It is to thousands of black Americans - who don't care what context the word is used in - the word on it's own is a stark reminder of slavery. There's actually a moratorium on the n word in New York, it carries no penalty but was designed to lead by example to stop it's use especially by the black community.
Problem is we are not in America and I for one would not be ruled by the desires of a group in another nation. For once I totally agree with Tobes, it is the intent and the context that matters. Let's widen the debate a little. In the Caribbean it is common for locals to use the term "White Boy" Is that acceptable? Well yes I'm white and therefore that part is accurate. But why call a 60+ year old man a boy - when they would react to a stranger using that term in relation to them? Now if I did react then the normal response would be one of surprise as, to them, no offence was intended. So some people will always find offence. Others will always want to cause offence. It's not the words but it is the intent.
I disagree. It depends on how you've been educated as to the power of words. I studied American lit as part of both my degrees and I can tell you that a large portion of blacks don't want the word used no matter what the context. If you say ah but we don't live in America, you're right of course, but my point of view on the matter extends to other English speaking countries where use of the word is offensive.
& you speak for all of them do you mate? That's obviously a rhetorical question, as you can't possibly make a sweeping statement of that nature, as it's simply untrue. Some 'may' not like to hear the word used in any context - however, you've missed the salient point - as a black American who might tut at hearing another 2 black men referring to each other with the 'n' word, is in no way the same as them hearing a white person using that word with the INTENT to cause hurt to a black man. So the context & the intent are the key factors here.
Sorry JB, I'll bow to your greater appreciation of American Black sensibilities but again state that they do not apply universally. There are many terms and idioms in US language and culture that are offensive to other peoples. In the UK we have to make our own decisions and apply them EQUALLY to all of those who live here. I don't give a fig if the 'N' word is banned provided that the ban applies to all sections of the community. If it does not then we cannot morally legislate. Without laws we only have the present type of recommendations to go by and therefore intent and context are vitally important.
Tobes and dave agree on something? I've ordered me bunting already. It's a bit Orwellian to "ban" a word and I'm not in favour of it. As I said earlier, I think a cultural consensus generally decides what is acceptable. The problem is when agenda-driven minority groups attempt to impose their will on the rest. Common decency should tell us where and when to draw the line on potentially offensive language and it is ,in part, down to who is using it and the context in which they are using it. The role of pressure groups is to raise awareness of the situation and hope that people see the sense in their argument. This is already the case with overt racial prejudice, although there will always be some who don't accept it. You can't ban the word, but anyone purposefully using it in an inflammatory way is then subject to the consequences of doing so.
You're wrong. Black academics [but not solely academics] are against the use of the word in any context, hence why there's a moratorium on it in some cities. The word was invented to de-humanise one section of society, it has no other application. You can't state that the context is key as an absolute fact and an end to the matter because it simply isn't true. One small example - http://popchassid.com/maya-angelou-taught-language/ . I don't know if the whole Iconoclast video is available [I saw it as a programme a while back] but it is worth watching if it is.
The word was invented in America to demean black slaves, the descendants of whom are the ones who have the greatest right to express their opinion on it I would say. The greatest unease amongst them is its black on black use.
I'm far from wrong here JB sorry. Stating that Black academics are against the use of the word in any context, doesn't mean that they'd react in the same way or feel the same when hearing it used in the different contexts that I described in my last post, does it? You state that it was no other application than to de-humanise one section of society, well that's simply not true any more is it? as the young blacks who use it in a totally different manner prove on a daily basis. Even the example you've posted clearly demonstrates the different in how 2 different generations view the use of the word, to the older Black American it is 'poison' to the younger man it had been used as empowerment....
JB - I actually don't like the younger generation using that word, as my personal view is akin to the people you have referenced, as to me it symbolises something abhorrent. However, I also respect the right of a young black people to use that word in the context that they do, as they can form their own judgement as to whether it strengthens or weakens the fight against racism. The overriding point though, is that whatever your view on it's suitability, the intent of it's use ultimately defines whether it's being used with an intent to hurt or degrade another human being.
I don't respect the youngsters right to use the word as I think they are mis-guided, I don't even think they are doing it to fight racism, it's just something they do to shock like calling women bi.....s. Some of those using it aren't clever enough to know what their intention is, they do it to be cool [or whatever the latest word for that is] Just following a trend. Then there's the East/West coast rap rivalry where the spelling of the word devolved and is used as an insult, black on black. We've probably run the course with this now and while I think generally intent matters, I just can't accept that concept applies with this one word.
Ok then, as an older person can I have a word back that was acceptably in use in the English language but who's total meaning has been changed at the demand of a minority group. So I put in a request for the return of the word GAY and for homosexuals to only use the word in its original meaning.
When my boys were little their reading scheme in school was called The Gay Way it changed just after they started school to The New Way!
You can't have a rule that says some people are allowed to say a word and others not. Either we can all chant yid or none of us can. End of.
