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.
