The Straight Dope: Fighting Ignorance Since 1973 (It’s taking longer than we thought)
After reading this thread, I understand why 
Excluded middle, much? It’s possible, as others have said, to exonerate the teacher, yet deplore the use of the word in general conversation. Everybody in this thread supports the teacher and thinks the parent is an idiot, so let that strawman go back to Oz, 'mmkay?
The point that I and others are making is that even though “niggardly” is not in any way related to the N-word, its phonetic similarity still causes a sense of outrage and offense. IMO, the bad feelings and potential for misunderstandings it engenders far outweigh its utility.
Your profile says you are in England. I know your country has its own racial problems, but I suspect that over there, the N-word is not the hair-trigger, thermonuclear detonator it is here. In the USA, the N-word is conversational Kryptonite; it is literally The Worst Thing You Can Say. It creates such harsh emotions that even harmless words with unfortunate homophony are contaminated with its toxic fallout.
Excluded middle, much? It’s possible, as others have said, to exonerate the teacher, yet deplore the use of the word in general conversation. Everybody in this thread supports the teacher and thinks the parent is an idiot, so let that strawman go back to Oz, 'mmkay?
The point that I and others are making is that even though “niggardly” is not in any way related to the N-word, its phonetic similarity still causes a sense of outrage and offense. IMO, the bad feelings and potential for misunderstandings it engenders far outweigh its utility.
Your profile says you are in England. I know your country has its own racial problems, but I suspect that over there, the N-word is not the hair-trigger, thermonuclear detonator it is here. In the USA, the N-word is conversational Kryptonite; it is literally The Worst Thing You Can Say. It creates such harsh emotions that even harmless words with unfortunate homophony are contaminated with its toxic fallout.
IMO, the only people who ought to be allowed to say it are Chris Rock, Chris Tucker, and Samuel L. Jackson (but only in Quentin Tarantino movies.)
What happens in science class when they talk about homo sapiens?
Care to explain why Jay-z is so popular? Or DMX? Or why I hear it constantly on my block?
Oh I see- it’s the worst thing I can say, not the worst thing anyone can say.
Most of this debate seems like it’s based on the false assumption that people are going to use “niggardly” in order to “get away with something”- like Bart Simpson saying “bastard” repeatedly when he finds out his uncle was born out of wedlock (or see bricker’s “loopholes” pit thread). I have yet to see anyone use “niggardly” in that sense. Or “snigger” for that matter.
Mojo, care to say who’s been claiming that “people are going to use niggardly in order to get away with something”? I suspect you’re referring to me, and that merely shows that you’re not getting my point: some peoplewill use the word that way.
If you deny that, then you’ve not been reading the same thread I’ve been reading, in which people talk about using “niggardly” to defy the PC Police.
Gobear, excellent point about nigger’s thermonuclear nature as a word in the US; maybe some of the folks arguing that niggardly is okay aren’t aware of that nature.
(FWIW, I don’t like euphemisms like “the N-word”. If we’re discussing a word and its connotations, I’d prefer to use the word we’re discussing. All the same, I’m glad we’re having this conversation in writing: my reaction to “nigger” is strong enough that I have a hard time saying it aloud, even in a discussion like this.)
Daniel
I appreciate this concise presentation. Thanks.
My problem with 2&3 is that they rely solely upon the perceiver to define the offense, whether or not it was intended. In my limited experience, there are certain classes of folk who are all too eager to perceive ostensibly neutral messages as hostile towards a group they identify with. Yes, racism exists, as do antisemitism and sexual harrassment. But complaints such as these trivialize what (IMO) are more significant manifestations of such bigotry and incivility.
What I believe is called for is movement on both sides. Yes, people need to be more sensitive to the potential manners in which their words and actions may be received. But at the same time, I believe some folk need to develop thicker skins, and not automatically perceive insult when none was intended.
Yes, perception is very personal, as well as very real and powerful. But it can also be mistaken. Or based upon false or inadequate information. Just because someone chooses to take offense, does not mean I - or society as a whole - need to treat that offense as meritous. If an individual takes offense at another’s remarks, but is reassured that no such offense was intended, and can muster no evidence to impute ill-motive, I believe it is incumbent upon the offended party to acknowledge that they might well have been mistaken. And I believe such acknowledgment sould occur just as publicly as the initial complaint. That, IMO, would foster communication and tolerance. But it wouldn’t garner the headlines.
My opinion:
It’s one heck of a slippery slope. There are innumerable homonyms of offensive words. And the retirement of words is a bad thing, period.
The offended people are in the wrong, period. No amount of discussing how their mistakes make them feel changes that.
Daniel - “defiance of the PC police” need not be done out of ill intent.
I do not consider it in any way wrong to decline to bow to ignorance and prejudice.
I consider the misinterpretation of the word niggardly mistaken and ignorant. Such a position should be addressed and corrected with information, not apologetic acquiesence.
Probably the best reason for teaching as much vocabulary as possible as early as possible is illustrated by this speech allegedly given by Sen. George Smathers when he ran against Claude Pepper in rural northern Florida in 1950. It is ignorance that causes trouble, not the use of any particular word. Teachers should be encouraged to enlighten their pupils, not “protect” them from homophones (which word itself might cause trouble in some quarters).
gobear may be right that some people perceive certain words in negative ways, However, the way to dispel ignorance is to attack it, not to retreat from it.
Doesn’t this parent realize that the more publicity this generates, the more forbidden and therefore irresistible this word is going to be to these kids?
Better to go with the flow, than put your finger in the dyke and hope to hold back the flood. 
First, Jay-Z, DMX, and their cohorts aren’t saying “nigger”; they’re saying “nigga,” which is more of an endearment or neutral term among young urban black men. There’s a world of difference between a rapper “hitting the pizzipe wit’ his bitches and his niggas” and a white guy saying he should get to use “niggardly” and bedamned to anybody’s hurt feelings. Regardless of the etymologym, “niggardly” has been contaminated by its similarity to “nigger” (Daniel, if you think I’m shy about the N-word, check out the paragraph I wrote a few posts back.)
If you’re white, then yes, it’s the worst thing you can say. Did you miss the shitstorm that arose because Quentin Tarantino said, “dead nigger storage” in Pulp Fiction.? Don’t believe me? Greet your African American co-worker tomorrow with a hearty “Wazzup, my nigger?” and see the reception you get. Or, better yet, throw in a “Hey, Kenisha, can you spot me a fiver? Sure hope you won’t be niggardly!”
I await the results with bated breath.
Again, huh? In what way are they “in the wrong”? Please explain – this is where the disconnect is happening for me. Do they think they’re offended, but they’re mistaken?
Dinsdale said:
Well, the perceiver always defines the offense. Someone could call me a ham-handed monkey butler, and if I were amused, the term wouldn’t be offensive; conversely, if someone were to call me a shining paragon of manliness, and if I were offended, then what they said would be (by definition) offensive. You do raise a good point, however: just because something is offensive doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it or say it.
On the flip side of the reasons someone could be offended are the reasons someone can use the word. I posted what I saw as the reasons for using “niggardly” back on page one, and so I won’t repeat it here, except to say that if you’re saying it to tweak people, people will be correct to be offended for reason #2, and if you’re not using it to tweak people, the fact that some people might be offended mean that you’ll probably not communicate as efectively as you would if you used a synonym like “miserly” or “stingy.” And since there’s no way to educate people away from reason #3, and since rectifying reason #2 is more a matter of persuasion than of education, this ain’t a problem that can be solved simply by “fighting ignorance.” Saying that it is, is in itself ignorant.
If you want to sacrifice effective communication in order to make a point about the evolution of language, be my guest. It’s not a sacrifice I’m willing to make, however.
Daniel
Well, then, isn’t it just as fair for me to say to you “I really wonder about black folks’ refusal to understand the depth of white folks’ contempt for blacks’ hypersensitivity, and their insistence on finding things to be offended about.”
Perhaps, but you need to realize that finding offense in something so trivial causes a lot of people to just throw up their hands a say “To hell with it! We’re never going to get along, so why bother?”
It’s still the same word, and still as offensive to those of us who don’t feel that there is any excuse for its use. In fact, there are plenty of people who are more offended by its use by rappers and black comedians, because they’ve muddied the meaning of the word to the extent that there are people who actually think that it’s a term of endearment among “young urban black men.”
Yes, the first is a ridiculous co-opting of an offensive word which has done more harm than good, the second is the proper use of a legitimate word with an attitude which puts the onus on the ignorant to check themselves instead of demanding that everyone bow to their ridiculous demands to strip the language of words that they don’t understand which pull triggers in their uninformed brains only because of that aforementioned ignorance.
And what’s the answer to that? To attempt to reclaim the word, or to throw it onto the linguistic dustbin and chalk the loss up to unfightable ignorance?
**
Waitaminnit… you’re using an example of two words, one a true derivation of a racial epithet and the other a gender specific insult aimed at all women, as “endearments” and thereby contrasting them with the correct usage of a word that has no real connection to the racial epithet where the former is acceptable and the latter is racially charged and should be avoided at all costs.
Irony, truly thy name is gobear.
[Pointless Drive-By]I think what bothers me most about the parent described in the OP is that she’s exactly the type who will, several years from now, be complaining that the Verbal portion of the SAT is “culturally biased” against her daughter because of her skin color.[/Pointless Drive-By]
Hey, I didn’t write the rules.
I agree. I don’t mean to offend people except on purpose. However, I’m sure I offend without knowing it. In fact it happend right on this very board.
On the other hand, if I have to weigh every word when discussing something with someone like I was going through a minefield then I just won’t bother to discuss anything with that" someone" any more. Life is too short to have to hold your breath over every utterance.
No, but you seem to be intent on enforcing them. The fact that “young urban black men” use an epithet like “bitches” as an endearment is okay under the rules, no matter how offense it might be to people, but the use of niggardly is right out.
Is it me, or do you truly not see the ridculousness of your position?