« Fuck the "F-Word" | Main | Whaddya mean "I can't look"? »
It has been pointed out to me that my last post might be misinterpreted as a desire to say the word "nigger" and not get in trouble for it.
Hardly, but this is the United States. So, for the more simple:
- Stating that a word is good OR bad outside of usage context is stupid. It just lays there until it is used. Only in usage does it attain any moral quality whatsoever
- This dance of <firstletter>-word is not in fact, the same as not using whatever word we're talking about. It's just some inane attempt to get away with saying it without saying it. If you wish to not use a word, then don't use the word in any way, shape or form, and if someone uses said word around you, and it causes you pain, then say something in a calm, polite manner. That works better than you think.
- The idea that we will make racism go away because we say "n-word" instead of "nigger" is stupid in the extreme. Racism is a set of attitudes and behaviors that cannot be changed by nicer language. Which was less racist, the idiots with the hoses in Selma, or the oh-so-polite realtor in Boston who never seemed to have any houses available in their area when someone who wasn't a WASP showed up at their door? Both were racist, one just hid it better with prettier language.
- Saying "You know what ends racism? People stop being racist. You know what ends sexism? People stop being sexist." sounds flippant, but it's the only way things change. You can't change that kind of behavior by changing the words we use or are "allowed" to use. You can only change that behavior by making it so patently stupid to behave that way that people get tired of trying to defend it. When people finally get tired of hating because "it's just what you do", then it changes. But silly shit like "the n-word"? People are perverse, that's going to make the racist fucks out there justify their behavior even more.
- If it sounds like I'm a angry, profane kind of person, well, sometimes I am. I'm not going to apologize for such things. I don't like being led by the nose, and told relabeling is the same as change. It's not, and to say different is lying, and lying about something that causes a shit-ton of pain. I'm not going to say I'm some poor confused white guy "who just wants some consistency in what he's allowed to say." That's crap too. I know what is appropriate under different contexts, and what is not. The fact that I've managed to be gainfully employed for over two decades, and I'm just a tish under 40 shows that. I'm not going to try and prove to you I'm not racist. I can't make that decision for you. If you're worried about it, ping me, I'll say what I think, and you decide. But even then, it's not going to be proof. I can't prove what I think and feel. That's something y'all have to decide on your own.
- I am however getting more and more annoyed by this "ban list" of words. It doesn't make anything easier. It just creates a complicated veneer of "better". But that's not the same as making things better, and no, I don't think it's a small step in the right direction. You know what a step in the right direction is? The current presidential race. Regardless of political affiliation, that's a pretty diverse field, and they're all serious candidates. That's a good sign, far better than any inane attempt to prettify the language. I'm old enough to remember Jesse Jackson's runs for president, and Geraldine Ferraro's run as Mondale's Vice-Presidential candidate, and I can tell you that neither of them were taken seriously. There were a lot of factors with that, mostly dumb, but no one took either of them that seriously. Now? Ain't nobody treating Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton as a joke. They're both serious candidates. That's a better indication that racism and sexism are slooooooowly retreating than any "n-word" stupidity you'll ever see.
I'm not going to stop seeing the world as I see it or speaking about it in the ways that best articulate those views to my mind just because of what might happen. That would be allowing fear of what might happen to decide my life for me, and a repudiation of almost every good decision I've ever made. It's not a path I'm going to start down, not for anyone or any reason.
Technorati Tags: puppy
Posted by John C. Welch at 08:16 | Permalink
Comments
John, I thought that all of this was inherent in the earlier blogpost. Thanks for spelling it out for those who failed English Lit 101 and can't discern author's intent and allegory to save their lives.
Posted by: Phil Burk | March 5, 2007 8:31 AM
The first one had a lot of anger, and anger creates noise that obscures the signal. So this one is perhaps a...cleaner signal.
But I've spent the whole morning astounded at what the 2008 election means, especially in how so many people aren't astounded that a black dude from Illinois with as "un-white" a name as you've ever seen is not just a serious contender, but a leading presidential candidate. It's hard to say, but to me, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, hell Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney being serious presidential contenders is doing FAR more to kill crap like racism, sexism than any amount of verbal re-engineering ever could.
I was born in 1967. There is no WAY that those four people, regardless of qualifications could have run in the 1968 election.
Forty years later man...that's change, and it's not wallpaper over a hole change either. It's foundational change.
I can not express how good that shit makes me feel.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 5, 2007 9:07 AM
I don't think it required explication. I think you were just looking for an excuse to fuck around with Technorati.
Posted by: Brian | March 5, 2007 1:58 PM
Not really. The technorati tags are there at the request of others. I think I've actually used technorati about ten times, and was unimpressed.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 5, 2007 2:46 PM
Oh dear lord, yes. I can't even imagine listening to that silliness, much less being in the middle of it. But that's what we're trying to do to everyone, because if we make it some kind of bizarre code system, it will make things better?
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 6, 2007 6:12 AM
Asam? Is that really you? What a strange response . . .
I somehow missed your last post (not that I'm surprised I skipped over it in my feed, seeing the title), so I went back and read it to see what the hubbub was about.
Well, fine rant there John. I found it amusing, at the end, to see how black-and-white the world is for you in that post. Probably should have seen it before, but you like to be extremely extreme in your opinions, which you think are right over and above everyone else (doesn't everybody?).
Seeing as how you point out context as such a big factor (I agree, btw), I don't suppose use of "n-word" or "f-word" in any context is ok? No, all uses of those "fake words" are completely unacceptable?
I think your real problem is just the general push of society to substitute those words for the real thing, and I agree with you: that is an ignorant and useless trick. I think that people who don't want to use those words shouldn't use them (I'm one of those people).
I'll go one step further, though, and say what other posters to your last post probably said: your use of profanity in the post may serve to make your point, but it makes a bunch of other points as well. Your regular use of profanity isn't brilliant, it undermines your brilliance and exposes your ignorance.
I'm sure you disagree - you made that abundantly blank blank clear (wink). Still, I think it's long been true and has not changed that a vulgar mouth is unnecessary, and shows more about a person than you might like to admit.
So good for you, stick it to the man and don't allow fear to rule or ruin your life. (Read that last sentence with tongue slightly in cheek.)
Posted by: Step | March 6, 2007 4:39 PM
Life is filled with double standards isn't it? Black people can't be racists? Right. How many black--uh hum, african American's denounce their own use of the word nigger? Almost zero, zip, nada. The only one that comes to mind is Bill Cosby. He is denounced by the black community for being a racist for doing so. Does Jesse or Snoop Dog condemn the nigger word? Do you think Obama will? I doubt it. No he won't because there is a price to pay for such honesty. No people attack people like John because he is any easy target--especially John who shows almost no restraint. Attack Coulter or Welch's alleged outrageous views, but certainly not "for" "expressing" their views verbally in a way they see fit. If they want to look stupid--let them.
Cosby talks about a black culture that refers to one another as "niggers" and music that refers to black women as "bitches" and "whores." Worse yet, they are the same people who are complaining about John's use of the N -word verbally and physically while attacking blacks who speak and carry themselves properly and seek to excel academically. Cosby is 100% correct.
Cosby keeps making the point that those who blame everyone else for how the world is should look no further than their own mirror. Or of course we can simply look to dumb-Asam who finds a way to turn every discussion into an attack on Christians, and white people as cross burning lunatics.
All of that being said, John you certainly use your tongue pretty than a $20 a whore. And as Asam will tell you, the use of $20 whores comes with other problems.
Posted by: Jack | March 7, 2007 10:48 AM
Profanity is just a set of words. Words, as we all know, can be made up on the spot (Shakespeare did it all the time). They have no meaning until we give it to them.
That being said, I've been reading, speaking, and writing at a college level since the sixth grade. My vocabulary has always tested at the upper end of the scale. I devour "classic" literature (Shakespeare, Vladimir Nabokov, Jane Austen) for fun. I've worked in a library for the better part of the last decade.
Words carry a great deal of weight with me. As a writing student, in college, I was taught to write with clarity. In poetry: use the best word for what you're trying to express. There is always a word that will work better than any other word, and the challenge is to find it.
Profanity, words like "fuck" or "cunt" are weighty words. Not because they're high-maintenance ten-dollar look-them-up-in-the-dictionary words, but rather they come infused with a wealth of meaning that we, as a society, have invested them with.
I maintain that using profanity isn't a sign of ignorance or lack of intelligence. Rather it shows a mind that embraces words with little fear. Fearing words and what they mean or can do is what causes censorship. It's the first step tossing books on a pile and striking the match.
The irony in this is: we create the word, we give it meaning, we give it life--and then we reject it, fear it, loathe it. Profanity is Quasimodo in the bell tower, at heart the same as the rest of the words, only not as pretty.
A former co-worker of mine detested profanity. When he royally fucked up something at work, he'd say "Dang." When he inadvertently dropped something on his foot, there'd be a heavy pause then a vehement "Shoot."
We all know he really meant "Damn" and "Shit." The meaning of the words was similar, but in context, they were ineffective in conveying what he really meant. Were they better choices? I think not. Of course, this was also the same man who felt that the only appropriate literature for high school students was "fantasy books, light entertainment, nothing close to reality." No swearing. No sex. Nothing unpleasant. Classics shouldn't be taught, youth fiction should never include death or drugs or abuse. Lets saccharine coat the world, so that when they come face to face with reality, they don't recognize it and it guts their naivety and innocence with all the finesse of a hyena.
That kind of fear irritates me. I'd rather someone used profanity than whitewash over it with "pleasant" words or ineffectual, half-assed abbreviations.
As for the other word John mentioned. It's not one I prefer to use. Again, it comes with a weighty context, a heavy history. One that I fully understand and appreciate. I don't fear it. I just don't like it. As a librarian, I came into contact with any number of teenagers and adults who flung it around like it was no more than a feather. That's their business.
But I draw the line (and always have) at using profanity in front of young children. Not because, as some you might think, I believe that children should be kept innocent of such things, but rather because I think that children should be educated.
Words have meaning and weight, and their meaning should be something that the user is fully conscious of. We've all heard someone try to use a big word, but not really understand it. It sounds ridiculous and makes them look stupid and uneducated. The same holds true of profanity. Unless you're old enough to know what "fucking" is, or what a "cunt" is, you shouldn't use it. Kids pick up words quickly, and imitate adults even more quickly. They'll pick up the profanity (and the rest of their vocabulary) as they go, as we all do. I just try not to put words in front of them that they're not old enough to really understand.
Call me a hypocrite, if you will. I'll call you a fucking word prude, and we can all go home happy.
Posted by: Melissa | March 8, 2007 6:21 AM
I'll go one step further, though, and say what other posters to your last post probably said: your use of profanity in the post may serve to make your point, but it makes a bunch of other points as well. Your regular use of profanity isn't brilliant, it undermines your brilliance and exposes your ignorance.
Ignorance as to what Jack? The language? Hardly, I'll put my vocabulary and training in its use up against anyone short of Buckley and come out nicely. The concepts at hand? No, I've a solid grip on those too.
We see, in your comment, the hypocrisy of the "profanity == ignorance" argument, or perhaps "cowardice" would be better. People who really hate profanity are afraid to simply say "I dislike profanity, and would prefer if you didn't use it around me." They are afraid to say that without some kind of justification. So they come up with justifications that are at best, weak, and at worst, an inane attack. "Well, if you had a better vocabulary, you'd not use profanity." Bullshit. Some of us just like it. It's blunt, to the point, and nicely brutal. Some people don't like profanity. They find it crude or offensive. If you don't like it, then stop trying to justify it with attacks on the person using it. The problem isn't their lack of knowledge, the problem is you don't like profanity and you're too insecure to say that the reasons for this are your own.
As far as undermining my "brilliance", well, that's rather silly. My use of profanity, or lack thereof cannot have any effect on my intelligence. It can only affect someone else's opinion of my intelligence, and quite frankly, so?
I'm sure you disagree - you made that abundantly blank blank clear (wink). Still, I think it's long been true and has not changed that a vulgar mouth is unnecessary, and shows more about a person than you might like to admit.
No, it shows more about your own prejudices and preconceived notions than you want to admit, and perhaps shows just how shallow the criteria you use to judge people, and along with it, how shallow you are. Winston Churchill could be horridly offensive and vulgar on a regular basis, and never used profanity. Was he magically less vulgar or profane for it? Hardly. But you're so deep into that mindset that you can't for a minute see just how silly it is.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 8, 2007 6:38 AM
Oh, it's not a strange response for Asam. He's just back to trolling, and I'm just back to deleteing his posts and banning his IPs.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 8, 2007 6:55 AM
Hey, you seem to be responding to my comment but attributing it to Jack. Not that I'm particularly proud of it (nor do I care much for you), but thought I'd clarify that you were responding with the wrong person in mind.
Oh, and it's not your stance that I don't care for - that I can appreciate for being a different opinion for my own. It's that you're so happy to bash someone else while so unwilling to admit any possibility of being wrong on your part. I suppose, by definition in your worldview, that you aren't generally wrong at all. You'll tolerate anyone's worldview as long as it doesn't apply to you, eh?
Yeah, not well-written reply - I hope it's not too jack-ian this time, but given that I'm guaranteed a scornful, insulting, unacknowledging-of-any-validity reply if I get any at all from you, I'm not willing to spend more than another minute typing a response in this little box. Honestly, I'm only here because I happened to leave this tab open and saw it while backing up my computers.
Posted by: step | March 11, 2007 11:18 PM
Sorry about that step, but you sound so much like Jack...
And wait, so your willingness to hammer MY worldview is okay, but the reverse is true? That's the part I love about this. That somehow, I should always listen to and act according to every single bit of criticism I get, and yet never, EVER criticise said criticism. What, because if you disagree with me you're magically the sole holder of truth?
You talk about right and wrong like there's one sole holder of right. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make you wrong OR right, and the same with me. It means we disagree on how to go about something. Have you ever heard the expression "more than one way to skin a cat?"
It applies. There's more than one right or wrong answer in every situation, and if you modify the situation even slightly, then what was a right answer becomes wrong and vice-versa. Get a grip, someone disagreeing with you is not a personal attack.
I also love the attitude of "Well, since you're not going to agree with me or say things in the way *I* think you should, I'm taking my ball and going home".
Okay, buh-bye, you can find the door, and I don't particularly care if it hits you in the ass on the way out. But if you do come back, I'm going to remind you of this little "I'M LEAVING AND NEVER COMING BACK" fit you pulled. Count on it.
Here's a tip. If you're gonna go, just go. Have the stones to just leave. Don't make grand proclamations. Just boogie on down the road man.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 12, 2007 7:09 AM
Interesting posts, and to a large degree I agree. Trying to hide nasty thoughts and intentions behind sanitised language is just as evil (and perhaps even more so) as expressing those thoughts in the original, technicolor, politically incorrect words.
However, for me, there is a big difference between calling someone a fucking shithead and a fucking nigger. The former is a very personal insult, and speaks directly to the character of the object of your insult. The latter brings in a whole shitload of history and meaning that goes waaay beyond an insult directed at one individual.
I would hope most thinking people realise that racism does not disappear just because you ban certain words. But, these words also transcend any specific context as they are weighted down with history and very specific meaning.
Posted by: Fred | March 12, 2007 9:23 AM
There's no denying that Fred, which is why the whole "n-word" instead of "nigger" is so dangerous. (The "it's okay if it ends in "a" instead of "er" is just hair-splitting writ large, and the realm of morons.)
The word is simply the label for the idea. Dancing around the label in an attempt to pretty it up is an attempt to sanitize the larger problem by making it easier to deal with. Racism should not be "nice" or sanitized. Dealing with it is dealing with something fundamentally ugly, dirty, despicable, and harmful. If we make it palatable, then are we trying to end it in a meaninful way, or just spraying febreze on a turd and kicking it under the couch?
Out of sight is most certainly not out of mind in this case, and I think that the ugliness of words like "nigger" is critical in reminding us of how ugly the larger problem is.
Posted by: John C. Welch | March 13, 2007 10:20 AM
I came across this post by accident and was intrigued by the obvious intelligence imbued in your writing and several postings by others. I agree that using words like "shoot", "dang", "the n-word", "F-Bomb" are inherently copouts, ways to say the ideas behind them without saying the words themselves. You might as well say the words instead of uphold your veneer of safety. You are thinking them. You are perpetuating their ideals and not really changing anything.
I, personally, will not use any of these. I find profanity disdainful. It is not a matter of ignorance. Education may expose you to much more profanity than ignorance. I know profanity fluently in at least three languages and a few words here and there in another three. It is a matter of self presentation and respect. I also believe the english language carries a miriad of words that express all depth of meanings without having to resort to the blunt punctuation of profanity. That is what most people use it for, to add weight, punctuation, or for the shock value. This preforms this function masterfully, but may break the flow of the writing or speech. It makes the reader or listener pause for a moment. Profanity can often become a "space filler", much like "um", "well", "uh", and "like". I have also removed these from my vocabulary. They potentially muddle what you are trying to express. But, honestly, it comes back to the respect issue. I will never use it with others and I am, thus, unafraid to ask others not to use it with me. If I must talk to someone or listen to her or him, it is just a courtesy that I ask as I am forced to subject to what that person says. That does not apply to writing. I do not use these words in my writing either, but I subject myself to literature. I am not forced to continue if I prefer as I am often forced to continue to listen to someone talk. I cannot ask the author to refrain from using profanity.
I also must disagree with Melissa. As a fantasy writer, I was deeply offended by her fluffy representation of the genre. There is plenty of sex, drugs, and reality in many works of fiction and fantasy. Do not be too quick to write off all of us just yet. Just because it isn't always obvious does not mean the undercurrents are there. Marianne Moore calls it "creating imaginary gardens with real toads in them." My characters are real people even if the settings are odd. Best wishes on continued intelligent and articulate postings and, of course, despite my opinion, as I stated I cannot demand you cease use of profanity as one writer to another. I subject myself. Sorry if I babbled on too much.
Posted by: Charlie | March 23, 2007 9:18 AM
