You're just wrong. In America, "nigger" is more offensive to a black person than "slave." You can rationalize all you want why it shouldn't be, but it is. End of discussion.Originally Posted by JCamilo
You're just wrong. In America, "nigger" is more offensive to a black person than "slave." You can rationalize all you want why it shouldn't be, but it is. End of discussion.
The key point regarding "slave" is that the character Jim was a slave. Today, the acknowledgement and historical study of slavery and slaves is not an insult against the actual slaves. Indeed, it would be more insulting to sweep history under the rug and pretend that there weren't any slaves in the U.S. ever. (I mean, jeez, if we're worried and outraged about changing a word in a novel...)
To go around calling Obama or some other free Black person "a slave" would be offensive, of course for the reasons that JCamilo is talking about (again, as I pointed out in my previous post, this is actually done in the Borat film, and the object is to offend). But the character Jim is not/was not a free person. He was, unfortunately, a slave, and like the many other slaves that suffered under that institution in the U.S., it would not be a slur to refer to him as a slave in telling his and Huck's tale.
It would, however, rob us of insight into how Huck and Jim used and reacted to the use of the n-word.
There’s not a more loaded term in American English today than that word, and words are funny things, powerful things. A hundred some odd years ago, when Sam Clemens wrote Huck Finn, that word didn’t mean what it does today. A hundred years from now it won’t mean what it does today. But right now, in this time and this place, you can’t use that word. It’s too hurtful. It’s a cuss word on steroids.
Awe shucks, it’s just a word - some letters strung together, some sounds formed with the vocal cords in the larynx - right? Wrong, ho-ho, dead wrong. I’d rather be caught doing a hooker doggie-style on a picnic table at a family reunion than be caught using that word.
The key mechanism of profanity is that it’s meant to offend. The person using it knows it’s meant to offend. And the person listening to it knows the person using it meant to offend the person listening to it, and is therefore offended. And human nature, being what it is, you just can’t let that shiet slide.
And eight-year olds can’t be expected to figure it out. Adults can, and even English professors can, but eight-year olds, nope.
So:
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like this any more than you men.
--The Captain in Cool Hand Luke
Uhhhh...
It is not rationalize. It is a fact. Black people call themselves nigger. They do not call themselves slaves. Let the proverbial red neck have his nationalism targetted when the chinese leader call the american president a slave. The discussion over Nigger is more heated I agree, but mostly, that slave is so offensive to all that iti s not used at all, while nigger is.
Bill:
Jim is not a slave all the book. At some point, Huck knew he was a free man, so calling him a slave would not be exactly accurate. There is really no much reaction - Jim does not react even when Huck says he was white from inside (which the professor should feel much less comfortable, I suggest them to change it too). Of course, one of the main reasons of Twain's classic status is his use of vulgar language, so when they remove it, they are removing all reasons to use Twain in class in first place.
Black people using nigger as a word of familiarity does not mean it is less offensive. Black people use it in an attempt to take away the power of the word (or so the argument goes). If people actually used the term slave, they would use that word in much the same way. But people don't use the word slave. Not because it is "so offensive," but because it doesn't offend, at least not like nigger. When nigger was used when black people were slaves, it was slang on the term negro, even at that time a partially derogatory word. Slave was not. Slaves were slaves; it's what they were, not a word used to insult them.
Slave isn't used because it doesn't insult like any number of derogatory words for blacks. "Darky," "coon," "porch-monkey," "spear-chucker," even "boy" is probably more offensive than "slave." Slave has not entered the modern English vernacular as a common, offensive term for black people.
If you want proof, come to America and call some black people "slave," and then call a few "nigger," and weigh the differing reactions.
Mutatis, it is because it is offensive. It is so offensive that you find it in every language as offensive. You find it in the human rights declaration. The word is powerful enough. Nigger in other hand can be used in several circustances which had no power, no relation to any act (Nigger actually only reflects the power of slavery).
It is not offensive for black people, it is for all people, so much stronger it is. (Nigger predates the use derrogatory use.). You are not seriously trying to prove me that people like to called slave?
As far as African-Americans using the n-word to refer to themselves and other African-Americans: there is certainly no universal acceptance or approval of that practice in the African-American community, not by a long shot. And it leaves out the different case of other races using the word (a case which will sometimes have nuances of its own around the edges). It is important, too, to remember that they are not slaves and so they don't refer to themselves as slaves, whereas the use of the n-word does not at all require slavery to be present.
Thanks, that's a GREAT point that I had been wondering about in the back of my mind. It's been a long time since I read the book, and it was at a time when I wasn't the best student I've ever been.
Not ALL the reasons, but I think that changing that word does remove something important--not the most important thing, but still. Whatever it was, I think it'd be a simplification to say it was always simply a synonym for "slave" when Twain's characters used the word. And instead of whitewashing the book, we should just expect readers to eventually be ready to handle reading it, in context, as satire, etc.
The n-word is just a reference to color. It predates the use as racial slur and it only happened to slavery. There is no doubt that Nigger is a racial offense while Slave is not. But Slave is a huge offense, since it means the most basic human right to someone living (freedom) is taken away.
It is not approved by anyone, there is no context it is acceptable, it is considered a crime (the pratice) in most countries, there is official apologises for it, destroyed africa, it is more dangerous form of racism, there is more people actually prosecuted by "slavery" in USA than the use of nigger (which is only criminal under contexts, if so).
Even the given book, it is about Slavery, not "offensive language" (another point, slavery is so offensive that people fought it first. Only free people can concern about how they are called after all).
Of course, I do not recall. Maybe Mutatis can check if the change caused the sittuation of, after Huck tells everyone Jim is free, if he uses the word Nigger. It would be very ironic. I was wondering also why they didnt used "black", as many books have niggers under same context without talking about slaves.Thanks, that's a GREAT point that I had been wondering about in the back of my mind. It's been a long time since I read the book, and it was at a time when I wasn't the best student I've ever been.
Which is the problem. Not Twain's book. They do not expect teachers and students to deal with it. This means, those people are just judging the education system of america as a failure and blaming on a book.Not ALL the reasons, but I think that changing that word does remove something important--not the most important thing, but still. Whatever it was, I think it'd be a simplification to say it was always simply a synonym for "slave" when Twain's characters used the word. And instead of whitewashing the book, we should just expect readers to eventually be ready to handle reading it, in context, as satire, etc.
My final word on the "slave" word (because I think a lot of people reading this are probably wondering why this is going on as long as it is--I think it must be a cultural misunderstanding, or trolling maybe ;-) ).
"Slave" is not an effective slur. People would (at least initially) be dumbfounded if you tried to use it that way, it just doesn't make sense. Obviously, a Black person today is not a slave. It *would* be offensive to actually be made a slave, but the word itself is a serious and acceptable word used in discussion of history, etc.
If I approached Michael Jordan and called him "shorty", I think he would react sort of like a lot of people would respond to being called "slave", at least initially. I would look stupid, far more than they would feel like I had insulted them. If I called him a "slave", he might be upset about it, but he'd probably be more confused than anything. At least initially, but I guess I don't really know. Maybe he'd wonder if I were a racist stock-owner at Nike or something.
The n-word would be a whole different thing. There's no confusion there, it would be an obvious racial slur and sign of disrespect.
Of course, someone would be free to try and start making "slave" into a slur-word in English, but it would take some work. You can't just say it's a slur because slavery is terrible. Too often we use the word "slave" to refer to actual slaves, with no insult intended whatsoever (on the part of the speaker). It just isn't an effective slur, at this point. You'd have to work really hard at it.
It is already. Poeple use it even by Peta.
As Nigger, you would have ask under which contest. Eminen can call thousands nigger, but if he calls slave you may be not very upset and think he is just some rich guy being snob, me, you, Jordan, would know you are not being nice - as much they would wonder (Idiot?). You people still forget, Nigger is only offesive because it is a form to call people from black skin slave. That is all, it takes the "offense" of slave to racial level. There is no discussion, the word nigger is negro, a synounimou to black color. Used for thousands non-racists aspects. The word Slave is always an attempt of domimance. Always used for this. And it is not an effective name calling (much like calling someone a rappist) because the effective combat to it. 200 years of liberal attack make the word be clear. But still an offense. And I do not need much effort - a White blondie (Lets suppose Mutatis is one) teacher who calls only his black 9 years old slaves, would be in jail in non time just like as nigger.
You are wrong JCamilo, the word is not simply a way to call people with black skin "slave". There is much more to it than that. It can offend by reference to matters of intelligence, drawn caricature, and just pure dismissal, racial inferiority, etc. Slavery was a side-effect of the attitude that the n-word represents and contains, and its use can offend by representing a continuation of that attitude in a post-slavery world, and by representing a line in the sands of respect that can be crossed or not. The attitude can exist apart from slavery, and similar slurs exist with similar intents towards races that have never been enslaved by their speakers.
Just trying to clear things up, but I'll have to leave it at that, this thread deserves a return to the real issue.
The word was used to refer to african american slaves. The word only gained such bad "meaning" because it was used on them. I am not wrong. Without the reference to the offensive naming to slaves, it means black. Only this. The continuation of the way slaves are treated? Means, the continuations of slavery. They are tied. The word is even used acceptable if the context has no reference to the negativity caused by slavery treatmement. Any argument that slave is not offensive, is a mockery. Nigger is offensive because represents a linguistic prejudice originated from slavery abuse. That is why it is not as offensive in England or any other country where Negro is used.
For god's sake, how would the word represents Huck treatment to a black person , former slave, it they are unrelated in first place!
p.s.I remembered, but I do not recall if it is true, wasnt LA banned the use of the master/slave terms, because a research showed like 80% of users found it offensive. I do not recall it was a prankster....
Last edited by JCamilo; 01-18-2011 at 02:51 AM.
I agree the idea of slavery is more offensive than any idea associated with "nigger," which is what I think you're saying, JCamilo? I also see what you mean when you say that slave is always a negative word with negative connotations no matter the context, while nigger can have a context that is not racially offensive, such as its use in rap music (though, those isn't true, as many plack people find it very offensive).
Still, when used as a pejorative against a black person by a non-black person, "nigger" is more offensive than "slave." At least that much you must concede.
That because our morality make the use of it reduced. Imagine a black group of kids because called slave by white (authority of anykind). It would go the same way.
The bigger problem is how easy this solution is gave. Imagine this teacher who said that bothered him to say nigger (in the link there is such thing) but not by slave. If nigger gave idea of racism, slave of what? If the teacher cannt give the context for the use of nigger, how come he wont stop people to call black boys slaves because it?
Not only it is a placebo for a problem, as it is a dumb solution as hell.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
