Comments on: ‘Nappy Roots’?

By: Karl

Karl — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:02:36 +0000

I agree that that particular word should not be used, which everyone over a particular age who is not a hermit should know of and should know is deeply offensive.
And regarding part (4), I essentially agree with that — I do not think that it is in our hands alone, but I do assume that anyone who is black would already be doing everything that he can think of to secure their rights and their “place at the table,” so any new effort on point (4) would have to come from people of other races.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:44:53 +0000

We’re basically on the same page regarding “you guys”, where there’s nothing basically offensive about anyone’s using the words, and it’s _just_ a question of speaker’s intent; that’s why I was saying that such concerns should be addressable when they arise. My point was to _distinguish_ it from cases like “nappy ho”, where the words themselves have an offensiveness.
The short answer to the rest of your post is that achieving your step (4) requires actions of white people that it does not require of black people — it is _our_ obligation to create an environment where (4) is at least possible. And that our yielding any right to any say-so whatsoever over words like the n-word are an important part of creating that environment.

By: Dave L

Dave L — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:44:37 +0000

Actually, ‘prostituted’ can be used just like you used the word ‘whored’, and I think the two examples you gave above are equally pejorative. Now if you want to contrast that with ‘She compromised her principles to make partner’, I’d agree that that is potentially less pejorative, only because ‘whored’ and ‘prostituted’ imply in their most common definitions that she had sex to get ahead.
I didn’t say no one has ever used slut and whore to disparage all women, but if that’s the criteria then we’ve got tons of words that are now supposedly pejorative; ‘come on’ indeed. No one is demanding for example that the nursery rhyme, ‘Hickory Dickory Dock’, be removed from children’s books because Dice used it in his dirty (and stupid) rhymes.
“…doesn’t mean that she is somehow precluded from getting upset if a man tells her that bitches ain’t…”
I agree, for the same reason that she can get upset if a man tells her that women are worthless except as prostitutes; it’s not the words that are pejorative in that case, it’s the sentiment. Now if the same woman is having dinner with me and my girlfriend and I refer to my girlfriend as ‘my bitch’, I don’t think she has the right to be upset; if she doesn’t know whether I meant it as an affectionate or a disparaging term, then she shouldn’t get upset if she inferred it incorrectly. And I think that ties in to what I implied earlier, that the use of the term ‘ho’ in rap songs does not always equate to the sentiment that ‘women are pieces of meat’.

By: Karl

Karl — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:27:05 +0000

The issue with things like “you guys” is different than the issue with things like “nappy ho”. The concern with the former is that the speaker means something synonymous with “you people”, which may well be a legitimate concern, but that’s a concern that should be addressable.
In both cases, it concerns whether someone’s words will be viewed as offensive and racist, even if the speaker did not know or have any reason to know that it would be seen that way and cause offense. It also concerns a double standard, because, of course, if the person who says “nappy” or “you guys” is of the same race as the people who the words are being used to talk about, then no one will think that words were the product of offensive thoughts.
Even if the distinction you draw between “nappy” and “you guys” is a true difference, I still see the “you guys” trouble as a good example of how the speaker may not even suspect that the word or phrase has the potential to cause offense. It is possible that you wanted to limit your “responsibility should fall on the majority community” idea to words that a majority person suspects could always cause offense when coming from him/her, but I do not know why you would. If “nappy,” for example, were only offensive in a certain usage or context, then the need to avoid offense would not deny anyone access to the vocabulary altogether, but it should shape the use of it, just as it would shape the circumstances under which “you guys” might be used. If there is an obligation to investigate, I don’t see why it would make a difference whether the word is completely off limits or can only be used in certain ways.
“You guys” may or may not be an equivalent of “you people,” as you claim. Even when race is not involved, I see “you people” as involving at least a little hostility, but “you guys” is just a way of dealing with the English language’s lack of a separate word for the collective version of “you.” If someone, in the course of a sentence, needs to use a pronoun to refer to the group to which she is speaking, there is no reason to assume on this basis alone that the use of “you” or “you guys” has any racial component to it or was the product of any hostile intent.
I have to just fundamentally reject the picture of the problem of racism as you’re painting it, Karl, where you make it sound like there’s one thing that is equally shared around by different racial groups.
I disagree with this characterization of my “painting.” In my previous comment, I wrote, “every example of people separating themselves from each other along racial lines in either their minds or in some practice, is a symptom of the problem, but collectively, they make up attitudes and behaviors. They are not just a consequence — they are the problem itself. They give everyone else a reason to think that it’s just the way things are, and they create a pattern for themselves to adhere to in the future.” This does not suggest that this is shared equally between any two races. I have no idea how to quantify it or express it as a ratio. What I have said is that this sense of division is an obstacle to solving the problem, regardless of where it is. This is as much a practical question as a moral one, and if the solution won’t work, it isn’t even a solution.
This way of thinking about the problem utterly fails to take into account the historical and ongoing problem of anti-black racism,
Actually, I acknowledged both that “This attitude is certainly a consequence of the problem” and that “it is possible for people who would have suffered many of the same experiences to feel a connection as a result.” I also said that this attitude could only be successfully attacked along with the rest of the problem. I do not, however, agree with the implied conclusion that if it was caused by the problem, it cannot now be feeding the problem, or accept
…the different and specific moral obligations that this problem imposes…In the actual world we live in, whites have some substantial moral obligations to minorities for which there is no reciprocal obligation.
I suspect that I disagree with more in this than it is actually possible to respond to now, since I only have one explicit example of these substantial moral obligations without reciprocal obligations. In theory, though, I reject it on both moral and practical grounds.
This is wrong on moral grounds, first, because everyone has moral obligations to other people. They may not be reciprocal obligations (because they are the same obligations shared by everyone else, not those obligations’ counterparts), but they exist. Among other things, there are obligations to be reasonable and civil in dealing with other people, and to avoid making judgments about a person, or at least to avoid judgments until one has something to base them on. These remain in effect between people of different races. These obligations do not arise as a counterpart to obligations that themselves arose out of history, but they exist. No one who I know, who is black, does not accept these basic obligations, at least to the same extent as people of other races seem to be meeting them.
Second, regarding the “substantial moral obligations” that “whites have,” you point to history and to present racism to explain the origin of this obligation, but this argument does not follow from its basis to the conclusion. Its main failure is assuming that any moral blame or obligation can attach to a color of skin, unless you just meant to say that this is an application of the universal moral obligation to take an interest in justice and in what is happening in the rest of the world (and particularly the part of the world within one’s reach) to the context that a person has light skin. In that case, I would just say that I do not think that this obligation could play out the way you would have indicated.
As for the practical objections, the attitude I discussed last night is a practical obstacle to solving the problem. Even if you can establish that a particular black person is justified in seeing his white neighbors as strangers who cannot be allowed to see “black dirty laundry” while seeing celebrities as close enough friends (provided that they are also black) that a secret can be shared between them, I do not know how you can deny that this is at least an obstacle to solving the problem, if not now a part of the problem itself. It is difficult to explain why without actually having a solution to examine, but whatever the solution will be, I think it will at least be necessary 1) for large parts of both of these races to be exposed to each other and to become familiar and comfortable with each other, to the point that this invented idea of “race” loses its mysterious power over them, 2) for it to be understood that culture and language are, at the very most, correlated with race, and are not truly connected to it in any meaningful sense, 3) for people of different races to somehow come to accept willing people from every other race as their equal partners in dealing with the remaining racists, and 4) for black people to believe, and to be justified in believing, that they are safe and that their rights and their place at this table are secure. This is not a real solution because I do not know how to accomplish these four things, and it is possible that something else would need to be done in addition to them. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine a solution succeeding without these four points, and the attitude of people who think like “Christopher Farley” would interfere with the first and third, at least. Every attitude or behavior that a person has that separates him or her from other people, along racial lines, whether in practice or just in the mind, would interfere with the solution.
You talk about how this is not an idealized world, and how we cannot just press a button, and you are right. However, I think that the path you seem to be advocating is impractical, and is like wishing for the magic button. If we don’t have to defeat the “Christopher Farley” attitude as a part of the solution, then it will continue to be a factor in causing physical separation, preventing the formation of trust, and impeding communication. Also, even though people who are black did not create racism and doubtlessly wish it would go away, the “no reciprocal obligation” language, particularly in its use as a response to my criticism of the Christopher Farley attitude, would seem to reject any potential solution that would require a willingness to trust well-meaning white people who want an end to racism, to see these white people as their neighbors (for the lack of a more novel word for this) in general (though it could still rightly require white people to see black people as their neighbors), and for it to be possible to discuss all of these issues freely and openly. I think it would also reject potential solutions that depend in part on “thick skin.”
This would increase what any solution would have to ask of white people collectively, and even if that is justifiable, it can make it unworkable. From a standpoint of practicality, how much self-awareness and sensitivity and verbal precision are we actually likely to eventually get out of most white people, in addition to a good-faith desire to make things better? People of the same race frequently speak imprecisely and offend each other by accident, and then overreact to the other person’s reactions, and build simple misunderstandings into remarkable feuds. How are we going to get white people to do better than that on a mass scale? Also, even if you think that it is justified to impose “significant moral obligations” on them, and even if you were objectively right about this, it will be difficult to get a white person to agree to this if he thinks he is being treated unfairly. How will we make them drop these objections while causing them to proactively reach out across racial lines while changing their own behaviors, on a mass scale? How will we convince them to do this, on a mass scale, even when there is a risk that they will be called racist or insensitive for saying “you” or “you guys” or for stepping on some other landmine? This does not even have to sound probable to you for it to affect their willingness to go along with the plan. Will we be able to convince them to talk to the Christopher Farleys, who aren’t eager to talk back, again, on a mass scale? Then, of course, there are the logistical problems of reaching so many white people and instructing them on what they need to do and what they need to avoid doing. We would need that magic button to make white people carry this burden on this scale, and as you said, there is no such button.
The solution is going to take a lot of effort, whatever it is, but I think it will become a lot harder, and possibly impossible, if addressing the “Christopher Farley” attitude and requesting tolerance for innocent errors are taken off the table.

By: Nick Blesch

Nick Blesch — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:00:08 +0000

Well, there are connotations to each word that do make them mean different things. To “whore” can also mean to “compromise principles for personal gain,” as in “She totally whored herself to her boss in order to make partner.” You wouldn’t ever say* “She totally prostituted herself to her boss in order to make partner” because the words can have diffent meanings, and only one of them is particularly perjorative.
*Although if our hypothetical “she” did in fact have sex with her boss for money in order to make money, I suppose the phrase would work.
===
And if you think those terms have never been used to slur the entire female gender (the way that the n-word is used to slur an entire race), then you really should go listen to Andrew Dice Clay’s comedy, or Dr. Dre’s albums. “Bitches Ain’t Shit but Hos and Tricks”? Come on.
(And the way that I think it’s okay for black people to call themselves whatever they want but getupset if white people call black people whatever they want, women have the same right contra men. Just because a woman wants to buy Bitch magazine and listen to Bitch by Merryl Bainbridge doesn’t mean that she is somehow precluded from getting upset if a man tells her that bitches ain’t shit but hos and tricks.)

By: Dave L

Dave L — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:40:31 +0000

I hear what you’re saying, Nick, but if I’m understanding your examples correctly, we may be talking past each other. I am not saying that slut, ho, are interchangable terms for ‘woman’, nor do they have a history of being such; the n-word has the history of being a demeaning reference for *all* black people, ‘fag’ for all gay people, etc. I am ’seriously implying’ that it is no worse to use a term like ‘whore’ or ’slut’ instead of ‘prostitute’ or promiscuous. In your example above there is essentially no difference to calling a woman a ’slut’ and calling her promiscuous or saying she sells sex for money, both are pejorative. It is offensive to say to a woman that she is promiscuous no matter what euphemism you find acceptable.
The utterance of the words ’slut’ and ‘whore’ are simply not offensive to all women, especially since many women have no qualms about using those words themselves as you acknowledged. Are you seriously implying that ’slut’ and ‘whore’ are supposedly profane or vulgar in every usage, like the ‘f’ or ’s’ word? I’d argue that the concept of a certain arrangement of letters being vulgar (since what they actually refer to is not) is ridiculous, and we’ve already poisoned enough words already.
Would actual prostitutes object to the term ‘whore’ and say, ‘Don’t call me a ‘whore’, I’m a prostitute’? Is it pejorative in your mind to say, ‘A lot of druggies and whores hang out on Hollywood Blvd?’

By: Nick Blesch

Nick Blesch — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:24:32 +0000

How is ‘ho’ a pejorative word for an entire gender? The worst definition I can find is ‘prostitute’; is that word (and slut, whore, harlot, etc) pejorative for an entire gender? Those words specify a woman with particular attributes; not all women.
Two things:
1) I didn’t mean exactly what I wrote there. More accurately, what I meant was along the lines of “he used a racially-loaded term right before he used a gender-loaded term.”
2) Although I didn’t mean what you said, as I thought about it, I realized that what you said makes no sense.
You claim that “ho,” “slut,” and such are not offensive to all women because they only refer to certain types of women – are you seriously implying that only women who accept money for sex or who are promiscuous can be offended by such terms? Would you really call a woman a slut and then say something like “Oh, silly, you’re not promiscuous so you don’t have any right to get mad about that name!”
No, the terms are offensive to all women. Just like (contra Chris Rock) the n-word is offensive to all African Americans and the term “beaner” is offensive to all Hispanics, regardless of whether or not they in fact consume legumes.
The division between what you say and how you say it constitutes a false dichotomy; both what you say and how you say it are important to take into account. And so while there are women who are happy to be called sluts, hos, bitches, etc, just as there are members of all groups who adopt as a badge of pride an otherwise perjorative term, this does not change the fact that the general use of the term is perjorative. And it certainly doesn’t change the fact that the term is perjorative to all members of a targeted group, regardless of whether it specifically applies.
(And sorry for the multiple comments… stupid internet connection. )

By: Nick Blesch

Nick Blesch — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:11:48 +0000

If you know that “nappy” (or anything else) is a term that is used in connection specifically to African-Americans, then it’s up to you to find out whether it’s an ok word for you to use before you use it.
This is a much more eloquent version of what I was trying to say, as well as evidence that I should read the rest of a thread before replying.
===
After all, different members of a particular minority community may see it differently, and some white guy trying to defend something offensive that he said by saying that a black person had previously told him that it is okay would be unlikely to succeed.
Right, and that’s why such terms (with obvious reasonableness limitations, of course) should just be avoided. I have met women who proudly wear the label “bitch,” and I have also met women who are offended by the term. More extreme (in both directions) are the reactions to the “c-word,” which is again embraced by some and reviled by others. This is why you really shouldn’t call a woman a bitch or refer to her genitals as such without some really excellent prior knowledge of how she (and anyone around) might react.
===
This way of thinking about the problem utterly fails to take into account the historical and ongoing problem of anti-black racism, and the different and specific moral obligations that this problem imposes…our thinking about what are appropriate policies, and about who owes what kind of respect & deference to whom about what questions, simply cannot be addressed by asking whether such policies or deferences would exist in an idealized world.
Again, saying what I would have said, except better.

By: Nick Blesch

Nick Blesch — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:01:06 +0000

The reason why my argument does not apply to Imus and Richards, however, is not just that I say it doesn’t.
You’ll have to forgive me for having just assumed disingenuousness when I see others making the same exact arguments in defense of Imus. (I’ve grown bitter in my old age, I suppose, for which I apologize.)
It does, however, demonstrate how unfamiliarity with a word can make people unfamiliar with the extent of its offensiveness…
Which is why people should take care in using words like that in the first place. How often do you hear the word “niggardly” bandied about, even though it is wholly unrelated to other certain perjoratives?
===
As for racial division: I suppose it all depends on how generally you look at things. I look at things from a broad view, and see that there are plenty of cases where A can say something that’s fine to B that would be offensive if A said it to C.
Given the history between whites and blacks in America, which, mind you, was unimaginably more contentious a mere 40 years ago than it is now – well, that there might be some things that black people are okay to hear other black people say but not to hear other white people say is unsurprising. I think that this sort of divide will weaken over time (although it may not disappear for a very, very long time, if ever). But I don’t see this as an example of things getting worse – I see it as an example of things getting better.
===
As for double standads, yes, you’re correct. It’s just that I don’t see the cause for alarm over this one, either. (In fact, I’d swallow same-sex restrooms far quicker than I’d swallow some sort of mandate that no group of people can be offended by someone outside that group’s use of a word.) Certainly people have a right to be offended, right? I wouldn’t support a ban on racial slurs, but I am fine seeing people get fired for using them.)
A separate comment will follow because I just had to type all that twice, and I don’t want to lose it again.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:02:48 +0000