I’m at a loss as to what point you’re trying to make here. If you keep doing it I’m going to suspect that it’s an excuse to just write a disparaged slur repeatedly to antagonize.
ETA: double ninja
We might be headed towards the Pit now.
Look k9bfriender, just go with Occams Razor. Which is the likelier explanation:
-
The professor deliberately set out with intent to stealthily sneak in the N-word to harass his black listeners, or
-
The professor used a legit, extremely common word in Mandarin and his Mandarin-ignorant students somehow took offense at anyway despite it being innocuous?
What on earth do you mean “singled out”? The people who wrote the accusation are obviously the people who are responsible for its content.
Again, the only thing I know about them is the content of the accusation that they wrote, my opinion of them is based solely on the merits of that accusation, so logically I don’t see what distinction you are trying to draw here.
In fact, they said in their accusation:
“In addition, we have lived abroad in China and have taken Chinese language courses at several colleges and this phrase, clearly and precisely before instruction is always identified as a phonetic homonym and a racial derogatory term, and should be carefully used, especially in the context of speaking Chinese within the social context of the United States.”
…so they conceded that (some of them at least) were already perfectly well aware of the existence of the word in Mandarin and how it sounds.
Their beef seems to be based on an incorrect belief that he was mispronouncing it maliciously, and perhaps the absence of an explicit trigger warning.
My same question worded differently.
I don’t know what the professor was thinking, but I remember being in French camp as a kid, and we were supposed to name our team for some activity. Some wiseass in the group wanted us to name ourselves Dead Seals, a perfectly valid name. The French translation of which is “Phoques Morts,” and sounds like “Fuck More”.
Our counselors, not being on their first rodeo, flat-out vetoed the name.
Of course the prof didn’t say a slur, any more than the wiseass camper said an obscenity. It would be ridiculous to chastise a French child who told an adult, “Il y a beaucoup des phoques morts sur le plage!” (unless they were chastised for shitty sentence construction, in which case please blame my high school French). It was entirely appropriate to roll eyes at an American Anglophone teen using the phrase in a different context.
The professor likely knew the phonetic similarity between the Mandarin word and the American racist slur. He likely knew that English-speaking American students unfamiliar with Mandarin and not taking a class in Mandarin would do a double-take on hearing it. Does anyone doubt either of these points?
If we agree on these two points, why would he use that specific example, knowing the reaction it would entail from his specific audience?
I am not saying your number 1, so I’m not sure what your point is.
Try this Occam’s razor.
The professor had a little joke that he used to help people remember this lesson. He had gotten positive feedback from some students in the past, so kept using it.
Vs.
The professor of communications teaching a class on effective communication had no way of knowing how it would sound to native English speakers.
I’ll take doorway #2.
I’ll hazard a guess that a lot of people, including ‘Dopers, have learned from this, but the tuition will be dreadfully high for some of them. That I regret for all involved.
It seems likeliest to me that:
- The professor was engaged in a bit of cross-language wordplay, hoping students would find it amusing trivia and would be re-engaged in his lecture by the quick jolt of thinking he was being transgressive before realizing he wasn’t. His audience figured out what he was doing, but weren’t amused.
I think he knew what he was doing, and I think he believed that since the term’s resemblance to a slur is coincidental, his use of it is ultimately innocent. I think some of his audience are sick of that “I’m not touching you!” kind of humor.
If anything, this should have been a valuable lesson for his listeners: Things are not necessarily what they seem at first. Perhaps the world would benefit more from people being constantly exposed to a constant stream of neigas, phoques morts, etc, so people will learn not to jump to conclusions.
But not a lesson to speakers, that how you present your message is important, so as not to be misunderstood.
So your theory is that this secret racist became a PHD in communications, got a job at USC, just so he could call POC n-words. And he goes home laughing about every time he tells this racist joke?
Or is neiga a common chinese filler word he was discussing.
What’s the joke?
He could achieve that lesson by stabbing them with a stage knife with a retractable blade; but if someone had been subjected to violence before, they might not be amused by the lesson.
I think there may be a valuable lesson for a communications professor as well: you don’t always get to choose how your communication is heard, so you should consider the audience.
An audience that knew exactly what he was doing might still be irked at him, and I don’t think a lot of folks are getting that.
Like, I’m serious here, and how you respond will help me figure out how to talk to you. Is this really your best reading comprehension effort? Are you genuinely trying to understand what folks are saying to you? Or are you playing a fun game where you deliberately misinterpret people to make them sound bad?
Ok let me be really specific. Do you, left hand of dorkness, think he said the n-word or the chinese filler word.
I think I’ve been really clear on my answer here. He said the Chinese filler word. He understood, and intended, that the hearer would be momentarily taken aback by the similarity between the word he said and a racist slur.
Language is about communication of concepts and aesthetics through verbal means. His communication worked on two different levels. You’re focusing on only one. Are you aware of the other possible intended communication?
Thats where we disagree.
See my post two before yours. The students who made the complaint said explicitly that they had studied Mandarin and were familiar with the word and its aural similarity to the slur. Unfamiliarity was not the basis of their complaint. Although, in general, of course this might not be true. But look also further upthread at the video or the transcript. He said clearly and explicitly - twice - that he was talking about a filler word in Chinese.
You disagree that he understood what people would momentarily think they heard? This white dude who may (I can’t verify) have grown up in an English-speaking country, possibly even the one he’s teaching in, didn’t know what folks who don’t speak Mandarin would hear?
Huh.