The N-word

I just read a bizarre piece from Associated Press headlined “Comedian gets hook for using the N-word.”

I had to read the whole article just out of curiosity. What the heck is “the n-word”?

Strictly speaking, I still don’t know. The article itself never dares to even report the word. It is, apparently, just too offensive. It seems, though, to be the word “nigger”—albeit used here by a black comedian, in jest, before a black audience.

And what is wrong with the word “nigger”? The article does not say. Its offensiveness is taken for granted.

It all strikes me as odd. Not to say loopy. Not to say hysterical. Yes, it is a bit of a mispronunciation of the French “negre,” meaning “black.” And the French are a bit fussy about how foreigners pronounce their language. But offensive? Too offensive to appear in print? This still seems a bit over the top.

I do a dictionary check to find out more.

Random House reports “The term NIGGER is now probably the most offensive word in English.” Wow. Worse, apparently, than “m**********r,” say? Let alone “d**n”? (Although another dictionary insists that “nigra” is “even more offensive than ‘nigger.’”) Where have I been?

Okay—so it is offensive, by dictionary definition. But still, why? For the proper definition of the term, according to the same source, is simply “A. black person. B. a member of any dark-skinned people.”

So here’s what I don’t get. I’m afraid that, if this is the most offensive word in the English language, it follows that it is worse to be a black person than to fornicate with one’s mother, say, or to spend eternity in hell. To have dark skin is the worst possible thing that you could do.

Is that really the message we want to convey?

Let’s say it is. Even so, racial equality demands that we officially consider “whitey” to be equally offensive. It seems to be “nigger’s” exact parallel, right down to the offensive intent. If we object to one, and not the other equally, we are assuming either 1) it is far more creditable to have pale than dark skin, or 2) black people have more rights than white people.

But then, if words that are intrinsically neutral in meaning can become offensive by being used by someone or other with intent to insult, racial equality requires that we consider almost any term for any ethnic group just as offensive. Certainly, “Jew,” is commonly used as a pejorative. So nobody must henceforth use the word. Same for “WASP,” or “Yank,” or “Anglo.”

Somehow, though, as a Mick and a Paddy myself, not to mention an Anglo, I just cannot muster a sufficient level of outrage. Who cares? It occurs to me that black people in North America today must have remarkably little to worry about if they can really spare the energy for this crusade against a harmless word. I envy them.

There may be a few words referring to race or ethnicity in English that are genuinely offensive. But I can’t think of a single clear example.

English can insult on other grounds. GI—now there’s a word that genuinely is insulting in its meaning. And yet, ironically, nobody considers it offensive. “Guy” for males is another example—it seems to imply that one is either stuffed doll to be paraded to general contempt, or a traitor worthy of being hanged, drawn, and quartered.

Other languages can insult on racial grounds. In Chinese, Westerners are commonly referred to as devils or demons; and one common word for “foreign” also means “ugly.”

But English, with its international viewpoint and intercultural history, is actually exemplary in this regard.

And it is worth remembering that, in the end, even a genuinely insulting word cannot hurt us. The matter is trivial.

Nor can banning a word end the insults. If someone wants to insult you, and mere intent to insult makes a word an insult, any conceivable word to do it just as well as “nigger.”

So all objecting to “nigger” as a word really manages to do is to limit everyone’s freedom of speech. And once the principle is solidly established, that language can and should be limited in order to limit or prevent unwanted thoughts or sentiments, the next limitation might not be equally trivial. Legislating language to control thoughts is the nightmare that Orwell conjures up with “Newspeak” in his novel 1984.

And there is another consideration. Every time we change the language, we limit mutual comprehension. This is a grave matter—this is what language is for. We are pulling one more random bolt out of the community-making machine.

Oldspeakers, in particular, unless they happen go to the right schools and attend the right parties, may miss the change—and be persecuted for it. A great way, in the end, to enforce a class system.

As for anyone who has already died—they are out of luck.

But this also means we are gradually cutting ourselves off from the greatest minds of the past, and from our cultural heritage. For example, this particular word “nigger” was used, without pejorative intent, by such writers as Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, and Charles Dickens.

Now, let’s suppose we are at least wise enough not to ban these books from our libraries and our schools for the sake of “the n-word.” Even so, we have caused a grave loss. If we insist that “nigger” is pejorative, our children, if not we ourselves, will henceforth quite likely no longer be able to understand these books properly. We will see the word “nigger” and assume its means Twain, Conrad, and Dickens hated black people. Which is not their point at all.

A similar case, in my own experience: Yeats’s magnificent late poem “Lapis Lazuli,” to my mind one of the very best poems written by the best poet in English, ends with the punchline “Their ancient, glittering eyes are gay.” It was written in the 1930s. It is now almost impossible, I find, for a student to hear it without breaking into a smirk. A masterpiece of our common culture has thereby been destroyed, like an indelible moustache painted on the Mona Lisa.

Losing Twain, Conrad, and Dickens—that is no trivial loss. What could be worth it?