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?

Redskins

Raven and the First Men - Bill Reid.

The longstanding controversy about the Washington Redskins team name is, for some reason, heating up again. President Obama recently weighted in, suggesting the name change might indeed be a good idea. The problem, of course, is that the term “Redskins” is supposedly disparaging to North American Indians.

Odd, since the terms Minnesota Vikings and Notre Dame Fighting Irish are not considered disparaging to the Irish or the Swedes.

Many current dictionaries call “redskin” an offensive term. But there should be some logic behind such claims: what is disparaging about a reference to Indian ancestors painting themselves red when they went to war? Is this somehow worse than calling Swedes “Vikings,” an ancient name, or showing the Fighting Irish mascot with his fists raised in an old-fashioned boxing stance?

But it is not the term “redskin,” in the end. It is any reference to Native North Americans. I was at Syracuse University in the Seventies when they were similarly pressured into abandoning their own longstanding mascot, the Saltine Warrior. “Warrior” is, apparently, also insulting to American Indians. Sad, because there is so much Native American history associated with Syracuse. The original location of the Peace Tree, the capital of the Iroquois Confederacy, is held by the Iroquois themselves to be on Syracuse University's campus. 

The Saltine Warrior

Yet this, apparently, must not be mentioned; the students at Syracuse must have no idea.

When the Saltine Warrior was abandoned, he was replaced by a generic ancient Greek charioteer. Not terribly imaginative; but at least there was no protest raised by the Greek students on campus. At the time, the administration solicited other suggestions, but complained that many of them did not seem serious. An animated orange was one notorious suggestion. “I can guarantee you it won't be an orange,” promised Ulysses J. Connor, director of student activities.

The official mascot of Syracuse University sports teams is now Otto the Orange.

SU's own annoying orange.

As we all also know, along with “redskin,” the term “Indian” is also no longer to be used. Also disparaging, apparently—although to say so seems a bit of an insult, surely, to the billion people who reside in the Indian Subcontinent. So is “Eskimo,” though etymologists have been unable to find any disparaging implication in the term.

So why are at least some Native North Americans upset by something that most other ethnicities would consider a compliment?

I suspect the real problem here is not with what others call the North American native peoples. It is with what they call themselves.

This is usually the same thing. Haida, Mikmaq, Innu, Inuit, Anishinaabe, Beothuk, Abenaki, to cite a few examples all mean “human being.” That is, as opposed to the rest of us, who are not Haida, Mikmaq, Innu, Inuit, Anishinaabe, Beothuk, or Abenaki. We are not human beings. Nor are Innu, of course, if you are Mikmaq. These are, in themselves, rather dramatically worse racial epithets, if reverse racial epithets, than the Nazi German “herrenvolk” or “master race.” Let alone “Indian” or “redskin.” Yet they are the current preferred, politically correct terms, supposed to replace the neutral “Indian,” “Eskimo,” “Algonquin,” and so forth.

To be fair, Native North Americans are not the only groups to indulge in such extreme racism. At least two other examples seem worthy of comparison: the Gypsies refer to themselves as Rom, or Romani, and so, now, must the rest of us. “Rom” or “Romani” too means human. And at least some Chinese commonly refer to foreigners as gwailo or guizi—literally, “evil spirits.”

Now, interestingly, other than this extremely degraded view of outsiders, what do these ethnic groups—gypsies, Han Chinese, and Indians--seem to have in common? An extreme tendency not to integrate with the surrounding society, surely. Native North Americans do not want any references to themselves in the broader society, because they view the broader society, ultimately, with contempt, as subhuman.

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
- Chinese sculpture of an evil spirit.

Unfortunately, this attitude, besides being frankly immoral, is usually self-destructive. The Chinese are doing okay—perhaps because they have recently come out from under their extreme xenophobia, which held them back for so long—but Native Americans, gypsies, and North Koreans just do not seem to fare too well economically.

And let's be clear: segregation and apartheid and indeed poverty is not being imposed on the Native people. It is the Native people who are imposing it on the rest of us.

The Massacre at Regiopolis

Regiopolis School Crest. Is it discriminatory that it's still kind of red?

Regiopolis-Notre Dame High School, in Kingston Ontario, has a long and fabled history. It began as Canada’s first English Catholic High School. In 1886, it was actually granted university status, and theoretically still has the legal authority to award degrees. Its sports teams long competed as the Regiopolis Redskins. Then in 1988, someone decided this name was culturally insensitive. Goodbye to over a century of history and tradition.

The obvious and original choice then was to rename the teams the “Regiopolis Rams,” preserving the alliteration. But this was rejected as sexist: Rams are male.

So they are now, for no particular reason, the “Regiopolis Panthers.”

This pretty well tells you what you need to know about Kingston.

First question: how come it is discriminating against Indians to name your teams after them, but discriminating in favour of males to name your team after them?

Call the Human Rights Commission! Aren't Rogers employees an identifiable group?

Second question: how come, if it is insulting to name your sports team after someone, how come Air Canada is not suing over the name of the Air Canada Centre in Toronto? How come Rogers Cable is not suing over the name of the Rogers Centre? In Kingston, how come K-Rock Radio is not protesting the name of the K-Rock Centre, where the Kingston Frontenacs play?

Of course, others have noticed the absurdity of protesting against sports teams named after Indians when nobody seems to get upset about the Minnesota Vikings or the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

“There are no two ways about it;” however, writes a correspondent for Yahoo Sports. “The name [Redskins] is derogatory. A sports team that uses such a name responsible for the personal struggles of a group of strangers, or a people, [sic—I don’t understand what he’s trying to say either] but names such as Redskins, Braves or Indians can reaffirm the sense of powerlessness many Aboriginals encounter daily. It also is different from other nicknames which represent a people such as Patriots or Vikings, because it involves co-opting someone else's culture and heritage.”

Funny... you don't look Irish.

That’s the claim, then? It is “co-opting” someone else’s heritage? And how many players on the Notre Dame squad do you suppose are actually Irish? Or on the Minnesota squad Swedish? Or on the Boston Celtics Celtic? Or on the Toronto Argonauts Greek? Or on the Ottawa Senators Roman? Or on the Gananoque Trojans Trojan?

And does the writer really want to make the claim that native North Americans have made no contribution to Canadian culture? Should he presume that no Regiopolis players have native heritage? Isn’t that a classically prejudiced assumption?

But that’s Kingston. Like Toronto, only more so.