The Real World of Ethnic Slurs

What did Sambo ever do to make his very name a bad word?

Dr. Charles Krauthammer weighs in on the Washington Redskins controversy. He thinks the name should be changed. The Washington Post loves it. I respectfully disagree.

As Dr. K. says himself, “There is no particular logic to this evolution.” Exactly the problem. He is apparently one of the postmodern crew who believe that language is determined by nothing but popular usage. Yet it is not. Language is logic, or it is nothing; it ceases to communicate, especially across the ages. Nor has it ever been determined by general usage, at least until very recently: this is why folks can always point to favoured neologisms actually already being used long ago. Doesn't make them right that they are old, any more than that they are common. No number of people over any length of time will make “ain't” correct usage, or “youse.” Both are common and ancient. But they violate a part of the language's logic.

Usage counts; but not common usage. What is correct is demonstrated, not by popular usage, but by the consistent usage of the best writers. This only makes sense: there is expertise in language just as there is expertise in medicine or in science. You don't want a writer doing your brain surgery, and you don't want your surgeon shaping the language.

Importantly, this has nothing to do with resisting language change. File under herring, red. The point is that a change in language must not be arbitrary, but must follow the rules and the logic and the music of the language.

If we let all hell break loose, as Dr. Krauthammer recommends, a lot of people are unnecessarily harmed. Notably, in the present example, the owners, players, and fans of the Redskins have built up a valuable brand and a cherished cultural artifact over the years. Is it right that, through not fault of their own, they must now lose it all? This obviously violates natural justice; for, on the other hand, absolutely nobody is harmed by the Redskins name.

This collateral damage to the innocent commonly happens when linguistic logic is thrown to the wind. Most often, those most harmed will be those previously most favourably inclined to the minority group supposedly maligned, as in the case of those who sought to identify themselves as redskins. Worse, language by popular vote allows politics to creep in and manipulate the language for its own benefit, just as George Orwell warned in 1984. This is a clear and present threat to our liberties.

How dignified is this?

When it comes to racial epithets, the rule ought to be clear. To be offensive, the term must indeed, as Krauthammer says, “carry an inherently derogatory connotation.” That should mean that the word's derogatory implication is not a matter of fickle public opinion, or worse, cocktail party opinion, subject to unpredictable change which can sideswipe the innocent or uninitiated, but inherent in the word's actual meaning.

To cite one of Krauthammer's own examples: if the word “gyp” meaning “to cheat” really did come from gypsy, then yes, it is indeed derogatory, and should not be used: it implies that all gypsies are swindlers.

Actually, though, even here, there is a problem. What Krauthammer knows is not so. He has been to too many cocktail parties. We do not know where the word really came from.

This false positive is indicative of a certain endemic problem: there is now an industry and a class structure built on fabricating these racial shibboleths, so that those who do not know and use the current preferred term, who did not go to the right schools and do not continue to read the right publications and attend the right parties, are systematically disadvantaged. Unsurprisingly, the groups most likely to be harmed by this classism are ethnic minorities.

On what else is Dr. K. Wrong? Going through the list of terms Krauthammer cites:

Redskins – there is nothing inherently derogatory about a reference to an ancient war practice. This would be equivalent to calling modern Scandinavians “Vikings.” Not a problem.

Negro – there is nothing derogatory about referring to someone's skin colour, unless you begin by buying into the belief that there is something wrong with that skin colour. Accordingly, it is more racist to avoid the term “negro” than to use it. The same goes for “nigger.”

Gypsy – there is nothing derogatory about this term unless you hold that there is something wrong with coming from Egypt. Again, more racist to avoid it than to use it. Krauthammer uses “Roma” for preference. Big problem: actually racist in the extreme.

Retarded – purely descriptive, and polite about it. Developmentally disabled is simply a more long-winded way of saying “retarded.” Occam's razor applies to English: if a shorter word or phrase is already available, one should not use the longer form (without special reason). Therefore, this term should be avoided.

L to R: Nigger Jim, Huck Finn.

If you've been following, you will have noted a disturbing trend: the modern “politically correct” terms are often more pejorative than the terms they replace. This linguistic trend is increasing, not reducing, racism.

Other terms that are in fact not pejorative, but currently often thought to be: welsh as a verb (no known relation to the ethnicity), wop (really means something like “handsome young swell”), wog (origin unknown), Paki (is Brit or Yank offensive?), squaw, Indian, Injun, Hymie, Hebe, gook (origin unknown), frog (it's a delicacy, for goodness' sake), Dago, chink (probably from Qing or Chine), Chinaman (more or less the cognate of the Chinese term).

Terms that are commonly used, but really are pejorative: Boche, camel jockey, cheesehead (actually used by Hitler, for the Dutch), cheese-eating surrender monkey (no argument here, right?), cracker (means “boastful”), greaseball, honky (implies an uneducated manual labourer), Hun (actually German-coined, but implies savagery), kike (is it really used any more?), raghead, shiksa.

One advantage of keeping it logical and keeping the record straight is that the language then becomes a useful and accurate barometer of who is being discriminated against and who is not. Compare usage with the internal logic of the word: if an inoffensive word is considered offensive in “polite society,” you have identified a group that is being discriminated FOR. If an offensive word is considered inoffensive in “polite society,” you have identified a group that is being discriminated AGAINST.

On that reliable measure, we are currently discriminating in favour of American Indians, blacks, Hispanics (or is that now disallowed? Should I say “Latinos”?) and South and East Asians. We are discriminating against Arabs, Germans, French, Canadians ("cheeseheads," in parts of the US), Wisconsinites, and whites generally.

Bingo.

Actually, come to think of it, isn't "Krauthammer" a bit of a slur against the Germans? Shall we start a petition to have the doctor change his name?