I've always found the US obsession with taboo words quite baffling. I used to tease Americans of my acquaintance by pretending to be offended when they said "oh my god" (dildo in French) or nick (fuck.)
Context matters a lot in linguistic, and the Sapir-Worff hypothesis is not just unproven, it's almost certainly completely wrong.
Also with sexuality. My worry is that with the American cultural imperialism through Hollywood our European liberal approach to sexuality will become more puritanical. E.g. sex only after 18, teenage sex is more or less illegal (19y/o with a 17y/o).
Friends of mine already think that American laws around sexuality are valid worldwide and sex with an under-18 is forbidden. Which is absolutely false in the case of Germany.
Age of consent in the US varies from state to state, with the lowest being, I believe 14 years old in some states. The "18 or older" mentality probably has more to do with working in porn, hence all the "barely 18" type labels.
Please don't add flamebait. If you want to make a factual point, great, but do so without swipes. We don't need regional flamewars here, or nationalistic flamewars, or any flamewars.
That's trivially disproven. Using the snake graph from fivethrityeight[1] as a proxy for "crazy conservative"-ness, three[2] of the top five liberal states don't have "strict age cutoffs" (which I interpret as having a lower age of consent that's limited by the partner's page). On the other hand, three[3] of the top five conservative states do have "strict age cutoffs".
The Norwegian word for blacks used to be something that isn't allowed to be uttered anymore. It started becoming a problem only after we got a few black American migrants, and other migrants influenced by American culture to Norway. These people didn't understand the context of the word, and so they became violently offended when anyone used the word, even if the the word has always been a completely harmless description and not a slur within Norwegian culture. (Trust me, you'd know if a slur was used!) But because it offended so many newcommers, and since a synonym was readily available, Norwegians didn't think it was a hill worth dying on, and so they just cut it out of everday use. Today it is regarded as a big faux pas to use the word. Meanwhile some Norwegians still feel offended that foreigners who do not understand their culture, take to dictating how Norwegians should or should not speak. Personally I honestly don't know which is worse; offending someone because you said something with the best of intentions, or forcing someone to submit to arbitrary rules to avoid that they get offended, even if you utter such words with the best of intentions.
The same happened in Italy, but I think that the change happened after dubbed American movies started using the Italian word to translate the n word. This associated the originally neutral word to offensive contexts, so the word meaning started changing for those who learned it in those contexts.
That seems like an unreasonable statement when meeting a culture that's not your own. Let's say you're offended by the word "blank" because of cultural transgressions that have happened throughout the last 100 years of history in your country.
You then emigrate to a different culture that hasn't experienced the context of these transgressions. The word "blank" is in their language used in a purely descriptive sense. You make it very clear to everyone you meet that you find their word for "blank" offensive, but the local alternatives are more clumsy and those who try to use them will likely confuse or be misunderstood.
I don't consider it reasonable to expect others to conform to your offense in this case; it's a case of forcing a cultural context onto a culture where it doesn't apply.
Americans have a bit of a reputation for this kind of thing, unfortunately. Probably due to the massive export of American culture that was alluded to elsewhere.
There is obviously nuance, but if the word sounds like a slur, and is used generally to describe people of a certain race, then the offended can certainly express their offense, and the culture should consider the offended person's position.
In this case I am pretty sure the word is "neger", and yeah, I don't think we should mourn or handwring over any sort of great loss of Norweigian culture/heritage that has occurred due to them being more sensitive to using that word to describe black people. Cultures evolve.
The word in question is not "neger", it's "svart". Translating to "negro" and "black", respectively. The former has been considered old-fashioned or pejorative for a couple of decades, the latter has only recently become disputed.
The politically correct version for "svart", would be "med mørk hudfarge" ("with dark skin color") or, if you want to push the edge of propritey, "mørkhudet" ("dark-skinned").
And sure. If someone takes offense or are clearly hurt by it, it's not like I'll go out of my way to insult them. But it's five syllables where one would convey the same meaning, without any intention of offense. It's not a hill I'd choose to die on, but as a matter of principle... I'd very much prefer if we wouldn't adopt an excessive fear of insult here.
I'm pretty sure that most people who take offense at this, are taking offense on behalf of others. Which is in itself a somewhat superior or paternalistic attitude that I'm not sure that all minorities appreciate.
It seems "neger" was still debatable according to this reddit thread from 2012 https://www.reddit.com/r/Norway/comments/ylcpw/what_do_i_cal... and Marrianne Gullstead paper seemed to indicate it was still being hotly debated in the early 2000s, not that it had fallen completely out of fashion by then. It sounds like the situation is still evolving. Is there anything that highlights the controversy around "svart"?
The main point was that if you continue to use a word that someone described as offensive to them then it's hard to argue "best intentions", and it comes off as either laziness or disdain for that person.
You can take those offended by proxy with a grain of salt, but in some cases there is truth behind what they are saying, and it should still be considered.
Looking into it, it does not look like this is solely influenced by American "cultural colonialism". Objections to the use have also been from black people who are not from the US. There may be some level of cultural ignorance regarding the connotations of the term, and its place in history. It seems "Americanisation" is often blamed, and "best/good intentions" used as an excuse to continue to use a word that offends.
There is an interesting paper by Marianne Gullestad that goes into some of the previous historical debate over the term, it is not newly controversial. Culture continues to evolve.
Disdain for the use of "neger" in Norway was actually prompted largely by internal groups, not "American imperialism". The historical context around how the word developed does not put it in the best light. It's antiquated at best, and derogatory/offensive at worst.
If the speakers knows they are causing offense by using a word that was used to subjugate slaves, it starts to look like an extension of that racial subjugation. The word was used by speakers of a different language, and didn’t historically have the same meaning in Norway. But given the increased cultural and economic integration present in modern society, we all have to become a little bit aware of issues that are affecting people we interact with, in order to be decent citizens. At the same time, if somebody doesn’t know the pain they are causing, we should inform them with kindness and forgiveness.
After the Holocaust, some terms historically used to describe Jewish people became verboten, essentially out of respect for the serious nature of the consequences of anti-Semitism. Do you think it’s unjust that this cultural prohibition extends to nations that didn’t participate in the Holocaust? Might it be appropriate to treat the international calamity that is slavery with the same seriousness?
To answer your question more directly: The onus is mostly on the people who were subjugated to continue suffering the lasting effects of that. The burden on the people who find out that a word they use causes harm seems quite small in comparison (a good example of a “first world problem”). Whether that burden is too harsh to bear is up to each individual.
I think "cultural prohibition" of words is generally bad, extending to words that are forbidden in the US. The idea of "privileged words" that only a subset of people can utter is ridiculous to me. It's particularly egregious when it is essentially American imperialism on language used in other countries.
> To answer your question more directly: The onus is mostly on the people who were subjugated to continue suffering the lasting effects of that.
They are required to suffer the lasting effects of racist policies past or present. There is zero responsibility to be offended by homonyms of offensive terms.
> The burden on the people who find out that a word they use causes harm seems quite small in comparison (a good example of a “first world problem”). Whether that burden is too harsh to bear is up to each individual.
There shouldn't be a burden on them, period. A person being offended by homonyms is a result of their own stupidity. The only exception to that being someone saying said homonyms in bad faith... which clearly isn't the case here.
> The idea of "privileged words" that only a subset of people can utter is ridiculous to me.
This comment made me stop to think. Thanks for that.
When I zoom out and try to generalize, I think:
- "can utter": it is not so much about what you can officially say or not say, but rather what is socially acceptable, whatever your social context is. For example, if you're a priest, saying "fuck" in a sermon would probably be frowned upon or worse. Even more so if they continued to do so even after being told by their congregation or colleagues that it is not acceptable.
- "privileged words": I don't have children, but I suspect there are words that parents (and "society") prefer their kids don't say and even reprimand them for it. Whether or not that restriction is a bad thing (limiting free speech?) I cannot say for sure yet, but it seems that privileged words, as you say it, emerge. I haven't thought more about other examples beyond children (maybe there aren't any) or whether the children example is invalid.
I don’t believe it’s the case for the Chinese phrase in the original post, given that it’s such a basic filler word that is ingrained in the minds of all speakers. In the case of the Norwegian word, which actually has the same etymology and definition, with just a connotation that differs regionally, I think people can’t plead ignorance in good faith once they are made aware of the modern global context. This is especially true of any “holdouts” after the word becomes taboo.
Yeah, and etymologically the n-word shares the same origin as "neger", "negro", and "negre" which all originate from the latin "niger." Ultimately their usage in Norwegian, Spanish, French, and Latin are not the same as the n-word in English, which is used in very specific contexts and almost always in reference to people.
> I think people can’t plead ignorance in good faith once they are made aware of the modern global context.
It's not a global context. It's an American context. Chinese people aren't thinking about the n-word at all and a black American living in China would be expected to adapt to the reality that the word is neither offensive nor is it on Chinese people to adjust their behavior to make them feel better. The issue is once again with the person who takes offense.
Forcing people to change their entire language to accommodate a group (especially one that is completely foreign) is asinine.
I am guessing the word here is "neger", and is more akin to the US use of the word "negro" than the slur "Nier"[looks like HN censors even my censored version of the slur to "Nier"]. Even in the US "negro" has mostly fallen out of general use, and is considered derogatory in most casual contexts.
As mentioned in sibling thread, unless GP is 80 years old and has had their head in the sand for the last 30 of them, the word in question is likely "svart" (black) rather than "neger" (negro).
It would have been nice if GP had actually noted the word, and no they do not need to be 80 years old to have possibly meant "neger", it depends I guess on their intentions...
Edit: Frankly I am not sure why they would have meant "svart" while blaming specifically "American migrants". It seems "neger" would be much more immediately offensive to someone coming from the US.
I think what the original author is hinting at is happening for years now. Maybe op meant something like Negerkuss or Mohrenkopf (Negerkuss now is Schokokuss or Aufgeschaeumte Zuckermasse mit Schokoglasur) and Zigeuner-Sausse/Schnitzel (this one was only recently).
And yes I got the feeling that american culture and american "stuff" is slowly but surely pouring over and I hope that misused words like the now "default meaning" of racism (racism in america can now "only be applied" to minorities whereas, of course, racism can in every country of the world can be had against any other "race") will stay an american thing and not be copied by us.
I know of both of these and don’t find them comparable in any way. Both words (Neger and Zigeuner) have, all my life, been used as derogatory words to describe certain people.
I also found it very baffling from a French standpoint. Obviously, spouting out des "gros mots" in polite society is frowned upon but the the magical thinking around 4 letter words in the US is on a whole other level.
The country was founded by puritans and it still shows in many ways.
It didn't disappear. I still constantly hear and see in the internet usage of негр, нига or нигер (transliteration of the n-word). But the meaning always depends on the context, most of the time it is neutral - just referring to a black person, sometimes negative - infamous S.L. Jackson phrase "что этот ниггер себе позволяет", and sometimes positive: "нига, как дела" - can be equivalents to "what's up, bro", it's rarely used as joke-greeting.
Local blacks don't seem to mind when someone call them this way, because it rarely has negative connotations.
>I've always found the US obsession with taboo words quite baffling
Once a puritan, always a puritan. Religion inspired worldviews get dilluted into the general culture and inspire even those that don't believe (and in the US, where assimilation is everything, even those that come from other cultures).
I can't tell if you're being serious, but that link is one person saying that they think a group should move away from using some terminology, that's a bit of a leap from "You cannot say these words."
There aren't that many taboo words in America. You can validate that by watching a few episodes of most any Netflix or cable tv drama. Europe, however, actually has illegal words. It is illegal to say heil hitler in germany or display nazi symbols. And I believe france has certain english words banned from official use.
Here's a definitive source... The word originated from French military slang in 1918 from Algeria. Something about getting shot in the back. The abbreviations in the etymology section of the page are hard to make out
Context matters a lot in linguistic, and the Sapir-Worff hypothesis is not just unproven, it's almost certainly completely wrong.