So… I haven’t posted on these boards in a looooooong time, but I really felt an urge to discuss this with someone, and I didn’t know where else to turn.
And just for the record: I’m a white guy from a countrynote Denmark, to be exact where People of Color have always been a very, very small minority. And I have often used words that could be considered racial slurs in a neutral or ironic way because I am almost never at risk of offending anyone.
Anyway, I was reading the N-Word Privileges article and it got me thinking…
I have Asperger’s Syndrome and I have been offended to see "Asperger’s" used around the web to mean “weird” or “not quite right in the head” and “Autism” used as a synonym for “retarded” (and that’s another thing; is it offensive to actual mentally retarded people to use the word retarded instead of, say, idiotic, asinine or exasperating?)
Of course, me and my diagnosed friends use the term autistic ourselves in an ironic, self-deprecating way; “You can’t expect me to do that, I’m just a little autistnote In Danish, the noun autistic and the adjective autistic are different words, which makes a lot more sense imo… so you could say that I myself am guilty of N-Word Privileges.
Autism and Asperger’s which should rightfully be completely neutral monikers being used with mean intent – that is, focus on the negative connotations – remind me of (my idea of) the history of the word “negro” and it’s derivatives. (Not that I’m suggesting that “autism” and “Asperger’s” will undergo a similar development!)
It seems to me that these sensitive words can develop in two different directions.
A slur is embraced by the group of people it is used against. It can be a partial transformation where only certain people end up with N-Word Privileges, or it can be a full transformation where a once derogatory term becomes a neutral term, free for anyone to use without the risk of offending someone.
The opposite of the above. A term that was originally neutral, is used in a negative context, and in some cases (like the word “negro” and its derivatives) the word ends up taking so much flavor from its negative context that the word itself has to be abandoned in favor of a new word with less baggage. People using autism in a negative context seems like the first step in this direction. Again, I don’t think autism will ever be so loaded that it will in itself become offensive.
Negro used to be just the neutral term for people of (relatively recent) African descent. But because that is was used in a very negative context at the time it was in mainstream use, it soaked up those negative connotations. And when society moved on from the ideas tied to the word negro, they moved on from the word as well, and the word and its derivatives became offensive because they were left behind with those offensive ideas.
But why does it have to be that way?
Why do so many people insist that the word “nigger” is offensive?
It seems to me that the N-word is only used by N-Word Privileges-less people with a mean intent, because only the people who deliberately intend to offend dare use it.
But if everyone could use the N-word freely without anyone getting offended wouldn’t that disarm the word?
To me it’s all about the spirit the word is spoken/written in. And if the word was used with neutral (or even positive) feelings behind it much more often then negative ones, wouldn’t it cease to be attractive as a slur?
tl;dr
Isn’t the intent behind the word more important than the word itself? And if more people could use the N-word in a neutral (or positive) spirit freely, wouldn’t the word cease to be a slur? And wouldn’t that be a good thing?
So… I haven’t posted on these boards in a looooooong time, but I really felt an urge to discuss this with someone, and I didn’t know where else to turn.
And just for the record: I’m a white guy from a countrynote where People of Color have always been a very, very small minority. And I have often used words that could be considered racial slurs in a neutral or ironic way because I am almost never at risk of offending anyone.
Anyway, I was reading the N-Word Privileges article and it got me thinking…
I have Asperger’s Syndrome and I have been offended to see "Asperger’s" used around the web to mean “weird” or “not quite right in the head” and “Autism” used as a synonym for “retarded” (and that’s another thing; is it offensive to actual mentally retarded people to use the word retarded instead of, say, idiotic, asinine or exasperating?) Of course, me and my diagnosed friends use the term autistic ourselves in an ironic, self-deprecating way; “You can’t expect me to do that, I’m just a little autistnote so you could say that I myself am guilty of N-Word Privileges.
Autism and Asperger’s which should rightfully be completely neutral monikers being used with mean intent – that is, focus on the negative connotations – remind me of (my idea of) the history of the word “negro” and it’s derivatives. (Not that I’m suggesting that “autism” and “Asperger’s” will undergo a similar development!)
It seems to me that these sensitive words can develop in two different directions.
Negro used to be just the neutral term for people of (relatively recent) African descent. But because that is was used in a very negative context at the time it was in mainstream use, it soaked up those negative connotations. And when society moved on from the ideas tied to the word negro, they moved on from the word as well, and the word and its derivatives became offensive because they were left behind with those offensive ideas.
But why does it have to be that way? Why do so many people insist that the word “nigger” is offensive?
It seems to me that the N-word is only used by N-Word Privileges-less people with a mean intent, because only the people who deliberately intend to offend dare use it. But if everyone could use the N-word freely without anyone getting offended wouldn’t that disarm the word?
To me it’s all about the spirit the word is spoken/written in. And if the word was used with neutral (or even positive) feelings behind it much more often then negative ones, wouldn’t it cease to be attractive as a slur?
tl;dr
Isn’t the intent behind the word more important than the word itself? And if more people could use the N-word in a neutral (or positive) spirit freely, wouldn’t the word cease to be a slur? And wouldn’t that be a good thing?
Thoughts?
edited 9th Aug '13 12:23:01 PM by Godnat
I swear to God there used to be a really witty sig here.