Our sensitivities

Cecilia suggests that, no, slurs or targeted dirty words cannot be reclaimed
or used innocuously -- not, at least, until such words are no longer
offensive to anybody. I don't know if her assertion of impossibility was
meant to indicate a sort of social impossibility (a great inappropriateness)
or a literal, psychological or linguistic inability. I don't think that I
know what to think of the former (it would need more explanation for me to
see it clearly, I think), but the latter appears manifestly untrue.

One example is the still rare and reluctant use (as in Eve Ensler's) of
"cunt." Another, much clearer, example of this supposed impossibility is in
the use of "nigger" by modern American blacks, most frequently (I would
expect) in urban youths. I've heard the argument that the difference is
between "nigger" and "nigga" but this seems silly to me since the dropping
of the final "r" is a difference of dialectical phonology and never
otherwise constitutes a lexical distinction (and because "nigga" can still
cause great anger and offense).

The acceptable usage of this word might still appear unclear (perhaps it
simply needs never to be spoken by someone who isn't black), but it is
uncontroversial in rap music -- MTV, of course, still removes it from music
videos. An even clearer instance is in the use of "fag," which, where I
grew up in the East Bay of San Francisco, was used LESS frequently in a
derogatory sense than in a friendly one. This word has in fact gone from a
slur to a common (and benign) identification in only a few years -- it is
widely embraced by gays, and, unlike "nigger," is even widely used by
non-gays who are friendly and in gay company. The phenomenon is similarly
clear in the case of "queer."

Growing up in a racially and ethnically diverse multi-city megalopolis (and
politically about as liberal as they get -- San Francisco voters just
decided that the city should look into growing and distributing marijuana),
I am more accustomed to slurs being used innocuously in groups that include
their traditional targets than I am with their derisive use. I had never
heard of two of the words that Scottie used, and the one I had heard --
"chink" -- I have only ever heard from Chinese people. I've heard too many
jokes that use popular Jewish stereotypes even to count, and I've heard
nearly every one of them from Jews, and I share them with Jews (only the
ones I'm confident won't take offense, of course), just as I'm sure that
most lawyers know all of the funniest lawyer jokes.

That these words can be used inoffensively is pretty well established, I
think. Perhaps what Scottie isn't recognizing is just how deep and sincere
the offense is in those who are offended. They surely aren't kidding. Such
language is to a certain culture an immense faux pas, offensive, maddening,
infuriating, barbaric. I don't doubt that some people are sincerely stung
to the very core by Scottie's words -- even those to whom the words have
never applied -- and that it does truly and sincerely hurt them. Maybe
Scottie does recognize this, but he doesn't care, because he believes that
their culture is inferior.

What nobody has been recognizing, though, is that it's only one culture
we're talking about. Whether it's prissiness or progressive, it's not
Americans generally but a specific, if poorly defined, group of them. Sure,
it's the culture that is represented on ALMOST every television show and
television station, in most of the magazines and popular culture-indicators,
but there are many cultures and subcultures in this country and the most
visible at any time is just as likely as any other to be demographically a
minority.

I do think that Will's sincerity is apparent and important -- I believe that
he was truly upset, perhaps angered just as much as hurt, by Scottie's
remark. I myself would not have made a remark like Scottie's on this list,
for knowledge that somebody or other would surely be upset by it, and if I
had I would apologize to the offended just as I would for extending my right
hand for a hand-shake in some distant land where to do such is a profound
assault. I wouldn't actually regret the content of my actions, and I
wouldn't mean the apology that way, but I would regret the inter-cultural
mistake and make a point of shaking with my left while with that people (to
return unapologetically when I leave).

I think that it is equally important, though, that the left-hand shakers
recognize that I come from a different land with different customs, and not
think me malevolent for it. Sure, they could think I'm a minion of the
devil and burn me at the stake for it, but then they really WOULD be
barbarians rather than merely different.

It strikes me as absurd that Scottie is essentially being called (or
insinuated as) a hate-mongerer when it should be abundantly evident that he
is nothing of the sort. To think him barbaric or an asshole for using words
whose meanings are plainly -- as he has explicitly explained, as if it were
actually necessary to surmise it -- different for him and his (as with me
and mine, and I'm sure many others on this list) seems to me a far greater
offense than any he committed.

Such language can be (and is!) used playfully without meaning offense, and
it can be heard without taking offense. There are innumerable examples of
this. We can't be sure that nobody will take offense, and perhaps this is
evidence of the superiority of the culture that calls such language utterly
inappropriate. Perhaps it would be better if that culture were imposed on
all of us so that such language would die in a single generation. Perhaps
it would be better if a culture that uses such language playfully amongst
friends were imposed on all of us, so that nobody would ever take offense at
such "trivialities" again.

Who knows? But it looks like most of the talkers on this list have been
ignoring the actual honest-to-gosh existence of perfectly nice and good
people who aren't offended by such language, of entire cultures of them
existing right under your very noses. Perhaps it'd be better if we agree to
shake with the right hand around here -- although Scottie may take offense
at this dismissal of his culture, so should we agree to shake with the left?
In any case, we should agree not think each other barbaric for offering the
wrong hand.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Dec 26 20:35:16 2002