This was the problem.
The parent is a bigot, and an ignorant one at that.
Actually, it is exactly what you quoted:
Well, okay, two out of three. Two out of three is, however, more than “not any”.
What about “Miser”?
I don’t see a point in reprimanding the teacher. But it’s an archaic word that no one uses and that will likely just cause giggling, so I don’t see any point in teaching it or bringing it up unless it appears in a work of literature they are reading for class.
Even though the thread is 10 years old …
No, a 4th grade teacher should not use the world “niggardly”. Neither should they extol the virtues of social intercourse or describe how they had a gay time at the beach, or explain the proper way to feed an apple to an ass. The purpose of language is communication, and teachers in particular should try to avoid using words that are likely to misunderstood. I can’t imagine a situation that calls for using “niggardly” where “stingy” or “miserly” wouldn’t work just as well.
The fact that “niggardly” is *technically *not a slur is immaterial. Even though it’s technically not a slur, there’s a damn good chance that someone will perceive it as one anyway. So unless you’re deliberately trying to push people’s buttons, you should avoid using it.
I don’t really think about that word, like Niggard it is rather old fashioned.
I guess if I was calling a black person tight, it would be safer to call them a miser.
Hmm.. thinking about it… it’s been ten years now, the complaining mother’s child might be in prison by now, does anyone know their name.
What? No it’s not. I’m not even sure which one you think it’s most similar to. But it’s unquestionably not “exactly what you [which is to say I] quoted.”
The person needs correction in his/her hypersensitivity to a word that merely resembles a racial slur but is otherwise utterly distinct from it in terms of spelling, meaning, etymology, etc. You correct them by calling them out and by not validating their stupid reaction.
It’s technically not a slur in the sense that an orange is technically not an automatic rifle.
Not sure how you get bigot out of that, but the parent sure as hell is an oversensitive jackass. Or was in 2002, anyway; maybe he’s mellowed.
A non functioning replica automatic rifle is not technically an automatic rifle either, but it may be mistaken for one. Point that replica at a cop and that encounter is not going to turn out well.
If your choice of word/toy is likely to be mistaken for the “bad” one, then you are purposefully setting yourself up for that misunderstanding to bite you in the ass.
Niggard is a word that currently has no particular value in enhancing one’s ability to communicate a concept, unless that concept is how innocent words can be mistaken for slurs. For that purpose, it is an excellent choice.
You cannot be serious. Should we all refer to Niger as “the country west of Chad” lest somebody get all shirty about the spelling? I mean, its name has no particular value in enhancing our ability to communicate. :rolleyes:
Irrelevant. “Niggard” is not and never was a “replica” of a slur, or a simulation of a slur, or a minced euphemism for a slur. It’s similarity to a slur is coincidental. You might say one could point a roll of tape at a cop and the encounter won’t turn out well, but it presupposes the cop is predisposed to assume pointed things are weapons.
I can buy a moment of confusion, of “huh? What did you just say?” upon hearing “niggardly” for the first time. It’s a somewhat old-fashioned and unusual word, after all. But to take offense, and persist in taking offense… well, that’s just dumb, and I decline to indulge dumbitude.
I think it’s a silly hill to die on but to each his own.
Again: how is the person incorrect if the sound of the word makes them uncomfortable?
Their discomfort is based on an error of fact.
Every time Niger comes up in the news, do they mention a half dozen synonymous words that would communicate the concept just as clearly as “Niger”? They don’t, because there is only one word that means Niger, and it’s Niger, and it doesn’t even sound the slightest bit like a slur.
Niggard enjoys no such exclusivity. It’s just one of a dozen words that mean the same sort of thing, it’s also outmoded, dated and unusual. It begs the question of whether that person who declared “I hate all those damn niggards” is honestly expressing a feeling about people who are tight with money, or just trolling everyone within earshot.
It’s like a teenager doing an oral report on animal breeding so he can stand in front of the class and say Bitch, Cock and Dam as many times as he wants.
The person is incorrect in his being hypersensitive. There is no reason why any rational being should be sensitive over a word that merely resembles a racial slur even when said word was used in the correct context. Can you defend the hypersensitivity? Are you trying to point out that a person’s discomfort is never incorrectly derived and expressed?
So you don’t use it, and it’s therefore offensive?
It might be. And it might be that the report was in fact a legitimate report on animal breeding, and the words bitch, cock, and dam were used appropriately, along with the words hen and sire, to describe aspects of animal ancestry.
The issue is that while it’s a legitimate complaint to say that the word was being using to troll for reactions, it’s not a legitimate complaint to claim that the word is per se inappropriate.