Why Is N*gger Such A Taboo Word?

[Damien10311]

After the recent responses to President Barack Obama's interview (which included his use of the word, n*gger), I been left confused as to why this word holds such a taboo representation. After all, a word, is simply that, a word... I understand that by context, n*gger has been used extensively in past culture to degrade African slaves. However, I strongly believe that society is the only thing that gives this word so much entitlement. Why is it that "black" people can call each other n*gger whilst everyone else cannot?! The word holds no purpose whatsoever in implying that their friend is a slave, it is rather used to imply the exact opposite. The people of today's society behave as if the Civil Rights Movement had never occurred... It is obvious that racism is still a prominent figure in our society, but there has been significant improvement and maturation since then. For what purpose does it serve us (society) to hold a word that divides everyone's opinions in a manner that is so offensive. *Coming from a 15 y/o teenager from Australia* & *I am neither black, white or hispanic*

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

First let's look at what Obama actually said. He didn't go on a radio show and say one word.

Racism, we are not cured of it, and it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say n*gger in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. We have to – societies don’t, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.

So why is there such an uproar that he said the word instead of using just the first letter to describe it? Let's consider from where the uproar is mostly uproar is coming. It seems the reason is distraction. It seems it is from people who want Obama's message to be lost by focusing on one-word that doesn't seem to change the meaning. Had Obama said "n-word" instead of actually using the word, it wouldn't change the point. The irony of course is the reaction--by the status-quo-supporters like the corporate-owned mainstream media--is over the trivial word choice by the President then the actual problem of racism.

Why is it that "black" people can call each other n*gger whilst everyone else cannot?!

There are some simply, easy answers. But the real question seems to be why is that even a question? We have a society in which millions of people suffer from gross institutionalized racism, so why wouldn't the question be--why wouldn't the mainstream media be as intense about--the income gap, the unequal enforcement of laws that lead to millions of disproportionately non-whites being thrown into cages (with the vast majority accused only of nonviolent "crimes" in a country with so many absurd laws that everyone is a criminal and who of these nonviolent people goes to jail is just a matter of discretion by a racist system)?

Why isn't there equality in who can use a word The question's absurdity in context provides its own answer: Why is the country so disgustingly racist? Perhaps when white people use the word it reminds black people of how upset they--and really all of us--should be regardless of whether white people use the word. Perhaps the word is just a reminder of the real, gross, terrible problem not the problem itself.

[Ruskin]

Something to do with black slavery.

[Wilson]

I agree with the original poster. I guess the answer is that somehow it has become almost codified in law that the word never again be uttered in polite society under any circumstances. It seems ridiculous to me that you can say "the n-word" - which everyone knows means "******" - but you're not allowed to say (or apparently even write) the actual word - unless you're of the persecuted minority, of course, in slang speech. Political correctness without substance. Silly, in my opinion. Who decided that for us?

Obviously no one should call someone that, and no one should use the word in normal conversation. But what's the difference between saying "the n-word" and "******"? Essentially, none. President Obama was not under the thumb of the political correctness police, and good for him. If you're going to discuss someone's use of the term in a hateful manner, use the damn word, not the sanitized version.

Should it also be banned from books? Should Huck Finn call his black friend "N-word Jim"? Should the works of William Faulkner (The Sound and the Fury), Joseph Conrad (The ****** of the Narcissus), and Greg Iles (Natchez Burning) be edited?

[Lagayscienza]

Well, Damien, I guess it's still offensive to African Americans to be called "n*gger" by whites in the same way that it is offensive for a gay man to be called a f*g by a non-gay man or for an Asian to be called a slope-head or for a disabled person to be called a g*mp by a non-disabled person. They are derogatory terms and meant to be so. And for that reason they are hurtful. So I don't think there's any great mystery there.

What is interesting though is how African Americans seem to be able to use the "n" word to each other without offence. I've heard gay people use the "f" word in this way, too. I'm not quite sure how all this works. Maybe it's a way for people who have been discriminated against to overcome the negative stereotyping and feelings of inferiority that they have subconsciously absorbed by being called those words in the past. So maybe it's therapeutic when they jokingly use the terms themselves but still hurtful when others use them.

[Alias]

Because it is emblematic of the language of an entire mind-set which allows one people to invade, kidnap, enslave and abuse another. Because, in American culture, it has come to represent systemic racism... which is a very, very long way from having been properly addressed, let alone eradicated. The ruling classes and their media mouthpieces would like that fact to go unnoticed; many comfortable white people (including, tragically, the supreme court) would like to pretend there is no longer a case to answer. The victims of Ferguson and similar police forces know better. The ones who share the experience of being oppressed are the only ones who can use the language of oppression and know that they're not doing it to oppress or belittle its victims.

-- Updated June 28th, 2015, 4:29 pm to add the following --

Lagayascienza - So maybe it's therapeutic when they jokingly use the terms themselves but still hurtful when others use them.

It's a form of empowerment. You take over and own the tool of oppression, as you might take away a stick from someone who beat you, so that they cannot use it anymore and you are no longer afraid of it.

-- Updated June 28th, 2015, 4:41 pm to add the following --

Wilson - Should it also be banned from books? Should Huck Finn call his black friend "N-word Jim"? Should the works of William Faulkner (The Sound and the Fury), Joseph Conrad (The ****** of the Narcissus), and Greg Iles (Natchez Burning) be edited?

People have tried that kind of revision, but it's wrong. Literature has a completely different kind of usage from current public discourse. For one thing, the context of the word in literature is nailed down and permanent: you can't read Huckleberry Finn and misunderstand what Twain was saying about slavery and why he had to use the word in its then-proper connotation. The fact of those authors having used the word, and the works in which they employed it, give cultural context for the reason we can't use it public discourse anymore. To hide that literary documentation of past attitudes would be to sanitize a sordid historical relationship and give the modern deniers more excuse to sweep it under the amnesiac rug.

[Sy Borg]

I don't understand the shock/horror reaction other than in context of a game. My understanding is that Obama is responsible for ills of the world - undoing so much of the wonderful work done by Bush to make the US the best damn debtor in the world.

This is possible because a significant subset of society are becoming remarkably fussy and effete in most things, fluttering with horror at the mention of "instant coffee" or "tap water". The walls are closing in as we become populate and effectively become more like Chinese and Japanese, so stuck in each others' faces that we gravitate towards fussbudget value systems like they did, which are easily agitated by minutiae.

I'm guessing that our current "shrill stage" is preceding "the silent stage" when we realise that - like our Asian peers (the first people to deal with such population density) - if we are to be straitjacketed and tattled on at every turn then it's best to keep your head down and mouth shut. Life for the average person becomes be more political, with words and actions chosen ever more carefully to avoid making waves.

This is especially irritating for many of my generation who came from a much less crowded and fussy time. People smoked everywhere, dogs were allowed to run free and dog poo was all over the place, no antibacterial sprays or handwashes, outrageous discriminatory statements were treated as normal, no seat belts, no RBT, and much faster speed limits, the TVs were small and bulky and in B&W but people thought that was wonderful because it was all they'd known. Ironically, the language on today's TV would have been wildly taboo then. Many more people believed in a deity and few would dare speak out against the "G-word" as blasphemy was taken seriously. If men fought at a bar they would use their fists - today's use of weapons in bar fights would then have been considered weak and cowardly.

Mainstream people's behaviour, in hindsight, has improved in many ways (though obviously not universally) but the price paid for the more broadly considerate behaviour in a population is freedom - at least without an intelligent media that empowers with honesty and information rather than enslaves with bias and polemic.

This flighty hysteria at the mere mention of taboo words has opened the way for an increasingly blind US to blame Obama for something else. Yet they couldn't muster the same annoyance at GWB and Cheney for giving the American people the largest debt accrued by a nation in the history of the world - and that's after inheriting a surplus from his predecessor.

[Spectrum]

Taboo words are just like how pornographic materials immediately trigger an erection to most hormone-charged teenager.
Just imagine how some pornographic words in certain contexts and explicit picture can immediately alter the mental and physical state of a person. Such changes in the human state is based on evolutionary factors to facilitate the continuation of the species.

The N word is also has an evolutionary element related to tribalism and ethnocentrism which is necessary to facilitate survival in an older phase of the human evolution where humans live in separate distinct tribes. Any thing negative from other tribes will trigger the fight or flight response where the whole mental and physical state are activated in preparation to fight or run from whatever is a threat to the existence of the individual and the tribe.

The N word was used initially with associated energy and 'vibrations' which was derogatory, negative and posed as a threat to the blacks and accompanied by real violence and evil by their majority enemy. As conditioned by an inherent property from the past the N word with its associated sense of threat thus trigger a mental and physical state for fight or flight in both the initiator and the black victims.

Since the N word trigger the mental and physical state in each party in readiness violence, the N word has the potential for full fledge violence and evil which is very evident from current and past incidents.

Now, even if no actual violence and evils were committed, the word itself trigger an inherent natural response of flight or flight in the mental and physical system those who read or heard of that 'N' word. This evoked uncomfortable emotions and is accompanied by all sorts of chemicals in the body and if unused are toxic to the system. Constant heighten of fight or flight is also detrimental in terms of high blood pressure and other toxins leading to various diseases.

Because the 'N' word will naturally trigger inherent violence and evil or it is a potential to violence and at the same time is unhealthy to the victims [even the perpetrator], it is rational and wise to ban the use of the 'word'.

The 'N' is necessary taboo and need to be banned because it has negative and evil consequences and is related to something that cannot be changed easily, i.e. color which is genetically based.

That the 'N' word is advocated to be taken as taboo and banned if used in a negative context is a consequence of the inherent evolving Moral Quotient [MQ] within humanity.

[Wilson]

Because the 'N' word will naturally trigger inherent violence and evil or it is a potential to violence and at the same time is unhealthy to the victims [even the perpetrator], it is rational and wise to ban the use of the 'word'.

Did Obama trigger violence and evil when he used the word in a speech?

Of course no one should use the word in everyday conversation. Of course no one should call another person a ****** (or a fag or towelhead or even a cracker). But it just seems goofy to me that somebody somehow mandated that it's okay to say "the N-word" - which everybody knows to be a substitute for "******" - but not the word itself.

[Spectrum]

Because the 'N' word will naturally trigger inherent violence and evil or it is a potential to violence and at the same time is unhealthy to the victims [even the perpetrator], it is rational and wise to ban the use of the 'word'.

Did Obama trigger violence and evil when he used the word in a speech?

Of course no one should use the word in everyday conversation. Of course no one should call another person a ****** (or a fag or towelhead or even a cracker). But it just seems goofy to me that somebody somehow mandated that it's okay to say "the N-word" - which everybody knows to be a substitute for "******" - but not the word itself.

Note I said, "if used in a negative context. "

Nevertheless his usage of the N work did trigger a lot of uneasiness and changes in the mental and physical state of many people and that is why his message was so widely discussed in the various media within US and around the world. I am sure many [whites and blacks] has to rationalize and psycho-analyze their natural inherent reactions.

[Above us only sky]

Why is it that "black" people can call each other n*gger whilst everyone else cannot?!

I think this is precisely the reason why the word"n*gger" should not be used by bystanders. For example , If the teachers in the same school call each other with nicknames, and then a pupil knows this and call a teacher with such nickname, then surely the teacher would go mad.

In the same way, the word "n*gger" used by a friend to call his or her friend is different from that word used by a stranger.

[Mart7689]

The 'N' word has undergone many transformations throughout history mainly, negro was used to describe Portuguese and Spanish people, the disparaging concept of the word that we identify now comes from the mid-twentieth century, relating to black African slaves. Therefore, referring to someone in this sense is a form of oppression in which liberation was fought for.

[Wilson]

My compliments to the original 15 year old poster for asking a rational question. The answer is that a lot of people are more concerned with what's politically acceptable than the underlying ideas. Many black people and white liberals seem to assume that anyone who uses that word is a racist, even if he's talking about the utilization of the word. Obama is a hero of mine, and his use of the actual word, I'm sure, was deliberate, with the purpose being to direct the conversation toward the real issues rather than phony ones.

[Burning ghost]

I have been to Australia so I am puzzled as to why you don't see this as deeply offensive. The context of the use of a word changes its inherant meaning.

I have seen the word used often in Australia as a derogatory term towards certains ethinic groups. The "abo" has even taken on a deeply negative meaning.

Due to pop culture and various public figures approach to the word it has certainly lost some of its hateful value. Again though the context on the situation is what dictates offensive.

If I was to call a black guy a stupid ****** he would obviously find it much more offensive than me calling him a stupid cretin. The later is plain offensive and the former is offensively racist. I would find it more offensive to say clever ****** than stupid cretin because the former here is treating the person as an inferior due to race.

If I was to say to a friend hows it going ******, that is perfectly friendly and well known as a term of endearment due to pop culture.

Another situation that is similar is to call a woman a bitch. I call my friend a stupid bitch quite a lot and she calls me names. The difference is we both know each other well enough and there is no malice in our words its just playful teasing. I have been in a situation in the past when drunk where I called a girl a bitch in a joking way but she took offense. This was my fault entirely because my judgement was comprimised even though I was just trying to have a laugh with her like I would with my other friend.

So due to social situations and cultural contexts each and every utterance is perceived differently by each individual.

[Steve3007]

The ones who share the experience of being oppressed are the only ones who can use the language of oppression and know that they're not doing it to oppress or belittle its victims.

I think the above, by Alias, is the clearest statement of why such a word can apparently be used by some groups but not by others. With words, context is everything.

Obviously actions are more important than words. In fact, if we take that to its logical conclusion, words are utterly unimportant because small exhalations rarely hurt anybody. But we all know that words are important because words cause actions. And words used in different contexts cause different actions.