…you’ve only cited the Netflix case. We don’t know (and will never know) the entire context surrounding of the netflix case. And a single case does not indicate “a trend.”
White people in this very thread have used the n-word and have not been sanctioned. Context and intent is important. They might be anonymous: but they are still subject to moderation, and so I don’t think that those examples should be dismissed as readily as you suggest.
My initial feeling regarding the dog was similar, but after some reflection I think there’s a reasonable difference between this and say, Huck Finn. As you say, understanding its use in a book requires education; its appearance makes for a teachable moment. The same appearing as the dog’s name in a film or TV series, and without the educational input, will elicit a level of reaction that is disproportionate to the historical importance of the name and its use in radio transmissions.
And ‘nig’ is military slang - at least in the UK - for a newcomer, especially a recruit, among other things - check the link.
Nigg, of course is a suburb of Aberdeen with a bay and a golf course and also a small farming village north of Cromarty with a nice nature reserve.
Relevant to the thread because it illustrates something I said, how the mere vocalization of certain sounds, even if unintentionally can be penalized: [Meteorologist fired for racial slur on air speaks to CNN](Meteorologist fired for racial slur on air speaks to CNN)
The man misspoke, “fire him” said a government official, and it was so.
I thought it was social media pressure that got him fired, unless this was another incident. Also, your link doesn’t work. Can you post a proper link so I can see if it was really a government official that got him fired? I’d be really surprised.
Of course, I don’t really know what happened in the case I’ve heard about, but I was surprised he got fired for mangling his words. To me, either they just caved to social pressure or there was some private history there that we aren’t privy to.
What “government official” are you talking about?
A news outlet or public figure reports ‘so-and-so is in hot water for saying the word nigger’. Then the idiot gallery points and cackles “if it’s such a bad word why did you just use it?”
They could make an effort to present the context, but the idiot gallery isn’t interested in the context, they just want to say ‘nigger’ (or dunk on the media for doing the same). So people just work around the issue by bowdlerizing it.
It was the Rochester Mayor who called for his firing, plus the usual social media lynch mobs.
Here’s the fixed link to the video I tried to post before: [What “government official” are you talking about?
[/QUOTE]
It was the Rochester Mayor who called for his firing, here’s the fixed link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TbcCnvTYOk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TbcCnvTYOk]([QUOTE=Miller;21428079)
The man misspoke when reading Marthin Luther King Junior making an unfortunate portmanteau of King and Junior.
Last year, a group of models have been racked over the coals and had to issue an apology for, while dressing up on backstage during some event, singing along a popular song that included the world “nigger”, so it’s not because it’s in a rap song that you’re supposed to say it. You’re apparently supposed to stop singing when you should have said this word.
This attitude of thinking that a word is so bad that pronouncing it, even in a context where it should be, for instance academic, is unacceptable, and replacing it by an euphemism (“the N word” ) in these contexts, required, is plainly a Victorian attitude. The fact that many people even think that similarly sounding word should be avoided (the niggardly instance : many people think it shouldn’t be used due to the risk of confusion even though they know perfectly that it’s not a racial slur. It just sounds a bit like one so…I don’t know…a sensitive soul might misheard it, faint, and you will have to bring the salts?) only underline this prudishness extraordinaire.
American are notorious for this kind of prudishness when it comes to “bad words”, whose utterance is likely to traumatize children for life and make a kitten die and for thinking that somehow if your hear “beeep” or “N word” instead, even though you know perfectly well what word was meant, it changes absolutely everything and it’s not hurtful or offensive at all anymore, but still.
If “nigger”, in an appropriate context, is so hurtful, offensive and damaging that it should be avoided, the “N-word” is equally hurtful, offensive and damaging and should be avoided too. Whether one is used or the other, the context is the same, the intent is the same, the meaning is the same, both the speaker and the listener know what word is being used. The only difference is the sound you hear. And there’s no possibility that a sound can be damaging in itself. So, the fact that one cannot be used but the other can be used freely even though they are exactly equivalent and carry exactly the same meaning and information demonstrates that the use of the word in context isn’t intrinsically as horribly offensive as stated. If it were, “N word” would be too. It shows that, rather, it’s an arbitrary taboo, like, for some people, pronouncing or writing the word “God” which is similarly replaced by “G*d”.
Sorry, but your new link doesn’t work, either.
And I can’t figure out what the “unfortunate portmanteau” could be.
I don’t know why the link doesn’t work, let’s try again or just copy the link text and paste it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TbcCnvTYOk
The man was going to say Martin Luther King Junior but he flubbed and mashed up King and Junior, seems to me he corrected himself while saying “Kunior” at the n, the resulting sound happens to be a racial slur and in spite of obviously being neither intention of using a racial slur or even using that word at all, the man was fired.
Since Ale seems unwilling to actually type it outright:
Coon. The word he’s supposed to have said is Coon. Martin Luther Coon.
Also, it’s an axiom in journalism “when correcting an error, don’t repeat the error.”
Thank you. Because even after having finally listened to the video, I couldn’t figure out what was said. I’ve a poor understanding of spoken English.
What was *said *was, as Ale correctly notes, gibberish; a stumble over the “K” sound in “King” and the “oo” sound in “Junior” which ended up close to “coon.”
I can’t see or hear any intentionality, and the idea that it was a “Freudian slip” seems bizarrely far-fetched to me.
The contradiction of dancing around the word “nigger” is that we don’t dance around in the least with other phrases that are equally if not even more offensive, but simply expressed “the right way.”
If a history professor said in a lecture, “Adolf Hitler said in 1937, "All Jews must die,’”, nobody would object in the least. He’s simply quoting Hitler’s words in the context of teaching history, and everyone understands that the professor himself has nothing against Jews. And if some anti-Semitic politician were giving a speech in Congress and said, “All Jews must die,” everyone would (rightfully) condemn him. Everyone knows it’s context and intent, no issue here.
But somehow, with the word “nigger,” we are in a situation where even if a TV anchor reports, “David Duke called Barack Obama a “nigger” yesterday” then they would get in trouble for using the word “nigger,” even though he is simply quoting Duke’s quote, the same way the history prof would have been quoting Hitler.
A valid comparison here would be if Hitler said “All the kikes must die”. Some words are considered inherently offensive, and generally day-time TV practices don’t allow them to be spoken, even if only reporting the words of others. Same goes for non-slur language like fuck, shit, etc.