Among other things, I said >I think the current mood of excessive sensitivity is piss-poor progressiveness, a substitution of changing terminology and language for changing social reality. I highly prefer the attitude of "you call us freaks, so we'll use the term ironically to refer to ourselves" (as the hippies did) to that of "how dare you call us freaks?" The latter is moralistic garbage. Let's get beyond words to deal with the real problem.< Michael E. writes: >>Well, Jim, on that theory if kids in the Black community appropriate the slur "n-----r" as a term of derision or putdown in their conversations among themselves, does that mean you have license as a white man to use it freely without any sense of self-consciousness as to its racist origins and usage?<< C'mon! You may have noted that I started my missive with endorsement of _politeness_. Using the "N word" is clearly not polite (though I see nothing wrong with the Black "kids" using the term). To use the less sensitive example that I brought up: as a non-hippie, I would never call hippies "freaks" unless I knew them well and felt that they would understand. Similarly, I would never use the "N word" unless I knew someone very well who was of the African-American persuasion. As a rule, it's best not to use it at all. Note the central point: the insulting content of words depends on the social context. If one of these "kids" in the Black community were to call me a "honky bastard," I'd be insulted. If my department chair were to do so (he's Black), I would not be so, unless the situation indicated that he was seriously and deliberately trying to insult me. The phrase is not inherently and always insulting. BTW, for many, the word "kids" could be taken as an insult. After all, "kids" are baby goats. >>"Get beyond words....."? As one of the more prolific intellectual contributors to this list, I am amazed you now depreciate the importance of words and their meaning. Aren't words weapons of both class oppression and liberation?<< Thanks for the praise. But I try to use tools to put forth _ideas_. The words themselves are more like tools for me, for expressing these ideas, though I try to use the words in an asthetically-pleasing (and polite) way if possible. Words may be weapons, but they are much less important than mass movements for change. Why do you think white folks dropped the "N word"? it wasn't because of good intentions. It was because the civil rights movement was pressuring the system, getting -- winning -- respect. The use of the "N word" became used as a way of indicating that one opposed the movement, while eschewing it indicated support for the movement (though hardly the only one). With the decline of the movement, luckily the "N word" didn't come back into popularity. Now it's quite possible, if fact quite easy, to be a racist without using the word. Instead, the racists talk in code, trying their damndest to put racist content into the phrase "African American." >Also, excessive sensitivity encourages revolt.< >>I thought that was what most of the folks on this list were working toward? :-)<< yes, but excessive sensitivity encougages revolt of the wrong sort, the embracing of Andrew Dice Clay or Howard Stern (thanks to an anonymous pen-l friend for giving these excellent examples). (Yes, I know you were joking, but it was unclear what kind of joke it was, so I treated your comment as being serious.) >>We don't need speech codes for those who recognize offensive and divisive speech to draw that fact to the attention of the speaker or to express disapproval when terms of hatred, derision, and prejudice are bantied about in casual speech by unthinking people or by those who harbor such bigotry themselves.<< good: we agree that we don't need speech codes. >>I find it interesting the most of the responses from folks on the list who can't see what's offensive in the joke or who think that objections to it are over-sensitive or PC have come from white men ... << how did you know I am a white male? or that I'm not a Buddhist? >>If we take such speech to be innocent and acceptable, what message does that give to people of color, or others from groups historically or currently victimized about this list and the reception they will receive here? How do we eliminate bigotry by pandering to it?<< You can see very easily by reading what I write that I do not pander to bigotry and do not treat "such speech" as "innocent and acceptable." I guess I'm using my words inefficiently as weapons. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html "Elvis is god." -- religion for the 1990s.
