It is relevant in determining the cause. Are you saying that some of these “tweak” websites and articles may have been written before the first complaints about the word’s usage, and not in response to those complaints? I knew nothing about this issue before the incident concerning the Washing DC aide.
Possibly in part its etymology? I’m getting confused here. The articles concerning the Washington DC aide and the teacher refer to the word’s meaning and how people construed the word as a racial slur. Are you saying that instead one or both of these people who complained already knew the word’s meaning and perhaps its etymology as well?
The word means “mean” or “stingy”, and that meaning has no racial connotations. People do not take offence at the meaning.
People may take offence at the word for two reasons.
First, they may think or assume that it is derived from “nigger” and they are offended because all words associated with “nigger” are inherently offensive, and/or because they think the speaker is taking meanness as a characteristic of black people.
Secondly, they may neither know nor care whether the word is derived from “nigger”, but be upset merely because it sounds sufficiently like “nigger” to evoke the associations which that word has.
I imagine - but I don’t know - that most of those who take offence at the word already know what it means. They don’t take offence at the meaning per se.
I also imagine, but again I don’t know, that most of those who take offence do so because they think or assume that it is etymologically connected with “nigger”. However I cannot exclude the possibility that people take offence because of the sound of the word, independently of any beliefs or assumptions about etymology. That is why I say that people take offence “in part” because of a misunderstanding of its etymology.
I suspect that what may be happening in at least some cases is this; people initially take offence because of a mistaken assumption about etymology. When the matter is explained to them they remain upset because (a) they may be embarassed at having their mistake pointed out, and find it difficult to back down, and (b) depending on the context, they may suspect, but cannot be sure, that the word was used because of the “tweak” factor by a speaker who guessed that they would be mistaken about its etymology. They find this rude (which it is), and the fact that the speaker was correct in assuming that they would make this mistake is hardly likely to mollify them. Whether they are right or wrong in suspecting the motives of the speaker is neither here nor there.
All of this means that, basically, I agree with DanielWithrow; the word is now so loaded that it is an impediment to clear communication.
I’m confused, FNFNR, what you’re getting at here. I doubt these Web sites were written before the DC incident; does that in any way make their tweakerness less tweaky? If they’re trying to be obnoxious, I’m not sure if it matters what specific incidents motivate them; the important fact is that they’re trying to tweak people. Maybe I’m missing something.
jayjay, I think we’re mostly in agreement now. There’s one thing I want to clarify, though:
That’s not what I’m saying, not exactly: I’m saying that now that there’s this new connotation attached to the word for some folks, the intelligent speaker will take the connotation into account before using “niggardly.” That doesn’t mean not using the word; it may mean that you’ll need to take a side-track from what you’re talking about to explain that you don’t use the word with a racial connotation, that you’re not trying to tweak anyone, and that you think the racial connotation detracts from the word and shouldn’t be associated with the word.
I’m not willing to make that side-track for the most part, and anyway, “niggardly” isn’t a word I’d use anyway, so I see no motivation for using it. I’m not calling for "strik[ing] it from the vocabulary, though: I’m simply saying that the wise speaker takes all nuances of a word into account.
An obvious corrollary of that is that I don’t expect Chaucer to rise from the dead and change the word in his writings. Prior to the rise of the racial-epithet-connotation, there’s obviously no way an author could have taken it into account. A less-obvious corrollary (judging from some of the responses to this thread) is that it’s a good thing for teachers to teach kids about the word. If they don’t teach kids that some folks attach a racial connotation to the word, I’d say they’re doing the kids a disservice by not teaching the word completely; on the other hand, they’re equally doing the kids a disservice if they don’t explain the etymology of the word, and if they don’t explain that people can and do use the word with no racial connotations whatsoever.
You seem to be admitting that the complainers are probably either (1) embarassed by the exposure of their own ignorance, or (2) thin-skinned and suspicious.
All of which begs the question: why should anyone else care about somebody with these kinds of problems? Why should we dumb down our vocabularies to cater to people who are ignorant and/or have a chip on their shoulders?
Yes, we’re in agreement, then. I was mistakenly reading your personal disavowal of the word as a general advisory, that you were recommending that the word not be used at all rather than merely stating that you had no intentions of using it.
I’m searching for the cause. What caused the “tweaks”? What caused the complaints? My initial impression was that ignorance caused the complaints, and the complaints caused the tweaks. Posts in this thread seem to indicate that this isn’t so.
Absent ignorance, which I thought caused the complaints, would the tweaks exist? If a commonly used word such as the Spanish word “negro” was the subject of a complaint by a parent of a student taking a Spanish class, would we then see people using the word negro in that “gotcha” sense?
I have combed through this thread and not once have I found someone advocating “forced obsolescence” of the word niggardly. Basically, the discussion has been about whether its prudent or appropriate for people to deliberately incorporate that word into everyday speech under the banner of eradicating ignorance. I rule that there’s no honor to be gained in going out of the way to use that word, especially on the grounds of making some kind of “anti-PC” statement.
jayjay
This is great; reading the word “niggardly” in a Bronte novel does nothing to me, either. But we are not talking about usage in the past or in certain regions outside of contemporary American vernacular. We are talking about using words that convey a particular connotation specifically in these times and in this area.
If a stranger came up to you and asked for a faggot (and he clearly was not of British extraction), would you not wonder to yourself why he chose that word to express what he wanted? Most people don’t go around calling cigarettes faggots, so you know this person went of his way to use that particular word. “Smoke”, “ciggie” and a whole bunch of other less loaded terms could have easily been applied, but this guy had to expend extra mental energy to use a far less accessible term. Now he may be completely innocent in his use of the word “faggot”, but odds are something other than the goal of simple communication was driving him to utter that particular cluster of syllables. Which means he is not truly innocent; his ulterior motives taint the sincerity of his message; he is saying something (may be anti-gay may be not) without actually saying it, which makes him a dishonest speaker.
Does this make sense? I’m far from a PC-phile, but to me it is clear that words are so much more than words. Word-choice is almost as much as part of the message as the actual words. It seems like too many people are overlooking this reality in their quest to fight ignorance.
Just because a word is in the dictionary does not mean it needs to be liberated with wild abandonment (as Doghouse suggests) and shouted from sea to shining sea. Of course its perfectly “legitimate”, but so what? If the word derails communication even in those who are perfectly aware of its meaning (as faggot would) and the speaker has to pause to defend his use of the word (which basically boils down to “it’s in the dictionary, see? That means I can use it!”), then how functional is that word, truly? And what is the point, really? To fight ignorance in the subliterate masses? I don’t get it.
(I also doubt we would be having this debate if “faggot” was under fire and not “niggardly”. No one has even responded to my question about whether or not their word crusade will extend to “faggot”. I find that interesting.)
Let me make something clear. I hate the PC police. I despise those who try to co-opt the language for their own agendas. My contempt for them burns with the fire of a thousand nuns.
And to those who love to find offense in every nook and cranny, I want to do more than “tweak” them. I want to drag the out back and bludgeon into a bloody pulp with a 2x4. One that’s been spiked with nails. And then dipped in vinegar.
Whew! I’m glad I got that off my chest.
Now having said all that I must admit that for the most part I agree with Daniel. You’ll never find me using “niggardly” in my conversation. Why? Because it’s guaranteed to get in the way with whatever you’re really trying to say. If you don’t think so try this. The next time you’re with your buddies try using “niggardly” in a sentence in its proper context. Let’s say you’re talking about the economy. Say something like, “Well, my evaluation is coming up soon, but with the economy the way it is I’m afraid they’re going to be pretty niggardly with any raises.” Or if you’re talking football say, “There is no way Oklahoma will win the national championship this year without Jason White, but they still have one of the most niggardly defenses I’ve ever seen.” Try that and see how long the topic stays on the economy or football.
And it’s not just because you’re friends are a bunch of goober-heads. Milton Friedman could be addressing a room full of the most brilliant minds in the country and say, “In my esteemed opinion, it is a positive thing that companies are being significantly more niggardly with their stock options” and everyone in the room from Henry Kissinger down to the bus boy will have a Beavis and Butthead moment, “Huh, huh, huh! He said niggardly! Huh, huh!”
Hope it is not perceived as a slight to the ambulatory when I observe that this thread has got some legs!
Don’t want to be penurious with my compliments.
ywtf - sex columnist Dan Savage used to advocate that his readers use the salutation “Hey faggot.” I remember when he ceased, but don’t remember why. Other folk have urged disempowering the word nigger through increased usage, with no success. Of course, I also remember a particularly enlightened HS gym teacher going on a rant about how homosexuals should not be permitted to take over the perfectly good word “gay.”
As far as noun forms are concerned, I personally sense a slight difference in connotation between niggard and miser. Miser dealing with acquisitiveness, while niggard implies withholding something from another. But I may well be mistaken. Don’t believe my view is supported by most common dictionaries.
Don’t use “niggardly” just to tweak people. If you want to do that, get a shirt that says, “Eet fuck!” and let the shirt do the work for you.
Don’t use “niggardly” if you’re not prepared to sidetrack what you’re saying.
Naturally, if someone ignores my advisory, I’ll campaign to get them fired, their children kicked out of public school, and their names stricken from the census.
No, wait. If someone ignores my advisory, I’ll think them a jerk (if they ignore #1) or tactically clueless (if they ignore #2) and go on with my life.
I think that this “disempowering the word” theory has got it backwards. You don’t eliminate hard feelings by going out of the way to use slur terminology in innocuous ways; that’s a rather superficial and belittling way of looking at the situation. Why? It puts the blame on a word and not on the sources of the reaction to the word. “Faggot”, “bitch”, and “nigger” conjure up bad feelings because of what they represent (alienation, dehumanization, unacceptance, hate, inferiority); not because of what they are in an objective “every time I hear/see that word I go apeshit regardless of context” sense. You can not disempower a slur until the forces responsible for the offended emotions cease to be a major part of the offendee’s life.
Expecting a gay man not to flinch when he hears someone say “faggot” (under the false pretense of straightforward communication) and then calling him ignorant because he gets offended, only exacerbates tensions between gays and straights.
Perhaps after a few more years of the gay rights movement, that word won’t carry such volatile connations (just like “wop” and “mick”), and we can call a bundle of sticks and cigarettes faggots if we wish to without worrying about insulting our audience. But that time has not come yet. Expecting it to be here is premature. Be a little more patient.
The same can be said about black people and “niggardly”.
But I really don’t care what you do. Just offering my two cents.
If some child gets confused or misled, tell all children about both words. Just because they are kids doesn’t mean they lack the intelligence to differentiate between two things, one of which is fine, and another bad. If the parent got so upset, the parent should sit in on this little talk, too! Debating a perfectly clear intent (or one made clear upon questioning) is not the sign of a rational arguement. It is the sign of of an emotional attachment to a belief.
P.S. Tolkien used niggard in LOTR. If he can use it, so can anyone!
Ideally, you should teach the word “niggardly” to children long before you ever teach them the derogatory term for Negro.
That would eliminate any confusion.
I’m puzzled why there is no backlash whatsoever that 4th-graders ALREADY KNOW and/or use the derogatory term for Negro.
We should all be very embarrassed that our children are thought to be too simple to learn words used for a milennia, yet we accept for fact that our children can easily learn derogatory slang at a very early age.
Pull yourselves together, adults. Teach your kids good words before you teach them bad ones.
A better idea than retiring the word is to take to task the idiots who object to the word. What utter stupidity is this?!? Professional victims will always have something to object to no matter how benign and orthogonal the object of contention is. The person whose behavior need changing is the one crying racism where there’s none.
Oh and don’t teach them that a rooster is ofter called a cock. Or a kitten can also be called a pussy. All I know is on my DVDs of the Cycle of the Ring they use the word niggardly in the subtitles.
