Is “Negro” a Slur?

His choice of word is tone-deaf at best, but did anyone other than Mike Estes happen to read the rest of the sentence? How is the following not seriously problematic, in context or out?

Now that African-Americans like Representative Monique Davis have political power, it seems that they have no problem at all with discrimination, just as long as it isn’t them who are being discriminated against.

I agree with Laurie, he should have apologized immediately.

The thing is though, I think there is a point to make about humanity in general here. The point is that just because one has faced discrimination doesn’t mean they are immune from discriminating against others, because anyone who discriminates unjustly against another doesn’t believe they are doing it unjustly, they believe they are right in their characterization of the people they are discriminating against. Certainly “Negroes,” or African-Americans rather, are just as capable of discriminating against others as anyone else. Just as Rob Sherman, facing frequent discrimination for being an atheist, is likely quite capable of discriminating against some other group of people, just like all the rest of us. It’s simply human nature, likely driven by evolutionary forces over the last few thousand years. I think that is the point that should be taken from Sherman’s statement. It’s just a shame he made himself a perfect example of it by making that very statement.

I agree that injecting her race into the discussion is quite odd and potentially offensive, considering it’s primarily a religious discussion. However, I think the outrage of the usage of Negro hints at the absurdity, hypersensitivity, and hypocrisy of minority groups, especially blacks.

Black people, including high profile athletes and celebrities, commonly refer to white people in a derogatory manner, using pejoratives like ‘cracker’, ‘white boy’, or simply remarking on the “whiteness” of an individual. The black community seems to be encourage the sentiment that whiteness is not only an acceptable target for condemnation, but also a trait that is acceptably belittled in a public setting (schools, rap music, etc…).

I’m not condoning the injection of race into this dialogue, but I find a black person’s indignation to be quite ironic.

I use the word negro and its cognates all my life, and I’m afraid it’s a hard habit to break. I’m not white and my native language has hundreds of loan-words from Spanish (including negro). The first thing my cousin told me when I visited the US some years ago is to never to use that word. I’ve been able to curtail its usage ever since, but never truly removed it from my vocabulary entirely.

Personally, I don’t care what the “appropriate” term is. So long as we have the “National Association for the Advancement of Colored Persons”, I can use any archaic term, up to and including the n-word*.

The issue here isn’t really the word used. It’s the entire tone. The word he really meant wasn’t Negro, it was they. “Now that they have political power, these others that are not like us.” It’s not the word itself, it’s the exclusionary language.

*I’m not spelling out the n-word because it’s your blog, and I think you’d dislike it. But I reserve the use of the terms “cracker”, “redneck”, “hick”, “honkey” and n*, not because of latent racism, but because no matter what race we’re talking about, there is a sub-group that is utter trash. White trash or black trash. It’s a cultural thing, and partially a class thing. Calling a woman a bitch isn’t inherently sexist; the same goes for the use of other group-linked pejoratives.

Some people seem confused as to why “negro” is worse than “African-American” in Sherman’s quote. The simple fact is: Neither is acceptable. He had no call to bring race into the picture.

Discrimination against a race is fundamentally different from discrimination against a philosophy. This country’s aversion to atheists is nothing like the subjugation of blacks that occurred in the past and continues to this day. There was no analogy he could have drawn between the two. It would be like comparing Matchbox cars to real stock racers. The similarities are superficial at best, and all he did was lose any credibility his case could have had.

Laurie Soule: “Which is probably why I didn’t know it was the new N-word.”

IIRC, it’s not the new N-word so much as an outdated term for African-Americans, much the same way that “Colored” is.

John Pritzlaff: “So then, what is the origin of the word Negro?”

Judging from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it’s from Spanish and Portuguese. I know that in Spanish, “negro” is the word for the color black, so one could describe, say, charcoal or soot as being “negro.” Etymology doesn’t have a whole lot to do with offensiveness, though. “Jap” is short for “Japanese,” yet it is a slur while “Japanese” is not.

It doesn’t matter what word he chose to use. The fact is, he attributed a set of actions, beliefs or characteristics to a group of people that does not universally apply to them. That’s called stereotyping. His bigotry is just as bad as hers.

When I initially read the comment, I immediately assumed he had done it on purpose, to call attention to the double standard that exists in the US about discrimination against atheists vs, any other minority group. However, now I am not sure. I do disagree very strongly with those who claim there is some kind of difference between bigotry towards black people, and bigotry towards atheists. Bigotry is bigotry. We will not truly be civilised until we can look at another person and see just that person, not any perceived group he or she may belong to.

“black folks”
WHOA! I thought using, “black,” was out too. Is it in again?

I tol my sons about this insane discussion and my sons (both 1/2 Black) say Negro is not a slur. Now they also take into account generational differences too, as I did. It is outdated though.

Black (which is suppose to be capitalized when speaking of people) is not a slur either and is used frequently in modern literature. This I know without a doubt because I have taken an African-American lit class, as well as an African- American history class, both taught by Black profs.

I also know when Negro is used in lit that was written before the ’70s, it is not a slur there either. As far as I can tell, and I’ve only asked an extremely small sample personally, the word is not today either. I will be asking my friends who are Black in the coming days to get their opinions. I go to those who know to find the answer and so far it is ‘no’.

“especially when said by a white person”. So a word is inherently more offensive when said by a particular person on basis of race? It’s just a word, and I stand by that. As long as it was not meant offensively, that’s all that matters. That any word used in a racist context immediately becomes inherently racist seems silly, especially when this leads to the condemnation of people who utter it unknowingly. Until this story I had no idea it was considered racist. This is in the same league as blacks calling each other ‘nigger’ in certain circumstances. I bet that some of you even gasped at the word ‘blacks’…but I don’t take offence at ‘whites’, ‘whitey’, ‘paleface’, etc. etc., even when used in a deliberately negative or offensive way. It seems to me that in certain circumstances people are just looking for some reason to take the ‘moral highground’ on racism…

He’s apologised and admitted his naivete…that’s good enough for me. Although, yes, the whole bit after the word ‘negro’ where he generalises and says they don’t mind others being discriminated against is a bit of an uncalled-for generalisation, and is the bit you should be making an issue of.

I think Estes makes a badly flawed argument on many levels, not the least his admission of personal bias near the end when he said it was inappropriate to point out the similarities between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on religion. Similarities exist. Pointing them out is valid, no matter what Mr. Estes thinks.

His first flaw is giving no evidence to back up his assertion that negro is offensive in Chicago. He clearly assumes all Black Americans believe the word is offensive, but that’s obviously not true even just from this thread. I do believe where you live is a factor, but not merely because of the number of Black Americans living there. I grew up in Oklahoma City which has a rich Civil Rights history (the first lunch counter sit in known in the USA was 3 blocks from my home). There’s a large Black population yet I never knew negro was considered offensive. I now live in the DC area, also a large black population, but still never knew negro was offensive.
So what evidence does he have that it’s offensive in Chicago?

Now clearly it’s not the preferred term. Whenever referring to a group of people it’s good form to use whatever term they use for themselves if there is one. It was a bad choice on Sherman’s part to use a different word. The fact that it is similar to its clearly offensive derivative makes it an even poorer choice, but there’s no reason to assume he knew it would be offensive.

Next Mr. Estes throws up a straw man. He points out that discrimination by race still exists and even gives Chicago as an example. Well Mr. Sherman never said racial discrimination doesn’t exist. That is ridiculous and Mr. Estes should be ashamed for taking a cheap shot.

I will say one more thing contrary to Mr. Estes: Race was relevant.
It was ironic that a Black woman who no doubt is familiar with racial discrimination, would be so comfortable discriminating against someone else based on religion. I wish Sherman had said that, instead of maligning the whole African American community. (oh, and I hate the term African American because it is incredibly arrogant and misleading. Many Black Americans have no more ties to Africa than anyone else, and if all it takes is having ancestors from Africa, then every American is an African American, and every human being can claim to be African)

p.s. I have capitalized Black when referring to a people, as a previous poster pointed out is the accepted method. I will mention though that Mr. Estes did not.

I don’t recall that Davis made any reference to anyone’s race during her tirade, so why did Sherman mention “Negroes” at all?

Sherman brought up race in order to emphasize the absurdity and hypocrisy of her position. As an African American, she is no doubt familiar with oppression and discrimination, and Sherman used language rooted in a context of oppression and discrimination to get the point across more forcefully. With that said, it becomes clear that the purpose of Sherman’s use of the word was not to insult Davis through that term, but to add force to his comparison. Incidentally, Sherman may not have known that the term really was offensive, but may have just been trying to call to people’s mind a time period where racial problems were much more heightened by using language he saw as “historical”, and that probably explains why he didn’t know it was offensive.

Now, a lot of people are bringing up the fact that he “should have known” it was offensive. However, there are two pat rebuttals to that:
1. Believe it or not, a LOT of people don’t know that “negro” is no longer an acceptable term. The fact that the term is heard every so often by black people addressing each other only adds to the confusion.
2. No word is objectively offensive, but is instead made offensive by the context in which it is being used, and so appealing to the fact that he “should have known” the word is offensive is based on a misunderstanding on how language functions.

For instance, it is certainly true that the word “asshole” is generally considered offensive, but if I were to go up to a friend at a bar, pat him on the back, smile, and say, “Can I buy you a drink, you asshole?” in a friendly tone, then it’d be pretty ridiculous for him to respond with offense or anger. My intent is obviously to use the word in a different sense, and thankfully our language has devices like sarcasm and such to add dimensions to our use of language. Anyone who would get offended at such a remark, in my opinion, doesn’t really understand language, and in turn is actually becoming an “asshole” in the negative sense by refusing to even consider the speaker’s intentions, which is the context that matters most, if you ask me.

And that, in essence, is the crux of the matter. Context. And Estes doesn’t seem to be capable of seeing the FULL context, which is the problem with his argument. He says, for instance:

Using the word “Negro” in the context of an organization’s name does not make it okay to use in all contexts.

This is true. If I say the word “Negro” while yelling obscenities and burning a cross in someone’s yard, then it’s safe to say the context is one of hatred, and the word is being used negatively. However, if I use the word “negro” only to call to mind a period of oppression and discrimination faced by African Americans in order to juxtapose it with current hardships faced by atheists, then it is rather [i]obvious[/i] that the intent is not the same as that mentioned previously, and that it is not meant to be seen as a viscious slur of her race, but instead a comparison that happens to use forceful language to better evoke it’s point. Sort of like how I will add forceful language to heighten the “power” of my point: It’s fucking absurd to think his usage of the word is offensive.

Frankly, I think our society faces a problem in the fact that people get offended by language way too easily without even bothering to try to understand how the language is being used. Perhaps the word “negro” has historical negative connotations, but the context is not the 1950’s with a cross burning on the lawn, but 2008 with a man facing discrimination as an atheist trying to make an obvious comparison. To call to mind the former context and ignore the latter is ignorance of the greatest sort, and defaming and characterizing someone as a bigot without any real warrant to do so is a LOT worse, in my opinion. And yes, in this context, the connotations of bigotry are certainly not good!

But, in reality, is the amount of discrimination that atheists face comparable to the discrimination that black Americans have faced/continue to face?

What does quantity have to do with it? Discrimination is wrong. Discrimination against Negroes/Blacks/People of Color/African Americans was wrong in the past, and continues to be wrong today. Discrimination against Jews/Muslims/Christians/[insert your religion here] is wrong. Discrimination against Homosexuals is wrong. Discrimination against Atheists is wrong. Arguing over which one is wronger is just stupid. Instead, let’s all try and take positive action to reduce and eliminate discrimination in the world around us.

Ok I’ve read through some of this and now I’m going to give you the opinion of a Black man. IMHO Black is an odd yet appropriate description, Negro/ Negroid is an archaic and scientifically acceptable description, and African-American really is only appropiarte for African immigrants. Now “Nigger” is one of my more favorite triggers. I let my friends call me “Nigger”, yes even the White ones. People I don’t know I won’t let. There needs to be a level of respecct before you say it. Otherwise they’re just words and it depends on what the receiver wants to make of it. That’s my piece.

Which brings me to my next point: why did Sherman invoke race in the first place? I don’t recall that Davis made any reference to anyone’s race during her tirade, so why did Sherman mention “Negroes” at all? Davis’ race was irrelevant to the issue, but the mere fact that she happened to be black apparently was enough for Sherman to bring it up. Not good.

St. G said it better than I’m going to, but nonetheless:

How so? Isn’t providing a comparison for people who are unfamiliar with what it means to be an atheist a good way to build common understanding?

Kate:
And hm, I wonder why he chose to attack her race instead of her gender.

Er… “attack?”

Miko said:

Isn’t providing a comparison for people who are unfamiliar with what it means to be an atheist a good way to build common understanding?

Mr. Sherman was writing on his website, the intended audience of which are people who are familiar with his work as a supporter of the church/state wall. I think most people who read his words are somewhat familiar with what it means to be an atheist… well, unless they are opponents of Mr. Sherman who like reading his website just to know what the latest challenges to theocracy are.

If Mr. Sherman had said “I can’t believe you’re discriminating against me because of my religion. You should know what it’s like to be discriminated against, you’re a Negro woman” to Ms. Davis, then maybe his comments would have been more …on-topic?

I agree with previous posters here that there is no such thing as individual civil rights movements for particular groups, there is instead one cohesive civil rights movement for all humans, wherein we must always work together to ensure that all people are all treated equally. Building common understanding is muy importante for this process.

BUT at the same time, if atheists are trying to build up common understanding by comparing our struggle with that of black Americans, we seriously risk either verbally exaggerating our struggle, or verbally diminishing theirs. Which leads to misunderstanding, which leads to this thread…

How do you not know that the word negro is a GIANT HELLO NO? What kind of rock was he living under. Did he seriously not know? I find that impossible to wrap my mind around esp. in this day in age.

Well, wrap your mind around it. This thread shows that many of us apparently did not get the latest memo and have not been informed that Negro is now a huge, nasty, blatant insult. Is the word outmoded and out-of-touch? Sure, but it’s probably not all that surprising from a white guy who grew up when it was the norm and who probably hasn’t been involved in discussing race relations because he’s been too busy fighting the church and state separation battle for all the rest of us here.

Let’s cut the man some slack. If we who interact online regularly in all sorts of forums did not view it as a deliberate pejorative, I don’t see why Sherman would have, whether he lives in Chicago or Antarctica. And the fact that he immediately removed the reference when he was informed of his blunder shows that he is open to constructive criticism.

There was so much bull in this column and its comments, it was hard to pick a place to start. I’ll start with Mr. Estes:

it would take considerable effort to avoid enough exposure to black folks to not know that “Negro” is a no-no

That, right there, has my vote for biggest piece of bull. Since when do we ever TALK about race face-to-face with people who are of different races? In this country, we don’t, so his claim to ignorance seems completely valid to me, no matter where he lives. And WHY don’t we talk about race? Because too many people, like Mr. Estes, will go completely berserk over one single word. As long as people insist on looking at the word and not the context and the intent, we will never be able to have enough of a conversation about this so that everyone know what is and isn’t offensive.

especially when said by a white person

Really? Try this statement on for size: so, as a white person, I am not allowed to use the language brought by my ancestors to this country is a way that seems correct to me? What gives you the right to tell me how to use my language?

In my book, all those statements are outrageously wrong. It’s our COMMON language, what one person can use we should all be able to use. There should be no double standard. If Mr. Estes, or anyone else, doesn’t want a word to be in the common vocabulary, then they need to stop using it and make it clear that that word is just plain offensive and not ok for anyone to use.

An argument was made in the comments that, since “Negro” refers to a black person, it’s okay to use it.

If you think my characterization above of Mr. Estes as “berserk” was over the top or inaccurate, I offer as evidence that he was so thrown by the word that he failed to pay attention to what he was reading, because his summation of what he found in those comments is completely wrong.

That argument was not made in general: the closest thing I can find to it is statements made by someone in Brazil and about Brazil, and that has no bearing on what we say in this country.

Another commenter said that the word “Negro” is used in “United Negro College Fund,” hence that provides justification for using it elsewhere.

Ditto – that was not said, nor was that argument made. It was merely mentioned as evidence that not everyone considers the word offensive in all contexts. Once again: use of a single word so made someone who was hypersensitive to it completely unable to read and understand what was actually written.

If we can’t get past this, things will never change.

PS: Thanks to Vincent for tackling the straw man in Mr. Estes writing, saves me the effort.

PPS Note to those of Nordic descent: if you find the word ‘berserk’ offensive, sorry, but there was a reason. The word I would normally have used is ‘apeshit’, but think where that would have gone: at least one person out there would read it as “Did you see that? She called him an ape because he’s black! That’s so totally racist!” and the whole vicious cycle would have started up again. So I chose to use berserk. Thank Roget for alternatives…

What say you now?

Mike Estes doesn’t defend the charge that the word is in itself offensive, because he cannot. I find the view that certain identities “own” words to be discrimination, and as bad as the problem I had with Sherman’s comment, invoking the “race” of Davis when the matter was personal. To charge Sherman with using the word in a derogatory manner is paranoid and unreasonable.

It’s idiotic to flap about at using a word when what Sherman was saying independent of the word was attacking a “race” for something. I dispair that such focus is put onto stupid word policing when such a larger problem was so obvious.

cautious,

But, in reality, is the amount of discrimination that atheists face comparable to the discrimination that black Americans have faced/continue to face?

I was under the impression for much of history being an atheist meant instant death. The big difference is that atheists can pretend to be theists. I don’t much personally feel wronged by what my contemporaries and ancestors had to put up with, neither do I blame current religious people for past horrors, so the past doesn’t concern me. Today, atheists are very much hated in certain parts of the world, but it’s still the case that we can hide who we are.

I didn’t know it was a “bad” word either, and I live in California. I think the statement itself seems more bigoted than the choice of noun.

Frankly the whole PC thing when it comes to words like “black vs. Negro vs. colored vs. people of color” seems kind of overblown to me. Call me an infidel, godless, an unbeliever, a heathen, an “athiest” – it’s all one to me. Call me a kraut, a Nazi, “Fritz”, a Yank, a cracker, a honky, or whatever you want. What do I care?

Josh Spinks,

Monique Davis only said some words, and words are arbitrary sounds with no inherent meaning. “Table” could refer to chairs if we wanted it to. Why should atheists be upset about arbitrary sounds?

See how absurd that is? The fact that “negro” doesn’t have to be offensive or wasn’t always offensive does not mean that it isn’t offensive.

Now it’s certaily possible that some people didn’t know it is offensive to many, but claiming that it shouldn’t be is ridiculous. “Negro” acquires connotations like any other word; if you reject this, you must reject that any word can mean anything at all (so why bother typing here?).

Equivocation, no one complained about Davis’s words, or sounds, they were complaining about the meaning. The sounds don’t have an inherent meaning, that’s ridiculous, those sounds could mean something else, for instance, different languages. People aren’t offended by the words, they’re offended by what they percieve to be the meaning. The author of the word has explained he didn’t mean it in a derogatory way, and it wasn’t suggested in his sentence.

So what if it means something offensive to many? He says he didn’t know that, and to many people it doesn’t mean something offensive. People get offended all the time, it’s their right, but it’s not Sherman’s fault, it’s there’s, especially when they’re the ones who haven’t made an effort to understand him, writing on his own website.

Josh Spinks said;

So he acknowledges he did know it was offensive

No, he didn’t. He said that’s what they were called at that time, and it was. That was what polite people called them, so as NOT to offend. Those doing the discriminating called them other things.

Monique Davis only said some words, and words are arbitrary sounds with no inherent meaning. “Table” could refer to chairs if we wanted it to. Why should atheists be upset about arbitrary sounds?

See how absurd that is? The fact that “negro” doesn’t have to be offensive or wasn’t always offensive does not mean that it isn’t offensive.

Now it’s certaily possible that some people didn’t know it is offensive to many, but claiming that it shouldn’t be is ridiculous. “Negro” acquires connotations like any other word; if you reject this, you must reject that any word can mean anything at all (so why bother typing here?).

It doesn’t have to have an offensive meaning. It once did not have. It doesn’t mean some people don’t find it offensive. However the real question is: why should they find it offensive when not used in an overtly offensive context? Why latch onto the word rather than the statement attached to it? Of course by now we know that he didn’t mean the word and the sentiment was merely clumsily worded. He wasn’t trying to be offensive, so it shouldn’t have been offensive, or should have ceased to be offensive when the statement was withdrawn and it was made clear that wasn’t his intention. In this case I believe him that it wasn’t.

In the case of Monique Davis I think it absolutely was meant, and I find her apology worthless.

There is a distinction here and anyone who fails to see it is being petty.

The buck stops here, chaps.

Cautious said:

I’ll repeat myself. Is the amount of discrimination that atheists face comparable to the discrimination that black Americans have faced/continue to face?

Your answer is apparently yes, under some understanding that all discrimination is equally wrong. While I agree that all discrimination is equally wrong, I can not agree with your conclusion, because not all discrimination has resulted in equal amounts of wrong-doing.

Cautious, your reasoning is fallacious. In response let me ask you a question. Is anti-semitism more wrong now than it was before the holocaust occurred? Before the Nazis killed a million Jews, was it OK to hate them (the Jews)?

Just because atheists have not, to date, been rounded up in large numbers and gassed, or dragged from their homes and sold into slavery across the sea, or hung from trees by people wearing pillowcases on their heads, does not mean those things could not happen. In fact will happen if people like Representative Davis have their way. Discrimination is wrong both before and after it gets out of hand.

blackskeptic,

i’m more surprised by the reaction of annoyance and anger that “negro” is no longer acceptable.

It’s petty and stupid, that’s annoying.

…but i am surprised at how cultuarlly insensitive some people are and how they fail to accept what a weighty and sensitive word that is to black america.

Who is being culturally insensitive here? Surely it’s the ones that are whining about being offended.

Claire said,

No, he didn’t. He said that’s what they were called at that time, and it was. That was what polite people called them, so as NOT to offend. Those doing the discriminating called them other things.

He said “[”Negroes” is] what the group was called when they were being discriminated against”. To me, this sounds like he knows the word was used in a discriminatory sense. You’re suggesting he meant that at the time black people were being discriminated against (as opposed to now when they’re not?), people who weren’t discriminating used the term “negro”. I think it’s a more sensible reading that “when they were being discriminated against” means the people doing the discriminating were using the term. This ties in with the purported reason for his usage of the word – to refer to past discrimination.

Considering that the word is tied to a history of oppresion, and is almost never used nowadays except to demean people, I think it’s reasonable to assume that’s why it’s being used when it is. We can forgive instances that seem to be honest mistakes, but that doesn’t mean the word is acceptable. What if I call you a pedophile and inisist it just means “friend of children”. I can put together an etymological argument that that is what it means, and I can point out that just because it’s usually used in to mean something undesirable, that doesn’t mean it always has to be. So if I called someone a pedophile, no one who likes any child should care, right? Of course, you would object that “pedophile” has a definite meaning and I’m just making things up to use the word in a different context, but then, why not accept that “negro” has offensive implications and shouldn’t be used? This all sounds to me like, “I want to call black people negros and I’ll be damned if anyone tells me I can’t.”

Incidentally, there are arguments over at Pharyngula that defining Jews as people who reject Jesus as the messiah is not racist. Of course, if the discussion is, “What makes Judaism and Christianity different?”, then there is no problem. If, however, someone make a special point to describe Jews in such a way when it is not pertinent to the topic, given the history of the “Christ-killer” claim, it is reasonable to interpret it as a slur on Jews. Claiming it’s just an accurate description is willfully obtuse. The motivation is almost always pejorative, and so, in most case, is the motivation for choosing “negro” over alternatives.

Josh Spinks said:

You’re suggesting he meant that at the time black people were being discriminated against (as opposed to now when they’re not?), people who weren’t discriminating used the term “negro”. I think it’s a more sensible reading that “when they were being discriminated against” means the people doing the discriminating were using the term.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. If you disagree, then tell me – at the time when black people were being openly discriminated against (which is how I should have phrased it), let’s say the 1950’s, what did polite people call them? That was the nice word at the time, and this was an honest if stupid miscalculation.

We can forgive instances that seem to be honest mistakes, but that doesn’t mean the word is acceptable. What if I call you a pedophile and inisist it just means “friend of children”.

This all sounds to me like, “I want to call black people negros and I’ll be damned if anyone tells me I can’t.”

Those are classic straw man arguments, again, and I’m getting really tired of it.

NO ONE here is saying that the word is completely acceptable, so get over it.

What we are saying is that while some people find it completely unacceptable, many others had thought it was an ok if outdated word, and are getting just a little pissed off that the word and/or thought police are giving us all grief for not absolutely knowing something that isn’t an established fact but merely a matter of debatable common usage.

When a word acquires negative connotations, it’s continued, accepted use can have negative psychological effects of the population. People hear the word, and include its implicit meanings in their understanding of the statement. It is important that a word like “negro” not be used if it is severe negative connotation (which, I believe it does for a substantial portion of the population). I am bothered by the “it’s just a word” dismissals, saying we shouldn’t get bent out of shape. We should get bent out of shape about racism, even if it is systemic and not personal. So the use of “negro” is a problem, regardless of the intention of any individual user. It’s not being said in a vacuum; people will hear it and impute meanings intended or not.

The fact that, as I pointed out, the journalist in Hemant’s previous post mentions talking to Sherman frequently and never noticing anything like this, and Sherman said he picked the word “negro” because it was the one being used to describe black people “when they were being discriminated against” suggest he deliberately chose that word to offend. Why would he say, “when they were being discriminated agaisnt”? if he didn’t mean “at the exact moment”. Does he imagine blacks are never discriminated against now? Was there a particular historical era when black were discriminated against and they were also called “negros” then, but now that’s over? Of course not. So the “when they were discriminated against” suggests the people discriminating were using the phrase during the process of discrimination. And again, the description by Zorn as being out of character indicates he chose that particular word to dredge up the feelings associated with that word, NOT because he uses it on a regular basis. I do not think that is acceptable, and I do think we should get bent out of shape about it.

There have been plenty of psychological experiments showing that priming people certain words can alter their responses to whatever the subject of the experiment is. For intstance, Graham and Lowery published “Priming Unconscious Stereotypes About Adolescent Offenders” in the Journal of Law and Human behavior (vol 28, no.5). The study illustrates how police officers and juvenile probation offices primed with words related to the category “black”, then given a hypothetical scenario about a youth criminal, would recommend harsher punishments and judge the youth more harshly that offices primed with words neutral with respect to race. Words can have a detrimental effect on society, and for this reason, racial slurs should not be used. The fact that some people didn’t know “negro” is often derogatory is irrelevant. Once you know that it is perceived that way by many people, you shoul avoid using it unless you have a good reason to (which I don’t think Sherman did). The attempts to justify it’s use, or the complaints about objectors, are what I am concerned about, moreso than the one particular instance of use. We don’t consciously think through all the possible meaning and implications of every word we hear, we just accept a lot of it, connotations and all (because our time is limited). That is why it is important to get in the habit of not using racial slurs.

Josh, why are you so determined to misinterpret Sherman’s explanation and make him the villain? Let’s not forget the vicious and unprovoked attack that was made by Rep. Davis and that Mr. Sherman was the target of it. Nothing he may have said afterwards changes that fact.

Paul, your first comments here said

I do disagree very strongly with those who claim there is some kind of difference between bigotry towards black people, and bigotry towards atheists.

Since that time I have shown that I am one of these people you disagree very strongly with. I tried to argue that, in history and today, black Americans face much worse bigotry than atheist Americans. You argued that, no, bigotry is all equal, as if bigotry/fairness is a binary system. We argued on this point, since I’m a big believer that there is a spectrum of bigotry, from thinking ‘I don’t trust them’, to thinking ‘I wish someone would deport them’, to ‘I bought this gun and I am gon’ kill them’.

We obviously didn’t agree, more angry words, and in the end you revealed that you think that my words should be criminal.

You are obviously very, very firmly of the opinion that all bigotry is equal, so much so that you’d willingly throw away my freedom of expression when it disagrees with your opinion.

…nothing else needs to be said here. You’ve more than proved your point, and the only thing you had to be willing to sacrifice to prove it was part of my civil rights. Bravo.

I’ll say it again, I think he was wrong (and should apologize) for what he said (that all black people discriminate), but not for using the word negro. In my opinion, that word is not offensive. It’s the context that was.

I almost said he was also wrong for bringing race into it, but then I remembered that he did so to highlight the hypocrisy of what she was saying, by paralleling discrimination against blacks with discrimination against atheists. I think this was justified.

I’ll say it again, I think he was wrong (and should apologize) for what he said (that all black people discriminate), but not for using the word negro. In my opinion, that word is not offensive. It’s the context that was.

I almost said he was also wrong for bringing race into it, but then I remembered that he did so to highlight the hypocrisy of what she was saying, by paralleling discrimination against blacks with discrimination against atheists. I think this was justified.

I will also agree with this. I am looking at this issue somewhat detached, being a foreigner but to me ‘negro’ signified the unmarked term for african-americans in the 50s. How did it get from that to become a pejorative?

I know better than to use the other “N” word, but I always felt that was because the word was part of the slave-owner mentality, a bastardization of negro with its own connotations. I can’t figure out why there is a change in the langauge, and I don’t understand the righteous indignation at Sherman for using it. In the age of interconnectedness I don’t feel that maintaining taboos on words is the best way to eradicate discrimination.

I concur with Aj above, that people that foster prejudice will tarnish whatever word they use for it. Aggressive language policing makes about as much sense as mass preventive detention.

‘Nigger’ was never used as anything but a pejorative to my understanding. That is not the case with ‘negro’.

I have read of the controversy regarding ‘niggard’ and ‘niggardly’. Do you agree that their censure is also warranted? Furthermore I have read that at some point, even calling black people ‘black’ was considered a pejorative. Should we grab hold of that erstwhile negative connotation and hold it over the word?

Meanings change and intentions change. Personally I hold that gratuitous offensiveness has run rampant and this is an example, although one of lesser degree.

It has been said in this thread that ‘negro’ has been unacceptable for over a decade. I do not dispute this. Seeing that I don’t actually use the word, nor have I seen it used outside a historical perspective, it never came to my attention, and frankly I doubt I will use it outside of this conversation any time soon.

My question is, was there a rash of usage of the word as a slur, e.g. to sidestep the use of ‘nigger’, or was it just deemed offensive as a near-homonym, like ‘niggardly’ was? If the former holds true, then I can see the point being made for this word. If the latter holds true, then I am totally opposed to this turn of events. I have never been a fan of political correctness as a pervasive ideology . In a society thats becoming global and multicultural, the lengths we will have to go to to keep from offending anyone will be ludicrous.

Now, I skimmed, I admit it, but it looks to me like the actual black/colored/negro/African Americans/people of color (please pick what is PC this week) here are not offended by the word, “negro.” But the white/caucasian/ European Americans think it’s the most derogatory word possible. Um…white people? Maybe ya’ll are thinking of that OTHER n-word? Look at ya’ll, tripping over yourselves to appear un-racist by going on and on about how horrible the word is and blah, blah, blah? Finding offense where there is none just like those who want to make the Atheist look bad? Are they actually offended? Probably not. Did they find some way to take the Atheist down a peg? Oh yes, absolutely.

K said,

April 14, 2008 at 9:11 am

Now, I skimmed, I admit it, but it looks to me like the actual black/colored/negro/African Americans/people of color (please pick what is PC this week) here are not offended by the word, “negro.” But the white/caucasian/ European Americans think it’s the most derogatory word possible. Um…white people? Maybe ya’ll are thinking of that OTHER n-word? Look at ya’ll, tripping over yourselves to appear un-racist by going on and on about how horrible the word is and blah, blah, blah? Finding offense where there is none….

Those were my thoughts too. BTW, Masao way back there, is my son. The thing is, I personally would not say the actual N-word, but then he has the best of both worlds and can choose what he wants.

Negro is not a slur as long as the “United Negro College Fund” wastes a night on my television for a telethon thing..

Cafeeine said:

My question is, was there a rash of usage of the word as a slur, e.g. to sidestep the use of ‘nigger’, or was it just deemed offensive as a near-homonym, like ‘niggardly’ was? If the former holds true, then I can see the point being made for this word. If the latter holds true, then I am totally opposed to this turn of events.

Now that’s a really interesting question and a really good point. I hope someone here has the answer to it.

OY! I did it here too. 🙁 We’re honestly family.

I didn’t accuse anyone of being hypersensitive. What I did do what get a fellow Black person (albeit 1/2 Black and 19) to make a commit and it was ignored as though he didn’t say anything. Guess that doesn’t mean much at all, coming from someone who is of that minority, to speak out and say “no, Negro is not a racial slur, but it is outdated”. Am I to assume my son is the minority of a minority with a different opinion OR he was the only Black person to say anything on this thread and was ignored? I have no clue, but I do know he obviously wasn’t preaching to the chior. Does a 1/2 Black 19 y.o.’s opinion not count? Does it not count because he was raised by a White woman, even though he has been part of the Black community and the White community all his life? Or is it because he’s 19?

I also think it is funny that atheists would “discriminate” and ignore the opinion of a person who is part of the vary minority they are talking about. It maybe the first time he’s posted here, but he is not unaware of this blog and what is discussed here and he wanted to post on this topic bad enough that he did not take the time to switch screens. He was determined to have his opinion heard without having to find the site again on his own screen, esp since I already had it open on my screen.

Mike Estes,

You couldn’t have mischaracterized something more if you tried.

a) Equivocation, there’s a difference between deeming words taboo and the wanting government to be secular.

b) No one complains that the word “God” is on money instead of “creator”, “deity”, “divine dictator”. People complain that government is blatently promoting a religious view.

c) Last time I checked no one was saying any of the terms for atheism people use were “unacceptable” because some people think they mean something derogatory. After getting an explanation that it wasn’t used to mean anything derogatory reasonable people would accept that perhaps words can have different meanings to different people.

d) Not many of us on this blog agreed with the content of Sherman statement, many of us didn’t agree with it at all, regardless of what term he could have used.

e) Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens don’t advocate ignorance of religion because it’s “dangerous for children to even know about”.

f) I disagreed with such stupid statements from Davis, they also weren’t relevant to the issue that was being debated, but what I found to be unacceptable was angrily shouting at a citizen saying he didn’t have the right to be in the assembly.

I know plenty of black people who consider “negro” derogatory. It seems Mike Estes does as well, and he himself is black. If it’s just a word, why are you all so upset by the prospect of it’s not being acceptable to describe black people? When I first heard from a Romani that “gyp” was often considered offensive, I didn’t announce “I know a Gypsy who doesn’t care, so you can’t either!” I acknowledged that I understood the history of the term and why it would be upsetting and I made a note to avoid using it.

The fact that not everyone knows the connotations that a particular word can have is irrelevant. In the broader culture, there are areas where “negro” carries negative connotations and defending it’s use benefits no one and harms the black community. Saying a word shouldn’t offend anyone doesn’t change the fact that, as I’ve mentioned, hearing certain words can effect, unconsciously, how we react to certain stimuli (this is why I referenced a particualr study upthread). If everyone had agreed they could understand why the word is problematic, I would have been ok with the claim of ignorance as to it’s somewhere offensive meanings, but it seems many want to defend it’s use even after being made of aware of the relevant issues.

So what exactly is your position? That the word is not problematic, or that it is problematic, but we shouldn’t stop using it anyway? Words carry connotations which can be offensive, where I live, “negro” is never used in a non-derogatory way by white people, and blacks who have experienced this are being reasonable to assume that when the word is used it is meant to be pejorative. The fact that it isn’t in some place pejorative, or that some people may not know it is irrelevant, as I continue to say, once the problems with the word are made known, they should cease to use it. As I keep saying, because words can effect our thoughts subconsciously; they are not “just words”. Will you respond to this claim? This is what I am erecting my argument on – the social-psychological connotative power of language.

The article “Black, Negro, or Afro-American?: The Differences Are Crucial!” in Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Sep., 1985), pp. 47-55 by Halford H. Fairchild indicates that the Afro-American identity lable elicit more positive descriptions and fewer negative descriptions (roughly equal neutral descriptions) than the other two terms. “Negro” fairs better than “Black”. The research is a bit outdated, but, barring new date I’m going to stick with “Afro-American” hereafter.

The fact that it isn’t in some place pejorative, or that some people may not know it is irrelevant, as I continue to say, once the problems with the word are made known, they should cease to use it. As I keep saying, because words can effect our thoughts subconsciously; they are not “just words”. Will you respond to this claim? This is what I am erecting my argument on – the social-psychological connotative power of language.

This raises the question on whether we allow racist or discriminatory ideologies take over the language. If Johnny Racist makes it a practice to commandeer any word used by the black people (not all of which identify with Afro-American to begin with. What about Afro-Canadians or Caribbeans?) will we abandon each successive word, possibly each time opting for blander language to dissuade the perpetrator from using it? Should I stop shaving my head (a neutral look where I am at) if a group of racist skinheads comes to town? The same argument lies here. People, even discriminated people should exercise critical thinking and discern if a word is used in a racist fashion or not. To claim otherwise, to claim that a person cannot tell if a word is used pejoratively or not by the context is a gross insult to the people themselves.

the social-psychological connotative power of anything cannot be overturned through suppression.

If it’s just a word, why are you all so upset by the prospect of it’s not being acceptable to describe black people?

I only have a problem with arbitrary assertions of things being deemed unacceptable.

Here’s another example. When we refer to whether people are masculine or feminine and say we are talking about their ‘gender’ we are mistaken. Gender is a grammatical term and refers to words only. It is only through some people’s irrational offense by the proper word ‘sex’ that ‘gender’ has come to be a synonym by default. I find this a completely silly situation. I have a big problem with people telling me to change my language just because it makes them feel bad.

All words, like all gods, are myths.

More about Mike Estes…While education takes no precedence over reason I find it hard to say he would know more than me on the issue.

Mike has a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from San Diego State University, is an Air Force veteran, and is currently taking time off from his career as a Quality Assurance Software Engineer, in part to spend more time on issues related to freethought and church-state separation.

Why you would quote his as a voice of knowledge on this matter I have no idea.

Here is the crux of the problem. There is a lot of tension about race, and it is difficult to discuss. That is why it is imperative that we be as sensitive as possible. And I think this statement is likely to come across to many people as saying, “You know what your problem is? You don’t let me call you negro.” (this is how I first read it) I can accept that this is just an expression of your own frustration at our troubles with race, but it isn’t going to be perceived that way by a lot of people. In my experience, there is a lot of suspicion about people of other races (from every group), and to earn someone’s trust, you have to demonstrate that you aren’t stereotyping them. Using a word that’s even potentially offensive is a bad way to do this.

(emphasis mine)
It is imperative to be as sensitive as possible without abandoning our critical faculties or assuming the opposite number has abandoned theirs.

Mindless censorship (even self-censorship) cannot promote a non-discriminatory environment in the long run.

I don’t think of negro as a slur. I’m a white American from Alabama. Furthermore, I talked to one of my black friends, also from Alabama, who is very active in his community. His opinion is that “black” is the correct term these days, “negro” isn’t a slur, and “African American” is incorrect, although not a slur either.

I have utilized the term “negro” unwittingly. I thought it was permissible, while the other “n” word was intolerable. I am embarrassed and will never use it again. I am an european-american who really does not have alot of contact or interaction with african-americans. I’m sorry if my ignorance hurt anyone. Yet, I have heard african-americans refer to one another as “niggars” and this seems odd and very ugly. I would never call my fellow europeans,”DP’s”, so it’s hard to understand.