What is the offensive n word

It is a good steelman. I would criticize it as follows though:

The meaning of any given word is context dependent, because meaning is a normative process. In other words, words are tools which rely on their common-understanding as leverage to be used.

This process of communal definition is never final, and so the common-understandings of words are continually working their way into their meanings. It happens all the time, dictionaries are updated, definitions shift, language evolves.

All very true, and poorly appreciated by most.

So, we shouldn’t discount the fact that the atmosphere of taboo around the n-word works its way into its definition.

Here you have pulled a sleight of hand. You have shifted from words having usages, defined by the context in which it is being used, to having a meaning decided by some global understanding of the word. In Australia «thongs» is used to mean sandals — it doesn’t matter if the majority of English speakers around the world use it to mean a g-string. The slightly sexualised word «thong» around the world might have a small taboo inserted into its defintion elsewhere, but it simply doesn’t in Australia, because its use is local to its immediate context.

I.e. you have subtly shifted from a pure descriptivist view to a prescriptivist one — albeit not using a dictionary or other central authority, but by assessing the «global» culture in which the word is used. If such a standard were used throughout linguistics there would be single «correct» meaning to a word defined by global consensus. This is not how we understand language/linguistics which understand word/grammar usages in the context in which they are used — not the majority context somewhere else.

You go on

Because society judges those who use it to be ‘racist’, that informs its use and therefore, crucially, its meaning*. Thus, it can be sensibly said that using the n-word means something different to «the n-word», even when said dispassionately.

and

To clarify, I’m not arguing that it’s «immoral» to say the n-word. I’m just explaining why it isn’t illogical to judge someone negatively for saying it.

So the problem of course is that the rest of what you argue could be true — and very reasonably so — if we understand the usage to match such a global context. In many cases (maybe most?) it is totally correct to interpret someone using the n-word to mean something about lack of sympathy for black people.

But it doesn’t universally imply that it does. More precisely, this statement:

I’m just explaining why it isn’t illogical to judge someone negatively for saying it.

is kind of moving the goal-posts. Of course it is possible to logically judge someone negatively for saying it. The problem is judging someone negatively for saying it in all contexts. That’s the issue in play. We already know that in some contexts it is appropriate to interpret it as direct racism so the above is kind of a truism. The question is why, say in a court room or other official capacity, does even quoting the word get elided for fear of offence?

Whilst you are right to point out that there is some large scale global context to its use, it doesn’t change the basic necessity with language to assess the context in which it was used too. And whilst taboos can get incorporated into usages of words it is still possible, even rational, to be able to determine how much of a word’s usage is based on that taboo, and what that really reveals.

If one were to go further and say that use of the word is direct evidence of antipathy towards black people without assessing the context of its use, and only the purported global one, then that indeed can be wholly irrational. For instance, take an author using that word. It’s use here can be leveraging that very taboo to make a racist character more believable and to leverage the shock value of the taboo for more effective fiction. Calling such an author necessarily racist is illogical.

This is somewhat debatable from today’s perspective. There are in fact institutions in the USA where reading Huckleberry Finn has been taken off the curriculum precisely because of this issue.

Probably the rationale is dominantly that they don’t want to expose young readers to this language out of fear that they won’t be able to discern how this was once acceptable but isn’t now, but there is arguably also an element of genuinely censoring Mark Twain.

The English Wikipedia article on the word has a section about «Cultural use» of the word which is currently almost exclusively about this book.

Whether Twain, or his protagonist, were «innocently» using the word, or intending it to be demeaning, isn’t really decidable. On one hand, that’s how the word was used back then. On the other, it certainly was in some senses demeaning, because that was the dominant attitude towards black people in American society in those days.

As the book’s story arc develops, Huck’s attitude towards Jim becomes more warm and sympathetic, and it’s not hard to imagine that bringing readers to the same conclusion was one of Twain’s motives for writing the book.

Home
More advice
General Knowledge

• You should avoid ever using this word which is so degrading since back in the slavery days. I don’t like people calling me Maria. That isn’t even as offensive. Just calling someone something that doesn’t represent them would be considered offensive. I wonder why you decided to ask such a question. It’s obvious it’s offensive.

• Hundreds of years ago it just meant ‘black’. Now, as everyone is saying, it’s been so loaded with hatred, insult and degredation that its original meaning is lost. It’s a word that needs to drop out of our language. There are a lot of alternative, non-offensive words available instead.

• was that a serious question? because back in the day, when black people were owned by white people, they would call them, n* but I dont approve of african american people running around calling their fellow people the n- word, because it is being hypocritical.

• there is no word in the english language that has a different meaning if someone of different ethnicity says it. If it was offensive when it was first initiated, it should still be offensive. Not one person today has been a slave or owned a slave.

• Actually, I read an article in an newspaper about the proper usage of the n-word by nonblack people one time. It said that some black people let nonblack people call them the n-word because they know the person is not racist.

• because that’s what the whites used to call them when they were racist back then it’s like calling a white person a cracker or white trash,you just shouldn’t say it period!

• It’s one thing for a black man to use it and a totally different thing for a white man to use it. . . So it’s best to just drop it from your list of usable words. . .

• I dated a blk guy and he said it meant a dirty person someone looked down upon and when white people use it it degrades them as humans.

• I think it’s dumb! why is it okay for black people to say it but when white people say it they wanna kill us? hypocrites.

• Because its encompassed with a history of oppression, slavery, rape, murder, etc…

• 1. General Knowledge
  2. Who is tired of the «N» word?
  3. What is the Belongingness in your own words?
  4. What’s you favorite word?
  5. Is «funer» a word?
  6. Is «patientlessly» a word?
  7. What words are linked with the word united?
  8. What word or words most make you feel motivated or inspired?
  9. sunbae as a english word
  10. what does the word»freedom» mean to you?
  11. What does the word «clingy» mean?

The most recent Jeremy Clarkson row, in which he admitted using the racially offensive word in unbroadcast footage from the BBC’s Top Gear, raises the question how, or even if, journalists should quote those who have used the word.

In its initial news story about Clarkson, the Guardian used a direct quote from the presenter, which included the N-word spelt out in full. When news is breaking and there is no cast-iron rule about the usage of a particular word, it often means editors must make a swift judgment call. Context is key, of course, so the decision may not be the same for all stories relating to racist terms or actions.

My personal view is that we should avoid altering direct quotes by censoring or abbreviating them, even when they contain deeply offensive words. Whether intended to or not, it could play a role in attempts to sanitise or gloss over what the speaker has said. That said, a single reference to the offensive word somewhere in the body of the article is enough – or we run the risk of being gratuitous and insensitive.

The underlying principle is that our job as journalists reporting the news is to establish the facts and let readers make up their own minds. By using the unaltered quote and explaining the context in which it was used, the facts are laid bare for our readers – who, as the Guardian’s style guide editor, David Marsh, says, «are grownup enough to handle such things» – citing the Guardian’s coverage of the John Terry trial, where it was the only paper to quote the actual words at the heart of the case.

The Guardian’s first readers editor, Ian Mayes, wrote that there was not necessarily a consensus within the company on how the N-word should be dealt with in stories.

Unlike other newspapers, Guardian policy is to not censor out or use asterisks for offensive words. This is where the debate becomes more complicated because I don’t believe the N-word should be lumped in with any old swearword or off-colour phrase. It has such historical significance that many people deem its use – in any context – entirely unacceptable.

As the Guardian’s assistant comment editor Joseph Harker wrote: «The use of this word among black Britons is not the norm. Indeed, most absolutely condemn its usage in all cases.»

One Guardian reader who shares that view complained about the Clarkson article. She wrote: «Doesn’t the paper have a house style and a position on the use of this racist word? It is just as objectionable coming out of the mouth of Clarkson, or anyone else, as it is seeing it in print in the Guardian.»

On the other hand, there are those who insist the word has been reclaimed by black people and that its modern-day usage doesn’t necessarily signal racism. There’s unlikely to be any general consensus on that either, but whatever progress may have been made in reclaiming it, the N-word continues – and will continue – to be used as a racial slur and wielded as an insult by some people.

Even though I believe writing out the word in full can be justified in very limited circumstances when quoting someone, there is no denying that it remains deeply offensive to many people.

It continues to provoke a fierce reaction in a way that other offensive words simply don’t. When reporting on the use of the N-word, whether in a news story or a comment piece, striking a balance between sensitivity and transparency is an absolutely crucial part of the journalistic process.

I would be interested to know what readers think about whether the N-word should ever be spelt out. Is it necessary for the sake of transparency? Acceptable in limited circumstances? Or simply never appropriate?

Tola Onanuga is a freelance journalist who works for the Guardian and other publications. She writes on a range of topics including culture, technology and race issues. Twitter: Tola_o