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?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
berrybrowne wrote:
I agree with your comments, Carmen. As irritating as it is to give any positive slant to the whole Richards’ thing, it was helpful in that it provided another opportunity for African-Americans and others to reflect on our attempts to reappropriate the n-word. I think the resolution is a good (if ultimately somewhat empty) step in that it reenergizes a public discussion on the problems that common use of the n-word still creates. For example, I recall reading about a criminal case where a white man was on trial for assaulting a black man while shouting the n-word and other derogatory language. His counsel, in arguing why it should not be a hate crime, explained that the n-word was no longer hate speech, but part of our common vernacular due to the influence of hip-hop. What a tragedy…
Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 12:34 pm ¶
ren wrote:
I semi-agree with the idea that a word is just a word, that intent supplies the meaning but I disagree that there isn’t ANY power intrinsically embedded in a word based not on the intent of the user but purely on the associations of that word.
Would this be an impromptu time to say diarrhea?
Bear with me, it’s not often I can bring up diarrhea in public conversation. How is it that we can build satellites and probes that fly out to the furthest reaches of our galaxy and we’re still too scared to say diarrhea to anyone that isn’t our mother? I call that selective evolution. It’s simply a descriptor of an ailment. There’s no real way of using the term with a negative intent, hell you don’t even have to say it in a sentence just saying the word, it has associations that resonate strongly with us. We need to stop using euphemisms like stomach flu and intestinal problems and proudly reclaim the word diarrhea. Ok, I digress.
To the issue of the word nigga/nigger. For one thing, I’m glad the paper pointed out it was a symbolic and not legally reinforced resolution so we don’t have to hear the cry of semantic totalitarianism from the Ann Coulter folk. Not that she’d be necessarily wrong on this issue cause I don’t hold to the idea that language can be made exclusive to any one group, I just don’t want to hear her. If this term IS one of endearment and you cut off people of all other races from using this term “as endearment” then you are actually making judgments of who can declare themselves or you a friend based on the color of their skin. It’s counterproductive in creating any type of unity among races if “friendships” with non-blacks reside on a vastly different level than your friendships with blacks, such that it uses a vernacular that is aggressively guarded and denied to everyone else.
I think the term is stupid, both terms. Dropping the “r” doesn’t make it a different word that’s the most absurd argument. You’ve read articles where they censor the swear words with asterisks, like you can’t determine what f**k means. Did you ever wonder why they never censored it fu*k? Obviously fuk is not a swear word based on our dictionary, but it would be hard to claim that it doesn’t have obvious associations that the term still clings to. Some might say it’d be counterintuitive to censor the f-word in that manner. Or another way of saying it, it’s be fuking stupid to think these fuking terms aren’t associated with each other…. I feel strangely dirty after saying that.
Enough of the claims of reappropriation/decontexualization/re-claiming/semiotics/connotation… it sounds just as stupid a reason coming from a gangster rapper as it does coming from a “language philosopher”. I would love to see the N-word banned, not by enforcement but by consensus. What I’d love to see more is people actually avoiding the term, which I highly doubt will happen.
Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 5:01 pm ¶
Alex wrote:
First of all, let’s stop being ridiculous and refer to the word as “nigger” and not the “N-word”.
Is there something offensive about saying “nigger” instead of the “N-word” when used only so that people know what the word is and with no malicious intent whatsoever? I would argue that calling it the “N-word” is childish and reminds me of Voldemort being called He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. By saying the “N-word” instead of “nigger” in NON-MALICIOUS circumstances (such as describing to someone what word this new law forbids), we are simply giving more power to the word.
Secondly, what is the use of banning the word? Will preventing someone from saying “nigger” make that person any less of a racist if they already were one to begin with? Will it stop less obvious forms of racism like discriminating against resumes with African-American sounding names? I would argue that banning the word will change nothing. It will only make things worse by making “nigger” an even more powerful slur against African0-Americans. I’m not saying that people should freely throw the word around. But freedom of speech should trump someone being offended in such a case. If a person if called nigger, is that akin to threatening bodily harm ala Michael Richards’ lynching joke? Of course not. So why are we banning a word? Perhaps we should work to eliminate the meaning of that word.
Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 5:49 pm ¶
Vandia wrote:
I agree with your point here. And besides, so long as the underlying socio-economic realities don’t change banishing a word will not achieve much……
Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 8:43 pm ¶
LM wrote:
Reappropriation happens constantly, and at the same time a word will still have its bite if used derogatorily… context is everything. In particular with the n- word I see value in educating folks as to its history, but ultimately I think legislating it is a bad idea.
Berrybrowne may have been referring to the “Fat Nick” case in Queens, NY recently (’05-’06?), and without knowing too much about it I can see that a) it’s possible “Fat Nick,” in his everyday life and on the night of the incident, used the n-word the same as he would “buddy” — but the end result is that he beat someone’s head in… no question he deserved punishment. The word(s) he used were incidental to the crime.
Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 9:19 pm ¶
Tereza wrote:
As hiddeous and offensive as the n-word is, I am very wary and disturbed by the idea of words getting banned. What if this type of censorship sets a precedent for some very serious encroachments on free speech in this country? This could be quite a slippery slope. I agree with NY Press columnist John DeSio that “it is unsettling that any government institution might look to censor free speech, which does afford us the right to say offensive stuff.”
And also with the BET show host and writer Keith Boykin in “the solution to the problem with the f-word and the n-word has to come from education, not legislation. We have to understand the context of these harmful words and educate people who use them inappropriately. We also have to speak up when people use offensive language in the private sphere if we expect to have an impact when they use that language in the public sphere. And we have to watch the language we use ourselves and think about the messages that we send to those around us, and especially to young people.”
Posted 07 Mar 2007 at 12:52 am ¶
Tim wrote:
I don’t know if “reclamation” is the right term for non-racist use of the n-word. Even when used among black speakers alone, usually by black men to refer to other black men, it isn’t used positively or even neutrally. It’s still deprecating, sometimes brutally so, and even at its most amiable it’s almost always ironically self-deprecating. So let’s not fool ourselves — the word always draws its force from a core connotation of insult and aggression.
There’s still a difference, though, in the status and meaning of the word when used by different speakers in different contexts. In some ways, naive white people are closer to the truth when they say what they don’t understand about the n-word is that white people can’t use it but black people can. I would hold that while it’s not a neutral or affirming term when used by anyone, the biggest contextual difference occurs when it’s used by nonblacks.
There isn’t anything especially unique about the n-word compared to other similar terms. Some Italian-American (again, especially men) use “guinea” the same way, while others find it offensive anytime; and one gay man might call another gay man “faggot” or “homo,” either affectionately/ironically or if he’s embarassed by his behavior. The same words have a completely different charge if they’re used aggressively by someone who isn’t gay. Some women use “bitch” with one another this way; others have tried to reclaim “bitch” after the model of “queer.”
At its core, like most curse words, the current volatility of “nigger” comes from the inherent volatility of the way men talk with other men. Racial, sexual, and religious insults, especially when the speaker is insulting himself or his own group, get used on a spectrum from total laughing amiability to total insulting aggression. Usually, the aggression is more posturing than anything else.
But when the speaker and the receipient of the insult are in different groups, where the insult itself identifies and constitutes the difference, then there’s no wavebreak of common identity to dissolve the aggression, and the threat of violence becomes real. That’s why these words are dangerous. I don’t think most people still understand that.
So no, you can’t “reclaim” the word. The word is always illegitimate, and it is always about racism. This is where its power comes from. It is not always racist, though. I think we should continue to see it in literature and print, on film and on TV. It is part of the way that people talk, both black and white, and you can’t get crap back in the donkey. We still need to understand it better. That doesn’t mean pretending like it doesn’t matter, or that the word is just OK.
P.S.: In my opinion, the most successful case study in reclamation is the word “black.”
Posted 10 Mar 2007 at 3:31 pm ¶
Rob wrote:
Pointless.
What a stupid waste of time and resources.
Posted 12 Mar 2007 at 11:23 am ¶