Will a ban on the n-word be effective?

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

Thursday’s edition of New Jersey paper Herald News had an article about the ongoing debates surrounding various politicians’ motions to ban the n-word, at least symbolically. The article included a couple quotes from yours truly:

Richards’ use of the word was the least offensive part of his tirade, which also included shouted references to lynchings and white supremacy, said Carmen Van Kerckhove, co-founder and president of the New York-based New Demographic anti-racism training program. Most people focused solely on his use of the epithet, for which Van Kerckhove blames Americans’ frequent failure to recognize more subtle racial insults.

…But, said Van Kerckhove, anyone who uses the word with malicious intent erases the positive power attributed to it. So she supports the ban — but acknowledges that, ultimately, it probably would accomplish nothing.

Well, I didn’t exactly say it would “accomplish nothing.” I think the point of these symbolic resolutions are to get the public dialogue going about the issue. And that’s a positive thing.

But I am pretty skeptical about the ability to completely reclaim words that have historically been considered slurs. Even the word “queer,” which is probably the most successful case study in reclamation, still wields power if someone uses it as a homophobic slur. That power is still there if someone uses it with a certain intent.

What do you think of banning the n-word? And do you think it’s ever possible to completely reclaim a word?