent to "oriental," in that it's not so much of an in-your-face offensive slur like the n-word, but it's an outmoded term that only someone like your grandparents or perhaps great-grandparents would be caught using, and then swiftly corrected. definitely still offensive if used in the presence of the contemporary person who was being dubbed as such, though.
for more information on this topic among many others, I would suggest checking out the podcast "Moe Factz with Adam Curry," wherein "American Descendent of Slavery" Moe and famously Dutch-raised white American Adam Curry talk about such issues. every episode they play this Malcolm X clip that summarizes the idea for their show (and shows just how recently "negro" was commonly used—within my parents' lifetime!):
> First the white man and the black man have be able to sit down at the same table. The white man has to feel free to speak his mind without hurting the feelings of that negro. And the so-called negro has to feel free to speak his mind without hurting the feelings of the white man. Then they can bring the issues that are under the rug out on top the table and take an intelligent approach to get the problem solved—that's the only way that they'll ever do it.
I have talked with about every 'neger' I know about the word 'neger' and none of the negers had any objections to word neger in itself. And I talked about it with random negers too.
Just don't use it as a slur. The word is not much different than 'Belg' ( Belgian ).
The only people I know who get their panties in a bunch about the word 'neger' are virtue signalling white dudes and gals ( deugers ).
Even if they are completely fine with it, you can't generalise - the fact people around you don't seem to care does not mean it is a word that does not carry offence to some, or even the majority.
All swear words and insults are "just words", but their power to offend comes from context and history.
For example, the "c-word" is almost a term of affection in some groups in England and I barely consider it a swear word when in a pub in London, but is a proper pearl-clutcher in the USA and I'd never use it in front of my parents (one in California, the other in the UK). Context matters.
Well done for being curious, but don't assume your data means you have discovered a universal truth.
I haven't claimed anything like that in the slightest.
In polite Dutch conversation, print publications, television, radio, et cetera, the word is not bandied about, and addressing a random black person as 'neger' is certainly not recommended and will likely get you in trouble.
Why could it not simply be integrity or conservatism? I for one like words like `negerzoen', & I don't really understand why anyone should be offended by them. (And I don't /think/ I'm a racist.)
Ugh, yeah, the discussion[0] on this is rather pigheaded. They almost seem to go out of their way to keep it racist.
There is also a very strong culture of hiding behind [citation needed]. Even if something is factually wrong, as long as you can't present a multitude of reliable¹ sources, the old name stays, even if it is glaringly obvious that it is not in current use.
1: What constitutes 'reliable' is of course defined by the Wikipedians who can simply put in more time than any casual contributor to hold of such changes.
In the German speaking part of Switzerland they where called "mohrenkopf". There is a raging debate if the Mohren part stems from Mohren, the dark-skinned people, OR the old German word Môre, which means wild pig.
But since it's en vogue to be woke, large retails are super quick to either change the name (Schokokuss, or chocolate kiss), or get rid of the product altogether.
Not sure if "jew cakes" are racist but they sure aren't Israeli!
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/jew-cookies-a-dutch-dessert-s...
It is not really offensive, mostly, but also not a good match for the present day. Manufacturers probably won't hold on to the name for much longer.
1. The etymology of “aethiops” is uncertain. It was believed in ancient times that the word meant “burnt-face” but that may be just folk etymology. See the Oxford English Dictionary or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Etymology
2. The connection he makes with Robert Burns and Winnie-the-Pooh seems like a wild bit of unsubstantiated speculation. OED confirms that Robert Burns wrote: "How graceless Ham leugh at his Dad, Which made Canaan a niger [rhyme vigour, rigour, tiger]." But what's the connection between an 18th-century Scottish poet, A. A. Milne, and an American children's rhyme?
The connection to the children's rhyme is that we now say "catch a tiger by the tail," and in view of the above pronunciation of tiger as "tigger," you should be able to infer how the rhyme originally went (replace tail with toe so it actually rhymes with moe).
The article presents evidence that "tiger" rhymed with "vigour" in Scottish, but perhaps they both rhymed with "eager", not with "bigger". In Scotland. In the 18th century.
I couple of years ago I went to a small hardware store to buy a shovel. I couldn't find what I needed so asked the clerk, who looked at me strangely and got prickly and hostile, like I was weirdo asking for something weird. They didn't have what I wanted and I left.
About a week later it dawned on me. The clerk was a black man, the only one in the village. I had asked for spade, the kind of shovel with a pointy end for breaking ground. Apparently he had taken it as a slur, and that I had been playing some kind of game with him.
Sorry about that. I suppose I should have asked for a shovel with a pointy end.
Whereas I back in Germany it would be socially accepted to say these things as they are.
Because it’s the word itself which is the problem. If you substitute a different word, then you’re saying a different word.
> Whereas I back in Germany it would be socially accepted to say these things as they are.
German doesn’t have euphemisms?
You are right but that’s exactly the point the video is making. By trying to avoid saying the bad thing you still invoke the bad thing.
> German doesn’t have euphemisms?
Maybe but generally it’s not common.
The actual point, and the reason for the strange tip-toeing, is to do with some very rational effects around how groups signal. Any minority is always at risk from a majority. It helps to have a signal that can only be explained as a gesture of respect and which can therefore be interpreted as a sign that the majority isn't going to go genocidal (or even just dangerously exclusionary) at the drop of a hat.
In the grand scheme of things, it is pretty reasonable to ban almost exactly one word as a gesture of respect, simply to show that an important part social contract is still holding. In amongst all the PC silliness of the world I'm glad there is a part that I can rationalise and support. It makes a lot of sense from a lot of angles.
I'm not so convinced of this professor's article though, it reads a bit like someone who enjoys writing and likes words but hasn't thought enough about how social groups work to pull out the pattern.
Hmmm, maybe a bit too cutesy covering the etymology of a racist slur and then using a different racist slur in a light hearted manner)
Beyond the pale being historical phrase to refer something savagery(Dublin being the Pale, rest of Ireland being outside it), which was anti-Irish racism by the Brits at it's finest.
And while we are being so critical of evil Brits I’m sure the phrase has never been uttered by native Dubliners giving their own view of the largely rural regions of their own country?
Edit: BTW are you actually suggesting the Irish of the time were a race apart from other indigenous people of the British Isles?
Where did you get that from?
Or they're confused and think "racist" is synonymous with "bigot." It's not, it's bigotry against people of a certain race (or not of a certain race). I've seen a couple of instances of people using "racist" when race wasn't a factor; they meant "bigot" or "prejudiced" and I assumed they didn't have a broad vocabulary that included those more accurate words.
Those people are just using a current legal definition found in many countries that includes nationality as well as race to define racism.
UK: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9
> and I assumed they didn't have a broad vocabulary that included those more accurate words
Maybe crack open a dictionary?
> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution:
> 2.
> a. : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
> b. : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
> The term race has also been applied to linguistic groups (linguistics) (the “Arab race” or the “Latin race”), to religious groups (religion) (the “Jewish race”), and even to political, national, or ethnic groups (ethnic group) with few or no physical traits that distinguish them from their neighbours (the “Irish race,” the “French race,” the “Spanish race,” the “Slavic race,” the “Chinese race”, etc.).
The earlier examples of using "racist" along these lines was long before 2010.
> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution
"Common history" is very broad. Do "proper cunts" share a common history? (apparently HN Replies is speedier than one's edits).
Regardless of how broadly "race" is defined by a given law or its use documented in a dictionary, I still think "racist" in reference to a person or act is over-utilized and "bigot" in its various forms not used enough.
This [0] explanation describes a couple of definitions of "pale," a fence or a sort of political boundary with the Pale of Dublin as an example. It says "to be 'beyond the pale' was to be outside the area accepted as 'home' (outside the paling fence around one's home) and the first printed use was clearly using this sense.
I don't question whether anyone ever used "beyond the pale" in a negative way towards people in parts of Ireland but it clearly wasn't, and isn't, the exclusive meaning of the phrase.
Let's not discard something just because someone, somewhere used it in a bad way (he wrote with '88' in his username). To verb a noun, let's not swastika the phrase "beyond the pale."
[0] https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/beyond-the-pale.html
I jokingly call this verbal nitroglycerin the #BiggerDiggerTrigger just to laugh at our collective silliness.
Will Arnold Schwarzenegger be forced to change his name to appeas the Woke godz?
To hell with this mess, say I.