Talk:Nigger/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Etymology I

Moved to within Etymology II

Miscellaneous due to Lack of More Specific Headings (1.0)

oh my God! What the HELL is this? What is this doing in the present tense? Ed, were you trying to sound like some whiny-assed, "oh, we white people are so hard done by," educated good ol' boy? You have managed to reduce several hundred years of serious racism to "it used to be racist, but now we can't use it because they say so." How embarassing. And, by the way, it's use among black (or African-American) people is often pejorative -- it is generally not used in regular conversation, but more often as a preface to an opposing statement, thus implying that the person on the other side of the argument is in some way (and therefore his arguments) less worthy. Perhaps you might like to re-write this to reflect a very complex subject with a lot more meaning and history than you seem to be willing to credit it with. Ending a sentence with a preposition, JHK 12:49, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)

JHK -- I do not think Ed Poor wrote the bulk of this article. I agree with you in essence, though -- I think the real issue is that people who write article should ideally be people who have done some serious research. Slrubenstein 12:53, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)

Misc 1.3 mixed with German "Neger"

Are we going to include all offensive words we can come up with? Just seeing the title of this article made me come up short. Shall we add every single racist term? -- Zoe 12:54, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)

Judging from your reaction, the word certainly deserves an encyclopedia entry. Especially since the word seems to have a connotation in the US that can hardly be grasped in the rest of the world. Jheijmans 12:57, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)
This is absolutely true -- in Germany, people used the equivalent "Neger0" and mean it in the sense that older people in the US still often say "Colored". Ed, if you were not responsible for the major re-write, I apologize. I looked briefly through the history, and thoght that the major changes, especially those that put the emphasis on "black people can say it, but white people can't," were yours, but I'm still getting used to the new software. JHK 13:01, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)
Compare: white trash doesn't even come close. The use of "white trash" is nowhere NEAR as offensive. -- Zoe 13:02, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)
It is not right to edit other people's contributions to talk pages. Julie Hoffman Kemp did not write Neger0 as shown above. She wrote Neger and someone named Stevert just stuck the 0 in there for unfathomable reasons. Perhaps it was an honest mistake, as it makes no sense in either German or English, but if so it happened quite far away from the 17-line "minor" edit added at the bottom of this page at the same time. Ortolan88 07:00 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
Now there's the pot calling the kettle hollow. the librarian 07:19, 1 Feb 2003 (UTC)
What the librarian means is that I indented him once. I didn't change a single letter of his lengthy (now concealed by the librarian) contributions. Scholars of talk-page banter can find the whole story in the history of Talk:The Catholic crusade against the imagination. That pot guy, Ortolan88 17:29, 1 Feb 2003 (UTC)

I think the record there will show that you indented my work more than once [1] [2], and over my protest.

When an author (not WFH) turns in a manuscript to me and I have to ask him to adjust the formatting and he refuses, my choices include publishing it as he desires or deciding not to publish. They do NOT include publishing it in a format he objects to. I am shocked that someone with your publishing history is not aware of this, though I notice you mostly do WFH. It would be like publishing Joyce with quotation marks around dialogue. Furthermore I don't really believe that you are so deaf--so blind to context--that you don't know how indentation can change meaning, and didn't intention to do so. Why it was so important to you is also inexplicable: you did it only to annoy me, and succeeded. In the end, the changes reflected in your talk diffs should be your words, not mine. I could easily edit your talk--without changing one letter--so that it meant something comeletely different than you intended, since quote marks, like indents, are not letters.

I deleted (not 'concealed') my contribution because you only get two choices: leave it alone or I take it back. You'll find the only work I howl when you edit is the work I sign. You have no right. But you have the ability.

As for that article title (Catholic crusade against the imagination), as a fucking born and educated Catholic, I know the proper names for many things Catholic and am not offended by them. It didn't occur to me that the politically correct would blow a fuse but it should have. Which is the gist of what I said. You are too smug and shallow a buffoon to have read or comprehended what I wrote. So much for playing in the shallow end of the pool. the librarian 04:20, 2 Feb 2003 (UTC)

It's all in the history. Anyone who is interested can examine it. Ortolan88 06:22, 2 Feb 2003 (UTC)
in Germany, people used the equivalent "Neger" and mean it in the sense that older people in the US still often say "Colored".

No, it's *not* (really) true. "Neger" was a long time ago in use, but today it is not political correct to say "Neger" for coloured people in german. Today many Germans (and Austrians, etc.) say often "Farbige (Leute/Bürger/Menschen, etc." (that means "coloured people/citizens/humans, etc."). A big mistake is to believe, that Arnold Schwarzenegger's name means "Schwarze Neger" ("black Nigger" or "black neger", because "Neger" has not really the same meaning than "nigger"). That is not true. Correct is "schwarzen eger". I guess, "Eger" or "Egger" is an old word for "Acker", so the correct translation of his name is "black acre" or "black field".

See this Thread in de.etc.sprache.deutsch -- fux 217.225.120.20 (talk) 00:52 Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

It would definitely be good to point out that the term is offensive in the US, and not so elsewhere. In Russian, the usual way to refer to black people is by using the word "negr". On the contrary, using the Russian word for 'black' would sound offensive - certainly derogatory. That is so because in Russian, the previously used derogatory terms were 'blackskin' or 'blackface', while 'negr' not so much. As I'm outside the US, I usually call black people negros, and that's normal where I live and in languages I speak. 195.244.128.16 (talk) 00:52 Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

[Later contributions on this topic appear below.]

Misc 1.5

I'm not sure what parts of the article I wrote; we could use the sophisticated compare features on the history page to find out. But I'm basing my understanding of the usage of nigger on 3 sources:

  1. My white minister friend told me in 1989 that some black ministers in Nashville gave him permission to use the word, since he had become, essentially, one of them.
  2. I've overheard conversations between black people who didn't seem to realize I could hear them, and their usage of nigger did not seem perjorative to me; it sounded as ordinary as man.
  3. The DVD for Training Day (the film with Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke) has a director's commentary that discussed nigger and other terms used in the film.

Perhaps context determines the degree of offensiveness... Ed Poor 13:08 Jul 23, 2002 (UTC)

I agree with you that context does determine the degree of offensiveness. The problem is that an encyclopedia article is written in the most general context, for encyclopedia articles are routinely and indeed are meant to be taken (literally) out of context (for example, Ed, your own contributions to the article do not mention the context in which you learned this -- and I am not criticizing you, as this is typical for all encyclopedia contributors). It is thus very very important to write articles that acknowledge and in some way are responsible to this fact. Slrubenstein 13:14, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)
Thank you for the perspective, slr. Ed Poor 13:29, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)
Offensiveness is in the ear of the beholder. A very useful work is Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word by Randall Kennedy -- Zoe 13:11, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)
Zoe, I added the book title and ISBN to the article. Anyone know how to turn the ISBN into an external link? Ed Poor 13:29, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)
How do you do that trick with the ISBns? -- Zoe 13:48, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)

Excellent rewrite, Mswake -- Zoe 14:07, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)

Thanks!

A fairly big rewrite, though I've included several bits contributed by earlier writers, because they were good.

I've tried to express the recent use of the word "nigger" by black people in a better way, and also edited for tone to reduce the potential for Very Big Arguments. I hope I've not sacrificed objectivity; I don't think I have.

Mswake 14:09, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)

Wow, nice job. I liked the part about "reclaiming", and the whole thing flows really well. Please write a lot more articles! Ed Poor 16:31, 23 Jul 2002 (UTC)
It's very good on the whole, but I don't understand how the Ali quote "I got nothing against no Viet Cong. No Vietnamese ever called me nigger" is reclaiming the word. -- Hotlorp 06:08, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)
I think by boldly using it, knowing that he would be quoted world wide, Ali was, in his usual subtle way, putting down people who used the word by using it himself in what he meant to be a positive way. Ortolan88 06:12, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Derek Ross' edit about "African non-Americans", what is the correct usage in the UK, Australia, NZ, SA, etc? Is it "negro" or "black" (I think those can still be used), or something else? Jeronimo 01:41, 1 Aug 2002 (UTC)

Tried to address the concerns above. I don't think we want to develop a list of "call black people this in UK, this in Australia, and this in New Zealand." As Zoe said above, "offensiveness is in the ear of the beholder", so it's impossible to be exhaustive or we'd end up with "Jim Smith of London prefers to be called 'British Ghanaian', Parminder Sangha thinks of herself as Indian first and Scottish second..." Mswake 02:21, 1 Aug 2002 (UTC)

Agreed. I like the way that you've put it in the article. -- Derek Ross 02:24, 1 Aug 2002 (UTC)

Things that have been renamed in modern times are items like "Nigger Brown" which was a shade of brown paint you could purchase in the UK some decades ago - also Agatha Christie's story Ten Little Niggers has been renamed to Ten Little Indians and then, And Then There Were None - both of these at the time they were made no-one thought anything of - a bit like the Golliwogg - though it doesn't excuse at all the racism associated with them. 210.49.196.232 (talk) 00:38, 11 Aug 2002 (UTC)

Also Guy Gibson of the Dam Busters had a black labrador called Nigger. The dog's grave can be found at RAF Scampton. The last time The Dam Busters film was transmitted on British television the word was overdubbed. Mintguy 05:45, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Removed from article for further discussion. This may be true, but I'm thinking that, if so, there must be a better way to put it:

However, it is not possible to extrapolate from this to usages in other dialects of English, since people speaking those do not face precisely the same pattern of tensions between groups; consequently they have other current terms of abuse, and the term "nigger" is more likely to come up in the form of its historical usage than it would in the USA.

I don't think Hindus like being called nigger any more than anyone else would. Ortolan88 05:22, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Not the point. ANY prescriptive usage is POV; the comment relates to other dialects' RECEIVED usages, and what is likely to come up in them. Only US usage is strongly prescriptive, and it is wrong in practice and in usage to prescribe usages when standard practice is descriptive. It is irrelevant how much other people may or may not like the usage, when the phrasing in the article is itself innocuous and describes what is more likely to turn up in our dialects. I carefully didn't even use offensive phrases.
Oh, and it is quite wrong to start by vandalising and then stall - if you truly thought discussion and consensus were a high priority, you would have raised that rather than shooting first. PML. 203.202.5.75 (talk) 05:42, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)
Please explain just where it is in the world that it is historically fine to call people niggers. You simply assert it (and put it in a place that interferes with the flow of the article). As it stands, you name no "other dialects of English" where nigger is accepted and does not cause tension. The only usage I have ever heard is of Hindus, which I mentioned.
Oh, and oh again. It is not considered vandalizing to mark a change as major, note in the summary that something is being removed, invite a discussion, post the full removed portion immediately in the talk page, along with a further comment that it may be true, followed with an invitation for comment.
If this is true, and you still have given nothing but an assertion that it is, it is well worth its own section in the article:
Places in the English speaking world where nigger is an acceptable term and does not cause tension, along with the historical reasons that this is so.
I do not engage in edit wars, so I won't take it back out, but maybe you will stop to try to make your contribution into a part of an encyclopedia article instead of getting ripped at me. Ortolan88 06:06, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)
PS - There are also articles on terms of disparagement, yid, fag, queer, and white trash. There may be others. You may want to expand in its own article the other abusive terms you have in mind. Ortolan88 06:48, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)
Removed again after waiting a week for someone to come up with a place or places where nigger was just fine and not in the least offensive:
However, it is not possible to extrapolate from this to usages in other dialects of English, since people speaking those do not face precisely the same pattern of tensions between groups; consequently they have other current terms of abuse, and the term nigger is more likely to come up in the form of its historical usage than it would in the USA.
Ortolan88 02:20, 24 Jan 2003 (UTC)

We've had this argument about local acceptability before: see above. As a non-US English speaker I'd say that "many people outside the US are aware of the offensiveness" is a drastic understatement. It's certainly "strongly prescriptive" in the UK, so it's also incorrect to say that the US is the "only" place where this is true.

"local sensibilities are mostly about different words which describe local minorities pejoratively" -- in that case, should they be discussed in this article? This is an article about the word "Nigger", not about local racism or words for minority groups: we could in theory have an infinitely long article about "places where the word Nigger is not used".

There's already a sentence in the article (2nd para) that says: "Acceptable words vary from country to country and, ultimately, from individual to individual." If there is to be a discussion of local variations on this page (which I don't think there should be), it can't do anything but lead to that conclusion. Mswake 11:57, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

For other offensive terms, another article, referenced from here. If, as this person asserts, there are places that nigger "is more likely to come up in the form of its historical usage", and presumably is quite acceptable, that is fascinating and definitely belongs in the article. Lacking either of those things, the paragraph should be re-removed. Ortolan88 14:55, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Reordered the section about Ali and reclaiming, following Hotlorp's comments: as originally written (and now restored), it was meant to illustrate the reclamation process thus:

  • In 1967, Ali said "No Vietnamese ever called me nigger", demonstrating that he was offended by the use of the word;
  • Only 21 years later, NWA were able to use it self-referentially in an affirmative way; to some extent it had been reclaimed.

Hope that's clearer. Mswake 12:06, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! -- Hotlorp 14:01, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

I have some doubts about this sentence, and I hope others can address this knowledgably:

despite their own use of the word nigger (sanitized via spelling) the group's name was often glossed as "NWA",

I am not so sure that the change in spelling simply signals sanitizing (as in damn -> darn). I believe these are two different words with different meanings and rules for usage. I understand that one word is derived from the other, but I think there is something far more complex going on than sanitization, and the use of "nigga" by NWA does NOT signify acceptance of the word "nigger." Slrubenstein 16:48, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

I just changed the page by adding some of Mswake's words, since Hotlorp thought they clarified the situation. However, I should point out that that doesn't mean that I endorse their content... -- Oliver PEREIRA 16:57, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)
Right -- but the thing is, I do not see NWA as "reclaiming" the word nigger.... Slrubenstein 17:00, 17 Jan 2003
It sure isn't attacking the word. Despite the attempts by ignorant white people to lay claim to nigga, it just hasn't worked. When the Beastie Boys played the Apollo Theater in Harlem, they dashed out on stage proclaiming "How all you niggas doing?" and were received with a stunned and angry silence. Presumably they had gotten away with it with white audiences. Ortolan88 17:34, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)
Yes, O, but NWA were not White, they were Black. I agree with you about ignorant white people attempting to lay claim to "nigga," but that wasn't what I was commenting on. I do think it matters, who uses the word and in what context (true about many words, by the way -- one of the main areas of sociolinguistics); my only point was that "nigga" and "nigger" are not the same, and by extension the rules governing their use are not identical either. Slrubenstein 18:03, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)
I understand, but I'm thinking that even a sociolinguist would accept the "sanitized by spelling" as a form of "reclaiming" the word. And, as you say, who is using the word is important. I wrote the following in Profanity after a discussion with a friend who is writing a book on French for English-speakers:
The situation is rendered more complex when other languages enter the picture. In European Spanish, coño (cunt in English) is very common in spoken discourse, meaning no more than "Hey!" or "Christ!". Likewise, in French, merde (shit) is also quite common as an expletive. Some scholars have noted that while the French and Spanish are comfortable hearing native speakers use these words, they tend to hear the "stronger" meaning when the same words are spoken by non-native speakers. This may be similar to the differences in the acceptability of queer or nigger depending on who is saying the words.
Ortolan88 18:17, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

"This has been condemned by some as "revisionist", although the edited version apparently produced less complaints than a previous un-censored broadcast."

I don't understand the use of the word 'although' in this context. It does not seem to signal a contradiction. branko 17:28, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

In fact, now it would be disconcerting to hear the word nigger applied to either the dog or the name of the operation. Ortolan88 17:34, 17 Jan 2003 (UTC)

194.255.7.137 has changed terms such as "dark-skinned people", "African-Americans", and "black people" to "negro". Though this is strictly the correct classification I undertand many black people find it offensive. Editorial decision required. ChrisQ 12:49, 22 Jan 2003 (UTC)

I'm counting this as vandalism. reverted. -- Tarquin 13:40, 22 Jan 2003 (UTC)

A week ago this page was looking in pretty good shape, now it's a bit of a mess... why the rewrite, Stevertigo? Mswake 14:20, 29 Jan 2003 (UTC)

The geographical name stuff is pretty good, but underdocumented. The Ebonics needs to be rewritten (written, actually) and put into its own article linked from here, but the defense of Eonics is distracting here. The subject of the article is a word. This distracts. Ortolan88 15:26, 29 Jan 2003 (UTC)
I thought it might, but then If it was left out, then there'd be less of an understanding of background= the point was to connect the word "nigger" to the rebellious attitude -d'oh~ I forgot to put "Bad Nigger" in there - as the keystone to connect them. with this in there, Some of the lenthy ebonics stuff, (redundant from the Ebonics artice - which Orto, someone could criticise saying 'this history should go on a "legacy of slavery" page'- I'd rather have the redundacy than just rely on the link to: but like i said some of it no doubt can be cut - I had a hard time cutting it to what it is now, and still didnt really feel happy about it. The rest I'm happy with for the most part, the original was way to choppy - like a whole bunch of... wikipedians wrote it ")-Stevert 15:35, 29 Jan 2003 (UTC)

The article says:

The metathesis that made nigger out of Negro was formerly a systemic sound change in some dialects of American English;

Who says that nigger comes from Negro? Dictionaries that I've looked at say it comes from an older form neger, which is from Middle French negre (or French nègre), which in turn is from Spanish negro. Whereas Negro is directly from Spanish (or Portuguese). --Zundark 17:24, 29 Jan 2003 (UTC)

I think its off... but this is also nitpicking - I wrote spanish originally, because of the spanish trade influence, and its relative likelihood that the english word comes from the spanish rather than the latin or french - these are all latin -based languages, (english is germanic+latin), so it doesnt matter..
the metathesis bit, seems like a crude way of writing something rather inane to begin with.. i would change it back, or put metathesis somewhere else. no offense to the writer. -Stevert 17:35, 29 Jan 2003 (UTC)
I put in the metathesis bit to point out that the word "nigger" represents the regular English outcome, predicted by a phonological law, of the word it was borrowed from, whether that be French or Spanish. (For purposes of the rule in question, it makes no difference. Either one would have had /e/ rather than /i:/ for the first vowel, and /ro/ or /r@/ in the last syllable. The current English pronunciation of 'Negro' represents spelling rather than speech.) It was not coined to be deliberately mocking, and the fact that it is now offensive is a result of later developments. If I did so clumsily, my apologies. --- Ihcoyc 21:11, 29 Jan 2003 (UTC)
All this screwing around has left this:
"Their self-referential use of the word nigger in an affirmative way, nevertheless the use of the initials did not much diminish an extreme discomfort that still surrounded the word, caused a great deal of controversy in America, over the explicitness of rap lyrics."
which reads like the second amendment to the US Constitution. the librarian 01:57, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)
And this bit:
"In bastardizing the "master's English" African slaves could engage in a subtle, unreproachable, form of disrespect for their abusive masters and this, ironically, was widely attributed to the "low intelligence" of African people. The effects of these engrained rebellious attitudes, over generations, also have had negative consequences, many of which still exist today, manifested in the self-image and habitual behaviour of Slave's decendants. These engrained "bad" habits are in large part the basis for modern racial-divide issues."
has so many problems just as writing that whether it deserves a place seems almost a side issue. the librarian 02:02, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)
well rewrite it. You seem to be questioning its style and not its content. p.s. if otherwise, well I'm sure you'll make a good case for it...-Stevert 02:09, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)
LOL - I just caught the second amendment bit. very nice, :) -Stevert 02:11, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)

thx. Well, I'd call the content speculative (the sociological theory of why black people go to jail so much seems like it deserves a "some say" and also ignores the contribution of white repression). I'd call the style so-so. It's the grammar that's bothering me. I'm not comfortable with the content, so I haven't rewritten it. But that's just not competent English. the librarian 02:14, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Something along these general lines would be appropriate somewhere, but not really here, I don't think. And in addition to being horribly written, it's a tremendous oversimplification. Masking or double voicing should explain this in detail, in an article on the subject (which applies to more than just African-Americans--many oppressed minorities have similar linguistic tics).TUF-KAT 02:33, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)
Once again, as on the Talk:Al-Qaeda page, ( i think), I have to make the point that to exclude material from a page, in the name of re-classification is not the way to go, policy wise. read talk for more, but basically I call it subtle censorship. There are no limits on space here - and, there is nothing wrong with a little redundancy between different articles - it legitimate to have cross-over material. To remove something, it should be on factual grounds, or grounds that its immaterial. But, you can't make such a case for either of these here.
As for lib's point, that this is speculative. Im certain that youre a well read person, and perhaps you and I have read similar things, I can point to books which contain more or less the same ideas, but most books (even the Bible) can then be dismissed in the name of 'objectivty' - as some misuse "objectivity" to mean "its not what Ive read".
Horribly written? Fine. Im sure your better at getting your thoughts out than I am. Tremendous oversimplification? hmph. I had spent a good deal of time cutting it down to its simplified state, because otherwise, as someone rightly pointed out, the section was too long for the article. ( Damned if you do... etc.. )
Fine, It sounds like you understand the logic and the "speculation" as valid, to some degree or another. If you want a book to read up on to broaden your understanding of this, I'm sure you have access to some recent, broader-perspective, humanist essays on slavery, and how the events of Slavery tie to the present... consequentially, quite humanly. -Stevert 06:07, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)
Ok, people, thanks for the crit, I rewrote it. I think it reads better now. As per the idea of removing ebonics under the premise that it's "immaterial" - read this Wikipedia:AaR, and tell me whachoo thinkz. --Stevert 08:29, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)

As far as I know it comes from negro. But it it might be worth pointing out that all these words derive from Latin 'Niger': French noir/neger/negre; Spanish negro; Italian nero. In other words these different derivations are not really different; nigger is just one of many dialect variations on the same word across Latinate languages. We have the countries Nigeria and Niger (pronounced Neejer) and the river Niger. All are simply variants of Latinate forms of the word for 'black', mostly with no pejorative connotations. The interesting question is why this particular variant on the word, among many others, came to be used pejoratively. Paul 62.30.112.2 (talk) 08:47, Mar 12 2004 (UTC)

Eh? nigger doesn't come from negro, but the older form neger, which comes from the younger form negro? Are you older than your dad?--PRB 15:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick but I can't see how Dambusters is a "biopic", and have changed it to "film", which I am more certain about! :) Chambers online says "biopic - noun - a film telling the life-story of a famous person, frequently in an uncritically admiring or superficial way. ETYMOLOGY: 1950s: short for biographical picture." Dambusters does not meet this criterion. Nevilley 08:47, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Stevertigo, the theory I questioned concerns the allegation that some black people today have negative self-image and behavior, and that these traits are derived from engrained rebellious attitudes, instilled over generations.

There are other theories, such as that some black people have negative self-images because there are few positive representations of them in the media, or because white people are always looking down on them because they are black, or because they and everyone they know or are related to are poor and lack other trappings of success.

So you can't use the first theory as a fact, it's just a theory; and I don't think it has had sufficient research applied to it to be called more than speculation. the librarian 08:55, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, librarian. If you have any other theories regarding the why and the how, (which if you read carefully I don't claim to explain fully) then they might be added. But this isn't an article about the Legacy of Slavery. I'm not one to split hairs, in fact I wrote some "policy" on this just last night: 1..
So what have we left the word nigger - its origins and etymology (and who in the hell, by the way thinks nigger is not related to "nEgro" (neegro=nigrah==niggar)
We have the "bad nigger" as a logical continuation of the word "nigger", which is fairly easy to explain. If you look at these issues with NPOV, (forget about those 'books' you read back in the mid-fifties - sorry), in other words, with human undertanding - put yourself in someones shoes... spiteful, self -destructive rebellion, is a reasonable avenue, when your chained to a log and beaten twice a week, by some "God-fearing Christian": The master's abuse is proof, (to the slave) of the illegitimacy of his culture... (this is all very Dinesh D'Souza, by the way, who got no thanks from the African American community for go into this stuff.
Why do you think we have people willing to blow themselves up - to attack the master society, the US. It is because of "rabid Islam"? It's so easy to say - It fits in a soundbite, Its racism though, and a very insipid, insidious for of it. http://ps.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Middle_East_Policy_(Chomsky)
So what can we do: I can summarise the sentiments in a way which is humanly undersatandable; in ways most humans, though sadly not all, can relate: Pampered people are often "helpless as a rich man's child"... Be well, and your thoughtful challenges are appreciated. -Stevert 20:21, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)
Stevert, your version absolves twentieth century white society of all responsibility, which is offensive and silly. the librarian 21:58, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It simply explains the background for some of the attitudes. I don't go into the pitfalls of Social Darwinism or hypocrisy of Christian interpretation of Scripture as a factor. In no way does it say : X is the sole reason for Z. It just doesnt. Read it again. -Stevert 22:34, 30 Jan 2003 (UTC)
Dinesh D'Souza is a colonial apologist who writes facile and superficial arguments excusing the excesses of imperial regimes. But I'm not objecting to your inclusion of his arguments; he's a respected scholar yadda yadda, the Colin Powell of pro-colonialist studies and well-paid for it. But please don't get up on your high horse and castigate the African American community for not thanking him for his intervention: while there are valid points in his arguments there is also complete nonsense, and its all welded together into an offensive package.
Yes your version is somewhat qualified, though perhaps not as much as you may think. The version I meant to refer to above was not the current text of the article but your version of events, i.e. the argument (of Dinesh's?) you are promulgating above and in the article that absolves modern white people of all responsibility against the clear evidence. No more need to be said to refute much of his argument but that until the late 1970s it was not hard to find people in Minnesota or the Dakotas who had never seen a black person and yet harbored extreme prejudices against them (while the extreme prejudice is still common, most of these people have now seen black people on television). These people maintained a hostile-to-blacks attitude without the benefit of meeting any bad niggers.
The single-indented texts below are quotations from the current article:
The effects of these engrained rebellious attitudes, over generations, also has had negative consequences, many of which still exist today;
This is a statement as-if of fact, but it is not fact, it is argument. Some people claim that the "negative consequences" visible today can be eplained completely by factors present today or in the immediate past. It needs to be prefaced by "Some argue" or by "Dinesh D'Souza argues".
effects of ... engrained rebellious attitudes, over generations, ... exist today
It's not clear what part of "engrained rebellious attitudes" the phrase "over generations" applies to.
  • Does this mean that the attitudes were engrained once, and despite generations passing the effects are still visible?
  • Or does it mean that the attitudes were engrained over generations?
  • Were they engrained over generations of slavery, and in Lysenkoish fashion expressed by their descendants?
  • Were they engrained over subsequent generations of freedom? In which case who did the engraining? Those invisible white people?
manifested in the self-image and habitual behaviour of Slave decendants.
Apparently Chip Delany, Thurgood Marshall, Arthur Ashe, Paul Robeson and say a few hundred black people of my acquaintance have self-image problems and negative habitual behaviors of which I was unaware. Or maybe you meant "some slave descendents".
And then there was my college roommate Dave who had all the "Black" mannerisms and was often mistaken for a black person over the telephone, but who was actually a Polish kid from Dearborn who grew up in a ghetto.
These engrained "bad" habits, in part, contributed to modern racial-divide issues.
If you accept from the above that the habits are "engrained", rather than say "adopted" or "counter-transference" (acting as we are expected to act), then this does follow.
The key problem with this line of argument is that it takes something which is part of a social relationship "the way black and white people interact in America" and places it entirely in the black people. the librarian 18:36, 31 Jan 2003 (UTC)
We're not in disagreement about D'Souza and his bent - in fact, I trimmed the article, and afterwards wrote a very crude stub on D'Souza. I've only read the End of Racism, however, and some samples of his new book, and am aware of his apologist politics.
He does do some valid investigating, however... read the stub, please... and I'm not sure you disagree with his valid point as to the aspect of the anti-idol, as having negative backlash. As for the White repression aspect - I take it to be almost axiomatic, and as such avoided it. Perhaps it's material to the topic perhaps not. I'm short on time... I think your flying off the handle a bit, and missing the context of the article, and your classifying librarian mind is trying to box me in some sorta conservative - all the brainpower with twice the dogmatic assumptions. I'm not. Please flavor the article as you like... I'm happy with what I've contributed to it. I'm not one of these people who doesn't think anyone should fix things up...I'll point it out if your off base, and I think your off base in attaching some kind of agenda to me. pushoof.. -Stevert 01:01, 1 Feb 2003 (UTC)

I really do think that "avoiding offense" shouldn't be a heading here. "How can I avoid offending people when using the word "nigger"?", it seems to imply. As for the "often positive" assertion... really not sure about that either. Sorry to carp, I'll do something about it soon.

Is anyone on here black? Sounding off about how black people use the word feels inappropriate to me. Mswake 09:47 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Should there be a link to an archive of the discussion on this page? Mswake 09:30 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

I removed this:

Another holds that it is the derivitive of the misconstrued Niger, a Latin title for the Western African nation.

because it doesn't quite make sense; the word "nigger" was used long before the country "Niger" came into existence. In any event, "Niger" is first and formost the name of a river -- the country Niger (and Nigeria) are named after the river Niger. Why would Blacks in the US be named after a particular river in Africa? What is the source for this? Let's not just have "theories," tell us which philologist, linguist, or historian suggested this "theory" and on what evidence, please. Slrubenstein 20:50, 8 Apr 2003 (UTC)

I respect your move and I should have made a statement here before any changes. Yes, Niger is a river but there seems to be a connection. I thought this was commonly known and it is even mentioned above but I will report back soon with resources. I think my link to the actual nation of Niger was misleading and not my intention but to note the Latin niger as a possible source. Again, I apologise for my impatience to discuss this in the beginning. Usedbook 01:20 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary: Nigger (‘nIg∂(r)), Also niggar. [Alteration of NEGER. Cf. Also NIGER and NIGRE.]
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: Function: noun; Etymology: alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre, from Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger; Date: 1700
Thorne, 1990: (Noun) A black person. This word has been in use since the late 18th century. It is now a term of racist abuse when used by white speakers, although it can be used affectionately or sardonically between black speakers. The word is derived from niger, the Latin word for the colour black, via Spanish (negro), French (negre) and the archaic English neger.
Randall Kennedy: "Nigger is derived from the Latin word for the color black, niger. According to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, it did not originate as a slur but took on a derogatory connotation over time. Nigger and other words related to it have been spelled in a variety of ways, including niggah, nigguh, niggur, and niggar. When John Rolfe recorded in his journal the first shipment of Africans to Virginia in 1619, he listed them as "negars." A 1689 inventory of an estate in Brooklyn, New York, made mention of an enslaved "niggor" boy. The seminal lexicographer Noah Webster referred to Negroes as "negers."" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail-/books/0375421726/excerpt/ref%3Dpm%5Fdp%5Fln%5Fb%5F3/002-3739659-2040853 Usedbook 01:14 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

I just can't leave "the self-image and habitual behaviour of Slave decendants" [sic] in there. What's more, I think the previous paragraph is speculation - could we have some citations before restoring it?

I'm also deeply uncomfortable about "avoiding offense" - conjures up images of us well-meaning white people trying to work out when it's OK to say "nigger"... ugh.

As for the second paragraph of this page, as Zoe wrote on this page way, way above: "Are we going to include all offensive words we can come up with? [...] Shall we add every single racist term?"

Once more I'd like to ask -- if any black person on here wouldn't mind "outing" themselves and giving us a view, it would provide some useful balance (with the understanding that it's an individual view). Mswake 19:55 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC) ("Hideously white" (c) Greg Dyke, BBC.)

I reverted the page to the "pre-Zog" era edit (14:55 April 14 by Mswake) and re-added Michael Hardy's italics added on the 29th, which seem to be the only substantive edits done in the interim. Hephaestos 20:56 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about that º¡º, missed you in the shuffle. Hephaestos 00:21 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
Is allright. My changes truely weren't substantial, but were part of my disambiguation plan. -º¡º 03:57 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Hello

I have some information from personal experience about the word "Nigra". When I was a child growing up in Alabama in the 1950's, I sometimes heard this word. It was pronounced with a long "i", as in Niagara. It was a word for "polite society", Women, ministers, politicians, etc, who needed a substitue for "nigger'. I thought that someone might want to add this information to the article. Thank you. Billyww 12.65.55.46 (talk) 12:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hagan / UN / Toowoomba I

From the article:

" Unfazed, Hagan took the case to the United Nations, where he found a more sympathetic forum. The UN ordered that Toowoomba Council change the name."

This seems dubious to me. How do you "take a case to the United Nations"? Is there a legal forum there for this? How do they "order" anything? -- Anon. 217.158.210.105 (talk) 09:11 July 3, 2003 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from: last time I heard the UN is not a court of appeal. The Age had a fairly good report on the subject: [3]. In fact according to that report (which I hadn't read when I wrote that paragraph), the main justification given by the Government for ignoring the UN ruling was precisely this point: that the UN shouldn't interfere with the processes of domestic courts. -- Tim Starling 02:28, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Just reading some more: specifically, a submission was sent to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which is part fo the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. [4] contains some interesting comments attributed to Attorney General Daryl Williams: "He added that the committee's views were not binding and said it did not employ rigorous judicial standards." -- Tim Starling 02:41, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[Later contributions on this topic may be found below.]

Miscellaneous 2.0

This page has gone too far. The whole thing reads like an apologia from white people. I mean to say:

"In South Africa, kaffir is similarly pejorative when it is used to refer to local blacks. In the United Kingdom "Jock" is used for the Scots, "Taffy" for the Welsh, and "Paddy" and "mick" for the Irish, and these terms are considered offensive by many."

The tone of pretended objectivity reeks. "Considered offensive by many" takes the avoidance of subjectivity too far. "Nigger" is "considered offensive by many", as is "coon" and "monkey" and "Paki scum". There comes a point at which we have to say: "This is not a valid alternative viewpoint -- this is something we do not allow."

I think we've reached it.

Mswake 01:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've deleted a lot. I don't think it makes the page poorer: for instance, the fact that a dog in a film was called "Nigger" does not mean the word was less offensive in the UK. All it means is that calling anything black "nigger" was acceptable in the UK after it had ceased to be so in the US - suggesting in fact that it was rather more racist than less.

Mswake 01:36, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why are you putting your comments at the top of the page instead of at the bottom? That aside, it is not up to Wikipedia to say what is or is not allowed, but merely to describe. RickK 02:11, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Sorry for the top/bottom mistake. The point I was (admittedly rather angrily) trying to make was that we can't avoid making judgments on what's allowed because we can't include everything. Since that's the case I was trying to make the page less controversial. Ironically. Mswake 21:35, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

German "Neger" II

[Earlier contributions on this topic appear above.]

I would like to see someone point out that Arnold Schwarzenegger means "Arnold black nigger" in German. Mbstone 02:14 Aug 22, 2003

That's pretty dubious :) It means "black plowman," doesn't it? Adam Bishop 02:39, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, "Schwarze Neger" would be "Black Negro", whereas "Schwarzen Egger" is "black plowman". - Efghij 21:42, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, but was is "plowman"? (my english is not very good) The word "Egger" doesn't exist in German language. I thing "Egger" (or "Eger") is an ancient version of "Acker", that is german for "acre" (?) or "field". Der "schwarze Egger" --> the black field (remember: "Die schwarzen Egger" --> "The black fields"). -- fux 217.225.120.20 (talk) 01:04 Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
I am sorry that your question went unanswered. A plowman guides a plow (or plough), that is being drawn forward by the muscular effort of one or more draft (or, i think, draught) animals (or in extreme cases, humans used as draft animals), in order to prepare the ground for the placement (in or on it) of seeds that are intended to grow into crop plants. --Jerzy 16:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Misc 3.0

After doing a brief review of this page, I feel that if you're going to add this word to wikipedia, you might as well add every other racist term in existence.

As I black male, I find the word nigger and any derived form of the word derogatory. I don't approve of its use, especially in today's society, now that it's often used in music and movies, and on the street. I remember once, I was on vacation from school and the radio station I listen to, hot97, didn't block the word on the radio. I don't know why this was allowed, or who gave the ok to unblock it, but it was later blocked again. Regardless, there is no appropriate use for this word in today's society unless your trying to make some kind of reference to the troubled past.

In short, there is no justification for the use of this word and I wish it never existed. I also like and support Ortolan88's comments. He seems to have the right idea on this topic. 24.193.42.242 (talk) 04:42 Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

from Talk:Wigger

[is Wigger a] hoax?

Not a hoax. Egad, I think Ricki Lake would run out of topics if she wasn't allowed to have occasional "wigger" shows... Of course, our current definition is unnecessarily coy about its etymology: white + nigger = wigger. -- Someone else 05:04, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

US Southern Federal Legislators

A Washington Post article on Strom Thurmond's 1948 candidacy for President of the United States went so far as to replace "nigger" with the periphrasis "the less-refined word for black people".

Was this in 1948 or an article perhaps around the time of the Trent Lott flap, I'd assume, about his campaign 50-odd years earlier? --Charles L. 16:23, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Lain's use of the N-word for non-human objects?

Rodney O. Lain (a Mac columnist who died recently) wrote an article entitled Angry Mac Man: The Mac is the 'Nigger' of the Computer Industry. Since this is interesting to see the use of that vile term for a non-human object, should this be mentioned in the article?

hoshie 14:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

One Editor's Assorted Changes

Removed

In the United Kingdom "Jock" is used for the Scots, "Taffy" for the Welsh, and "Paddy" and "mick" for the Irish, and these terms are considered offensive by many.

True but irrelevant.

After

"Nigger" was famously the name of a Black Labrador belonging to the RAF war-hero Wing Commander Guy Gibson.

Replaced

However it can be construed as racist to equate a dog with a human being

With

The word was in common use at that time to denote a shade of brown.

The original phrase was perhaps over-sensitive in the context of the time. And anyway, lots of dogs are given human names; it's the use of a racist name that's offensive. Andy G 01:12, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hagan / UN / Toowoomba II

[Earlier contributions on this topic may be found above.]

I've removed, pending documentation, the following sentences, which are unsupported on the Web except by WP:

Unfazed, Hagan took the case to the United Nations, where he found a more sympathetic forum. The UN ordered that Toowoomba Council change the name. Toowoomba Council chose to ignore this demand, as did the Federal Government.

Even if some sort of documentation can be found, it should still almost certainly be reworded: it is implausible that the Security Council would even entertain this, and if any other UN body thinks it has authority to do anything that remotely approaches "ordering" anything (beyond coffee and Danish [wink]), it will make very interesting reading. --Jerzy 09:44, 2004 Jan 13 (UTC)

Well, what i changed, & what i wrote in this section, were without benefit of slogging through the 33kB of the page. The page history may disclose the order in which i realized the accuracy of my fear that old discussions were hidden under the bulk of newer ones. The references above serve to clarify considerably, but i'll at least mull further before trying to apply them to better stating the events, for the article. --Jerzy 06:44, 2004 Feb 2 (UTC)

Etymology II

[Earlier contributions on this topic may be found above.]

The following 'graph moved more or less at its contributor's request:

Moved from Etymology I

The specific origin, or unabridged (i.e., complete) (etymology), of the term, "nigger," according to "The New Oxford Unabridged Collegiate Dictionary," can be traced back to the Greek word nekra, or nekros... etc etc. Better look for that 'dictionary,' Wikipedians! You've been hoaxed. The whole opening of this article is spurious, edited in by Anonymous User 209.240.205.63 with a non-existent dictionary. I am deleting it, as it's also tacky. Wetman 10:04, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC) (Sorry to burst in at the top, but this is important... Delete this when the issue is resolved.)

Later (not Necessarily Resulting) Discussion

Has anyone actually checked this highly unlikely derivation from nekros? I will do it soon as I get home and consult my dictionaries. Adam 04:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The etymology seems bogus. The Greek words for "black" involve the stem melan- (whence melanin and the fourth humour, melan choler), and nekros means "corpse", not "diseased". Also, the Latin niger sounds nothing like the Greek nekros, and my Latin etymological dictionary makes it clear that they aren't connected. —MIRV (talk) 05:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Surely it comes straightforwardly from the Latin niger via Spanish negro. Adam 05:15, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I fully agree, but I can't find any evidence that the Latin niger comes from the Greek nekros, which specifically denotes death and dying. I still think the derivation from the Greek, at least, is bogus. —MIRV (talk) 05:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Also, the dictionary from which this etymology is supposedly derived seems to be a fake; there are no references on Google, and none of the online booksellers carry it. —MIRV (talk) 05:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Why do we need to say it comes via French? The French for black is noir. The etymological chain is most likely to be niger - negro - nigra - nigger. There was plenty of contact between Spanish America and the Old South, so I don't see why a French connection is necessary. Adam 05:55, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The word could have come via either language -- there's a French word, nègre, that translates roughly to "nigger" -- so perhaps both should be noted, unless someone has a definitive reference that can decide the question firmly? —MIRV (talk) 07:41, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(How did I miss that?) Someone has helpfully quoted the OED on this talk page. That should settle it for now. —MIRV (talk) 17:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Slang, streetwise, and Rap

This article couold use some Slang context, streetwise use, and Rap culture use of the word. JDR 09:31 25 Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, particularly that its rejection has became a part of the cultural wars, and a contradictory one since blacks are allowed to use it, but not whites. Leandrod 14:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

White kids use 'nigga'

68.123.237.104 said: I do not believe that white kids use "nigga" as a "term of endearment". Show some evidence. This is really quite true. I'm Asian and all my friends are non-black and we all commonly refer to each other with this term. Back in middle and high school, everybody used it. Kent Wang 15:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

67.165.78.163 has gone ahead and deleted the following:
In some high schools the word nigger has become so commonplace that even "wiggers" are referred to as "niggers" within their own social groups even use the word themselves. However, this is not the way it is used in all high schools.
I agree that this at least needs a rewrite and probably doesn't belong in the article, but I thought it ought to be posted to the talk page for discussion in case others think it belongs. Tom 19:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The cultural impact of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas must not be overlooked. It has transcended usual limits of videogame fame, so many boys (often very young/underage for its content level) have played it that "talkin' hood" is now the new cool. Therefore, if blacks call each other niggers, and San Andreas has popularised "black-ese", therefore this word is certainly not being used in an objectionable context, unlike, say, the current use of gay in an expression such as "that car is so gay!" Master Thief Garrett 09:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, in an explicable way, one might say that San Andreas "blacks are cool" pop-culture has helped improve blacks' status in the eyes of many members of the current generation. They might even be potentially idolised, like "Wow, that guy's black! I wish I was black, like CJ!" Is this the end of discrimination? Has Rockstar killed race hate? I really don't know, but it would probably be "good" in a way if they have. Master Thief Garrett 09:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's actually quite the opposite--it's a shame people think this. It's the shameless objectification of blacks just like of women in today's culture. I love San Andreas. I'm not being PC, either, as I hate censorship. It's just the sort of "blaxploitation" our modern culture feeds off of. Some black comedians are guilty of it too--the running "white people are stupid" jokes. And it's okay for them to do that--it's okay, sure--but the sad part is they're serious. And a serious black racist or a serious white racist are the same: stupid. Anyway, I think it's a bad step for blacks in general. It's like "nice guys" who put women on a pedestal--this is almost as bad as treating them like shit, you're treating them like fragile objects; animals to be pointed at in the zoo. How about people? Lockeownzj00 01:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Gay as in stupid is spelt Ghey. --??? 82.152.193.24 (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm in agreement, and yes, it is wrong to use gay in that context. And we can't only consider Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as a negative towards black culture, even something like MTV is racist in a sense to portray blacks in the light that they do. Too often kids believe that blacks are all about "gangsta life," big booties, sportin' bling, etc. Just because something's in common use (which usually happens over a media blitz akin to GTA), doesn't make it appropriate to use. I, as well, enjoyed San Andreas, and don't think such a game should be censored, however, I also don't believe anyone should take it seriously enough to believe it's an accurate view of black culture. I mean, are blacks suddenly cool because they kill punk-ass bitches who get in their way, or because CJ wanted to be treated with the same respect as anyone else? The answer's obvious. --66.251.24.47 (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
To say that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas played that big of a role in influencing white teenagers to use the term is an exaggeration. I went to a rural, southeastern US high school '97-'01. White males were using the term to identify each other ("What's up, my nigger?") long before this game was made, and it wasn't a new thing then. White females do it very often now as well; I would doubt that any significant percentage of them have played the game. In any event, it's insignificant (practically nothing in my estimation) in comparison to the influence of hip-hop becoming accepted among white teenagers. Slow Graffiti 23:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Pleaaaaaaaaaase don't exclude females when speaking of video games (in ANY way) - this really gets my proverbial goat. The number of times I've had to explain to males my age (mid-twenties) what an rpg is, is unfathmnable to those of us who play them. It totally baffles my mind the number of dudes who think 'chicks' don't play video games. give. me. a. fucking. break. christ. 216.58.18.235 (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Gimme a break... While OBVIOUSLY some females play video games, it cannot be disputed that an OVERWHELMING majority of humans who play video games are males. So you know what an RPG is... that says nothing about what type of people play video games, rather is says that you are a nerd... kidding...
Seriously though, I don't know why this is, but I know plenty of females who play video games yet they are always the most simplistic games (such as Mario/Tetris/Sonic/PacMan). I know this isn't absolute, but why is it that girls play the games where the extent of what they're doing is pushing two or three different buttons (run, punch, and jump)? 65.123.220.150 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding Offense

I'm of the opinion that recent additions to the first paragraph of Avoiding Offense, regarding similarity to the words "booger" and "teat", are unfounded and don't belong in the article. -- Yath 06:43, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually I'd say "tit" would be more offensive than "teat", but yes you're right, this is a cultural term. If anything I'd compare it to, say, calling Asians "yellow-skinned" or Maoris "darkies". So if someone feels similarities still need to be covered, cover those ones. There may be others I'm not aware of, I'm not exactly a fount of knowledge about oppressive slang names... Master Thief Garrett 09:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The most offensive word?

I'm not sure the claim that it "packs more punch" than other ethnic/racial slurs is accurate. Kike is pretty damn offensive to a lot of people. --Delirium 07:44, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

If you want to rework it, you'll get no objection from me. "Cunt", while not racist, is also up there with highly offensive terms. The article currently tries too hard to be superlative. --Yath 07:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
You know what make for a more offensive racial slur? Hard consonants. - Clarknova 06:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That is so true. Plus it really helps to be monosyllabic. Like "daq" (i.e. "duck") Dustin Asby 15:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I too was going to mention "cunt." I think this is the most offensive word (according to a social majority) in U.S. English. True, "cunt" isn't a racist term, but it is often used as a disparaging term for women. Dustin Asby 15:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's an open contest, I think. I know that, frankly, it's something most Americans do an instinctive double-take upon hearing; A "They actually fucking said that?" usually follows in some form. Kike is close, very, very close, but is not quite as used anymore even as an insult. Additionally, it hasn't had the (weird as hell for a white kid from the Northeast) rebirth in a vaguely sort of positive way. Which, it should be noted, creates a minefield. It's a very, very recent thing. Until maybe 5-10 years ago, if you ever said it, particularly in public, you might as well have set off a nuclear weapon.
Then we had the whole rebirth as sort of positive...which I will never understand, and which creates a very uncomfortable situation for most over, say, 20. --Penta 05:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's the most offensive word by any means, America is one country out of 192 countries in the world, this word only carries offence in America and even then (from the outside looking in) it is only middle and upper class whites that seem to have a problem with the word at all. Jachin 22:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
"…this word only carries offence in America…"? You're an idiot! -- 220.238.73.6 (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Kike is only offensive to Jews. -- 220.238.238.21 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
To me personally, it is the most offensive word that there is. But I cannot speak for those who speak another language, or really anyone but myself. As a matter of context, however, I see it on a level of offense far surpassing 'cunt'. If you call someone a 'cunt', they will at worst be disgusted with you. Call someone a nigger and you are likely starting a fight. More to the point, I like a good dirty porno as much as the next guy, but I don't know many that would get turned on hearing "Yeah, Baby. Stroke my nigger." Damien Qui 06:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I fail to see how it can be considered particularly offensive if the large majority of those who take offense only do so based on the race of the person saying the word - regardless of the speaker's intent. Rexmorgan 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
What about kaffir? That's pretty damn offensive apparently.WookMuff 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rex, you took the words right outta my brain... I've never understood this... The word is only racist in many cases to those who want to make it racist, but then in turn those people use the word in similiar context frequently and do not regard it as racist. This is the REAL racism to me. 65.123.220.150 (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I love this part

However, some African Americans regularly use it almost as a term of endearment, as in "What's up my nigger?" (or nigga).

That's rich. good stuff. thanks. I needed that laugh. Kzzl 08:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As strange as it sounds, this is *actually* true! I've talked to blacks who've said that it's OK among themselves. Indeed some of them want their white friends to feel free to talk similarly, but I can imagine the looks of horror from unknowing onlookers... Master Thief Garrett 09:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is true, in this case it is black people taking control of the word "nigger", making it their own and regaining power over it. Which is a good thing, well it would be if it weren't such an offensive word still JayKeaton 16:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

False generalization

(Excuse my poor English, it's not my natural language)

I don't agree with the ending of the sentence: "Nigger is almost always pejorative when used by non-blacks or those without dark skin, particularly white Europeans" (under "Modern meanings"). "White Europeans" there refers doubtless to English-speaking (white) Europeans. This reduces it scope to British and perhaps Irish people. I do not deny that, when "white Europeans" use the word nigger, it may be very often in a pejorative way. It's only that saying Europeans instead of British and Irish sounds like it is a commonly used word among Europeans. Actually, a great majority of Europeans do not use the word nigger in a pejorative way, since we do not use it at all. In the same way, we do not speak English among us. I would really like to see this sentence reworded. It's somewhat offending to see it as it is. --Euyyn 11:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe "White Europeans" was meant to specify ethnicity/origin, not current habitaiton. Just as people in the States sometimes avoid the colloquially common "black" in writing (preferring African American), they also substitute "European" or "European American" for "white." In this case "white European" is a bit awkward, but not, I believe, intended as you've interpreted. My inclination would be to change it to "white" or "caucasion", since it really refers to race, but if others have strong objections or can point to a style-guide recommendation on race, then I'd follow their lead. Tom 20:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed that part of the sentence, it was patent nonsense. I have seen Asians use the term, Mexicans, Pakistani’s, etc..., and it was at least as offensive (if not more so) to blacks than when some Euro-American wigger uses it. It’s all about context. A black person can offend another black person by using the word, if they say it right, and mean it in a certain way. I say the word around black people in context (telling a story about those Mexicans or the Pakistani guy using it) w/o offending them at all. The problem, as I see it, is PCBS clouding the judgment of ivory tower intellectuals who have no idea how the term is "nigger" is actually used. There are alot of ethnic slurs, and there is nothing special about this one. Sam [Spade] 21:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the "Ivory tower intellectuals" are involved here -- I'd prefer to avoid the anti-PC smokescreen and look at the issue at hand. I don't think it's "patent nonsense" to say that "nigger" is more offensive when used by whites in the U.S. than by another minority group. There first reason this might be is that whites are the ones who enslaved Africans in America and created the racist ideology which the slur is a remnant of -- so it makes sense that the word would be more offensive when used by whites than by others (though of course the word can be offensive when used by anyone, as you point out here and as the article already made clear). Tom 14:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's racist to say that its more offensive for someone to use the word nigger based solely on the color of their skin. You can't say its more offensive for caucasoids to say niggers than it is for mongoloids or negroids without being a racist. I am changing this sentence as it is possible for it to be used pejoratively by negroids. There is such thing as self-hate and much literature documents this. The word nigger being used as an insult be people of mixed negroid-caucasoid descent to make themselves feel superior, and used by negroids themselves referring to themselves detailing the level of pervasiveness that the racial ideology penetrated. - Joe 65.1.71.89 (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It is most definitely NOT racist to say that the word is more offensive when said by a non-Black American. At best, the word is even becoming more and more antiquated and controversial in the Black community. Outside of its historical use, or to put the word into some type of historical context, what other reason would a non-Black American have to use the word? I find that many are simply angry that people ruined the word in the past, for which you only have those people to blame. Sorry, but this is not the first, nor will it be the last, taboo word that will eventually die like many other antiquated terms. It is my opinion that it is great to see groups taking back words meant to mentally harm and demean them, changing them, and then finally giving them their proper burial in the language graveyards. To wrap it all up, again, it is completely relevant to say that when the word is used against a Black American by a non-Black American, it has a lot more negative baggage attached to it rather you choose to accept that fact or not. - Critical Thinker 67.172.95.197 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

rudely specific terms

I have removed or 'faggot' for homosexuals. from ...are far more rudely specific terms such as 'greaser' for Latino/Hispanics, 'Christ-killer' for Jews, or 'faggot' for homosexuals. This is not a "rudely specific term" in the sense of the others. British English does have rudeley specific terms for homosexuals (fudge packer, bum chum, shirt lifter, etc.) but since this was specifically about American English and I don't know if the terms are used there I did not put a substitute. -- Chris Q 06:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you clarify why "faggot" is not a "rudely specific" term in your view? In American English, "faggot" only refers to homosexuals & is highly offensive (as are the others listed). Tom 09:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A faggot is also a bundle of sticks, which since it is in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [5] I assume applies to American English also. -- Chris Q 11:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The other terms specify a specific perceived unpleasant characteristic of the group in question - e.g. that Latinos/Hispanics are greasy. The British terms mentioned above refer to anal sex (ignoring the fact that not all homosexuals indulge in that practice), a subject which disgusts many people, and is used to infer that homosexuals are dirty and disgusting. The term "faggot" does no such thing, there is no characteristic of homosexuals that is "faggoty" that would invoke an immediate derogatory picture of a homosexual in someone who had not heard the term before. It is the same as "Kike" or "heeb" for jew, someone ignorant of the words would have to look to context to find out whether they are derogatory terms, or merely synonyms. With "Christ-Killer" we are left in no doubt as to the speakers opinion of the group in question. PRB 11:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Faggot is based on the concept that homosexuals will be the kindling wood, or faggot, with which other sinners will be burned on the day of judgement.
fag•ot also fag•got
n.
  • 1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
  • 2. A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.
tr.v. fag•ot•ed, also fag•got•ed fag•ot•ing, fag•got•ing fag•ots, fag•gots
  • 1. To bind into a fagot; bundle.
  • 2. To decorate with fagoting.
(Middle English, from Old French, from Old Provençal, possibly from Vulgar Latin *facus, from Greek phakelos, bundle.)
Sam [Spade] 12:34, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth in the "nigger" article "faggot" is also a term for cigarette in American English prior to maybe the 1950's or 60's. Just wanted to throw that in.
The parts of the article that expand on the usage of "nigger" such as "wigger" and such, do a disservice to the meaning of the word "nigger" and should get their own article with a link maybe and not get so much space in this article. I rarely use the word myself, It is offenesive in the U.S. I have been referred to as a "nigga" (I am white) by friends who are not white and that's fine, in that usage it means "one of us" but in a encyclopedia so many of these facts should not be mentioned. This is not a how to guide on how to be "street" or "down" or "hip". This whole article needs to be gone over and tightened up. It blows like the wind! Maybe Encarta removed it because it's just too much! I know about empowerment, I know about taking ownership of terms and I respect it, but for an Encycopedia to minimize the racist, hostile meaning of this word because of a realitivley short lived adoption by current culture troubles me. Bad Dog 207.15.68.145 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Also before I get slammed, I disagree with any part of the article that says that "nigger" was just an I dentifacation not hostile or offensive. In the U.S. up until the 1860's those people who were referred to as "nigger" were owned by other people, were sold traded, raped, beaten and whipped by the people who called them "nigger". So if actions speak louder than words it has always been highly offensive! To say otherwise is absurd. Bad Dog 207.15.68.145 (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, no Sam. That's false etymology, the bit about kindling. Imaginitive, but false and based on a woeful misconception of Christianity --JamesTheNumberless 09:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Colored"

I grew up (in the 80s and 90s) in a middle-class white neighborhood in North Carolina, but there were always a lot of black kids at school. In my experience, "colored" (as an adjective or noun) was definitely pejorative, probably worse than "negro." The names of the NAACP and United Negro College Fund always sounded counterproductive to me, as a kid. "Person of color" sounds respectful but archaic; I've only heard my dad use it. In general, the two acceptable terms were "African-American" or just "black." Just my two cents. -leigh 22:32, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

In the UK, coloured is not commonly used and I'm quite sure is not acceptable. Most people use only "black". Bush Me Up 02:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The article is misleading. "Indegenous Africans" aren't all black. Arabized berbers and other semitic peoples have been in Africa so long they are for all intents and purposes indegenous (especially as all peoples are originally from Africa anyway). The article needs to make clear the word does not refer to Arabs, berbers or any other non-black Africans (unless there is the adjective "sand").
I therefore think we should add the word "colored" or "black" or anything else which makes clear that its physical appearance which matters, not the fact that a person is from so or so continent. --CJWilly 14:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted "colored" (again). See the note accompanying the edit. And, no. Physical appearance is not what matters; what matters is bloodlines. There are plenty of black folks in the U.S. who are as pale as white people. Assuming they're not "passing," a racist would still consider them "niggers." Back in the day, they'd be slaves, just like their blue-black brothers and sisters. And in the U.S. "colored" is considered offensive. Besides, as my note mentions, there are no white people indigenous to Africa. Everyone is "black" by the old U.S. one-drop rule. Take Prince Bandar out of Saudi Arabia, put him in FUBU, and he's one of us. Afro-Semitic peoples and Semitic peoples all have black African ancestry; it's what makes them Semites -- and black Africans and Semites (to the extent that they have black African blood) are the only people indigenous to the African continent. The term "sand niggers," though crude and racist, very clearly makes that connection. deeceevoice 15:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
North african arabs consider themselves white (look into the genocide in Sudan), and Prince Bandar is legally white according to the US census. If you are interested in bloodlines, most "african" americans are vastly more euro than african, its simply the racist one drop rule which says otherwise. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What's any of this got to do with the price of rice? We're talking about crude, vulgar racial slurs. Osama bin Laden and Prince Bandar are as black as a whole lot of African-Americans are. And you can bet the same ignorant, redneck GIs who went to Iraq during Desert Storm and called the Afro-Semitic types they came across "sand niggers" would use that term to refer to Bandar and bin Laden, too. And it doesn't matter one whit to a bunch of rednecks from Kansas (or wherever) what North Africans consider themselves. And, no. They don't consider themselves "white"/European; they simply consider don't consider themselves black. They are Semitic or Arab and recognize themselves as such. Further, the religious schism between that part of the world and the West further encourages them to make that distinction -- in addition to their bloodlines. deeceevoice 14:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, "most 'African' [A]mericans" are most certainly NOT more European than African. I don't know where on earth you got that ridiculous bit of misinformation from. Even the most generous estimates put us at generally between 13-19 percent white. And that certainly does not make us "more" European than African. deeceevoice 14:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ask a N African, they tell me their white (more than once). Since "race" outside of blood type, chromosones and other genetics and language group is largely pseudo-science, a persons opinion is of value. It's what most data collecting survey organizations go by. On the subject of % african heritage in african americans:
"of the several thousand people he studied who identify as African-Americans, about 90 percent are at least half black genealogically (and thus genetically). On average, about 82-83 percent of the genes found in African-Americans are indeed from Africa. Still, the odds that a Y-chromosome test will find a forefather from Europe are significant. Kittles noted that about 30 percent of African-Americans' Y-chromosomes originated in Europe."[6]
(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sam, 82-83 percent and then 30 percent. Assuming these figures are accurate -- just for argument's sake -- how the hell does that translate to "most"? Answer: It doesn't -- not by a long shot. Further, no one I've ever known from North Africa (Egyptian, Algerian, Moroccan) has ever referred to themselves as "white." I suppose it all depends on what categories those questioned in the information you read (or in your experience) they were given to choose from and where their heads were. The people I've known have all been Muslim and somewhat (or very) leftist politically -- and wouldn't ever, ever, EVER call themselves "white." deeceevoice 19:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its appearance which counts. To a racist, black is defined as anyone with with slightest trace of African features. Technically, we're all descended from black Africans anyway, so its not like there's much sense in the genelogical argument. --CJWilly 15:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its not terribly relevant, but that "out of africa" idea is dated. Current research seems to show people springing up in China, India, and Africa seperately, but its hotly debated and inconclusive.[7] (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About "Mungo Man": When quoting archaeological information, it's always helpful to refer to the latest research. Mungo Man was discovered in Australia around 2001. Two years later, it Mungo Man was found to be several thousand years younger than originally suspected -- and Africa still remains the site of the discovery of the oldest human remains on record. If you're really interested in the latest, Google Spencer Wells' DNA research that traced, via San bushman DNA, what is surmised to be the earliest successful migration of humans from Africa to southern India to Australia and then subsequent migrations to points beyond. deeceevoice 19:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article isn't about who is white, it's about who is black. North Africans do not consider themselves black and they are not referred to as niggers (though, like Native Americans, they are sometimes called niggers with an epithet like Sand or Prairie). It's not about African descent, a racist would call someone a nigger if they correspond that person's preconceived stereotype of a Black person. That's it, or that's my experience of it. But that might be because, here in Britain, most Blacks are from the Caribbean and usually have a very complicated genealogy (with white, native American and East Indian thrown as well as African ancestors). --CJWilly 22:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
What? You've never heard the term "sand nigger"? That's what they're called by ignorant people. Besides, many North Africans are notoriously racist, so of course they wouldn't want to be considered black -- though some of them clearly are. Lots of Saudis and Egyptians are as black as I am, and I'm a tan/brown-skinned African-American with with clearly Africanoid features. Prince Bandar is a soul bro. Further, you apparently don't know much about blacks here in the U.S. We are a highly miscegenated bunch -- usually with a mixture of African, white and Native American ancestry. A New York-based African-American paper reported in the mid-1970s that the number of African-Americans with Native American ancestry numbered in the upper 80th percentile. Still, in the U.S., we consider ourselves, and are considered, "black." deeceevoice 15:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These racial categories are ridiculous. Black (or nigger) vs White (or honkey) only has relevance in the US. While slavery existed across the world, in the US it was clear - dark = slave, light = free, or more widely, that the lower social classes would be of mixed race between the Natives, Africans and British and Irish convicts and indentured labourers. Darkness showed low birth. The racism developed because both white and black had a part of each other in them. It was that closeness which created the disgust involved in racism. Same as South Africa. You Americans, white or black look more like each other than anyone else on earth. Your words and hatred, although exported, have no real meaning elsewhere. Not that there is not racism, it's just we have our own peculiar brands.
Secondly. This white vs back trip does not exist in Africa. The (white) Berber tribes of North Africa are as indigenous as any other Africans and are not Semitic or Arab. The Arabs invaded in the 8th Century. In addition to this are the Bantu peoples originating from West Africa, that is, the race most commonly taken to America. But these black people are distinct from the Nilistic (eg. Ethiopian) peoples as from Whites or Aborigines. The Ethiopians are darker skinned but with more domed heads, long narrow noses, taller and thinner boned. Both these groups are racially distinct from the Pygmies of Congo, as distinct as white from black. All these groups are different from the San/Khoi/Bushmen of South Africa who are golden coloured and again completely different from Bantu peoples. ie. 'African' is 4 distinct racial groups with other ancient immigrants - like Arabs, Copts (Egyptians), Afrikaaners, etc...don't start with this we were all black once thing, as if we were all like African-Americans once. The Bantu only expanded from West Africa about a thousand years ago, killing all other types and tribes along the way. What is the origin of man? who knows...Sahara rock paintings show white and black peoples over tens of thousands of years, alternately killing each other. (Isn't the human race nice?) 194.112.58.213 (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nigger/Archive_1&oldid=846515879"