Posted by Hemant Mehta in During the Monique Davis incident, atheist Rob Sherman had made this comment on his website:
Now that Negroes 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.
Sherman said he didn’t realize some people would take offense to the word “Negroes” — he certainly didn’t mean to imply anything negative by it — but when he found out that was the case with some prodding by Chicago Tribune reporter Eric Zorn, he took that paragraph out of a posting on his website.
Like a few others, I was surprised at his choice of words. Of course, context matters, but to me, Negro is no longer a politically correct word to use. Is it as bad as some other words? No. But I flinch when I hear it. How could anyone not feel the same?!
A lot of you who commented had a very different opinion on this. Like Sherman, you didn’t think it was a bad word at all.
Mike Estes, who knows quite a bit about African American history (and the history of Freethinking in that culture), was gracious enough to share his opinion on the matter.
As always, he is informative and spot-on:
After reading the Rob Sherman thread, and the comments, I feel compelled to comment as a bona-fide African-American (which may or may not be relevant to the reader).
If Rob Sherman lived in Vermont or Utah, where exposure to black folks is very limited, his protestations of innocence/ignorance would be more credible. However, he lives in Chicago, where, last time I checked, a substantial black population exists; it would take considerable effort to avoid enough exposure to black folks to not know that “Negro” is a no-no, especially when said by a white person. So Sherman’s contention that he was unaware that use of the word “Negro” was (at best) insensitive, strains credulity, and makes it possible for a reasonable person to conclude that his use of the word was intentionally pejorative. Such silly statements he makes as “they [‘Negroes’] have no problem at all with discrimination, just as long as it isn’t them who are being discriminated against” make such a conclusion even easier. (Note to Mr. Sherman: there’s plenty of empirical evidence that shows black folks still face plenty of discrimination. The residential segregation that currently exists in Chicago is an example)
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. Consider this: would Sherman have mentioned “Negroes” at all if the situation was exactly the same as it is now, except that Davis was white? Why give up the moral high ground with such remarks?
An argument was made in the comments that, since “Negro” refers to a black person, it’s okay to use it. Well, such pejorative words as “jigaboo” and “coon” also referred to black folks, and were in common usage at one time or another. Why not use them as well? For that matter, why not use “queers” in reference to gays, “dykes” for lesbians, and “chicks” or “broads” for women? I’ve heard all these folks refer to themselves using these words; does that in turn give me, a straight man, license to use these same words in polite company and in print? I would hope we are sophisticated enough to know not to do this.
Another commenter said that the word “Negro” is used in “United Negro College Fund,” hence that provides justification for using it elsewhere. Well then, using that reasoning, why not use “colored” as well, since it’s used in “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” At the time those organizations were founded, those words were the cultural norm; the norm has since changed, but the organizational titles were maintained for purposes of continuity, and historical connection.
There is one common thread in all of this…and that is context. The context in which a word is used is very important. Using the word “Negro” in the context of an organization’s name does not make it okay to use in all contexts. Part of dealing with any culture involves understanding the contexts which apply to it. For example, I’ve been told that in some cultures, sitting with the sole of your shoe facing someone is insulting; in other cultures, making a “peace sign” with the back of your hand facing out is akin to “giving the finger.” In the Jim Crow South, a black man who smiled at a white woman, looked a white man in the eye for too long, or was merely in the wrong town (or part of town) after dark could (and would) get lynched. In 1955, 14-year-old Emmitt Till, visiting Mississippi from Chicago (!), was brutally murdered simply for saying “bye, baby” to a white woman. Understanding cultural contexts keeps you out of trouble.
So it may behoove Mr. Sherman and the freethought community to become more familiar with the contexts inherent to current black culture, especially if freethinkers continue to invoke black folks and the civil rights movement as analogous to their own victimization (a practice that I believe is not appropriate). If that does not seem worth the effort, or seems ridiculous to you, then I hope that gives some insight into the amount of work black folks have had to (and still must) put in to understand the often very ridiculous, and sometimes dangerous, cultural contexts of the dominant American white culture, and the legacy of white supremacy upon which they are based.
What say you now?
[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]
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?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I never said I didn’t think it was a bad word. I said I didn’t KNOW it was a bad word. Huge difference. Now I know. Not that I would have used it anyway, as I DID know that the African American is the current preferred usage (it still is, isn’t it?) and if I have to designate someone by race, I would normally use that one. Which is probably why I didn’t know it was the new N-word. If I had used it, I probably would have gotten some immediate negative feedback.
I do think - and I haven’t commented on this part before - that Sherman should never have brought up the fact that Monique Davis was African American in the first place, because it was completely irrelevant, and once he found out that the word was considered offensive, he should have apologized immediately.
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.
It takes a representative yelling and blatantly insulting someone to get a tiny, belated, dare-I-say half-assed apology but someone accidentally says one of, how many?, politically correct terms[over the years] for a group and it’s the end of the world.
It was one word and an accident, can we drop it? It’s not the word used but the intent behind it. It’s pretty clear that he was trying to state the irony of someone who is among a group that has historically, and to this day, been oppressed and discriminated against has no problem doing the same to someone else for, perhaps the same reason it was done to them, a lack of understanding.
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.
Meh, I don’t think the passage of time is enough to truly make words bad. They have to have an actual negative meaning inherent in their etymology. So then, what is the origin of the word Negro? (I really don’t know.) BTW, the passage of time is enough to turn a word bad if it gains new meanings that are negative, but I don’t think “negro” has done that. I don’t see anything negative about that term. But maybe I’m missing something.
I don’t know, this is all seems just so stupid and politically correct. It smells of bullshit. I’m going with George Carlin on this one (at least until somebody let’s me know the etymology of “negro”).
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.
When I worked for my previous company, I elected to go to a cultural training encounter group. When the topic of homosexuality came up, there was a young African American girl who was in management at my company who said she would absolutely pass over a gay man or woman for a raise or promotion because she believed that homosexuality was a sin.
When we broke up into small groups, I happened to be with this young woman, and I admit I was incensed at her views. I remember saying to her (paraphrased), “It pisses me off that someone who comes from a history of persecution and inequality has no problem targeting another group with the same!”
I believe that Sherman was using the same context that I was. In fact, that’s pretty clear just from the paragraph that was removed from his blog. Because of that, Mike Estes’ claim that there was no context to even bring up race does not hold water. Add that to the fact that he said that context makes the difference in using words like “negro” or “colored” (i.e. United Negro College Fund), then I’m not sure how “Negro” is worse in Sherman’s post that “African American” would be. Mike Estes’ quote up there does nothing to clear that up but clouds the issue for me.
All things considered, what I know now is the same as what I knew before I read Mike Estes’ opinion, which is disappointing. I still would not use the word “Negro” to refer to someone, but now because I now have knowledge that I didn’t before, but because it’s no longer culturally in use, and it gives me that little pang of discomfort when I hear/read it.
In other words, I still don’t think Sherman should have used that term, but despite Estes’ commentary, I still don’t know why.
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.
Maybe Sherman missed kindergarten, or at least they day where they explained that TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. Just because she was nasty, doesn’t mean you have to pull out racial slurs. And hm, I wonder why he chose to attack her race instead of her gender.
Maybe he decided that his time in the limelight wasn’t quite done…or that atheists don’t have enough bad PR as it is, and that we need some more. Thanks, buddy.
I wanted to stand up and applaud to everything that Mike Estes said, but I’m alone…oh well, I’ll stand up and applaud anyway. RIGHT ON.
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.
“Negro” is used to bring back visions of the 1950s. It is definitely a slur. Anyone who doesn’t think so must have been living in a hole for the past several decades. Or they are so old and stuck in their ways that they have become irrelevant and should go and live in a hole for the rest of their lives.
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.
Well, what Davis said was very bigoted. Sherman was trying to point out the irony of a person concerned about being discriminated against being a horrible bigot.
I didn’t know that negro was offensive but until recently I didn’t know that “Canadian” can be a racially loaded term either.
I wonder if there is an internet dictionary of political correctness?
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.
It doesn’t strike me as particularly racist or inappropriate, but it does certainly have the effect of dating the user. It it something my grandfather would have said (or John McCain), and it seems odd for a younger person to use it.
“black folks”
WHOA! I thought using, “black,” was out too. Is it in again?
I guess I’d better be careful ordering black coffee at the local taqueria.
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’.
I’m glad that this is being discussed because apparently some people are clueless. But at the same time I’m confused that this is being discussed b/c it seems like such a big no brainer. 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.
And I agree with Mike Estes. Race was completely irrelevant in this discussion. And even if it wasn’t, the word negro is still inappropriate. Also, I’m a minority in this country. I’m a minority as an atheist. I don’t want to have to worry about racism in the atheist community. I’m hoping that we’re more rational and progressive than that.
“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.
Well, it’s news to me that there’s anything wrong with the word “negro”. It was certainly a normal, neutral word where I grew up in the 1970’s. On the other hand there were people in the 1970’s who tried to make out that “black” was a negative word and discourage its use (I have a book published in 1980 which at one point pokes fun at the people doing just this.)
We’re just dealing with fashions which differ from decade to decade and from place to place. Doubtless in ten years time there will be someone complaining that “African-American” is insulting. It seems to me that anyone who gets upset over the use of “black” or “negro” is being oversensitive. Obviously matters are different with words that, at least within living memory, have only ever had negative connotations, and I can’t take Mike Estes very seriously when he implies that usage of “negro” is equivalent to these.
Indeed I get pretty fed up with people declaring perfectly good words to be no longer acceptable. Every decade we are supposed to use a new euphemism for ‘old people’ or ‘mentally handicapped’ because the previous euphemism is no longer considered sufficiently euphemistic.
But, having said all that, I agree with Epistaxis that there was a real problem with Sherman’s remarks, and that was the extension of Davis’ tirade to negros in general. It was, to put it in the most favourable light, very careless.
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.
On an intellectual level, yes, similarities exist between the discrimination that the religious minority of Atheists have faced and the discrimination that the racial minority of black Americans have faced.
But, in reality, is the amount of discrimination that atheists face comparable to the discrimination that black Americans have faced/continue to face?
Who got sprayed with hydrants? Who got attacked by dogs? Who was brought here in chains? Who was treated as a farm tool for 200 years? Who was lynched? Who were the Jim Crow laws established for? Who did The Bell Curve insult? Who was treated as subhuman in the aftermath of Katrina?
Every minority group, or, to be more accurate, every group that interprets itself as being persecuted, has to compare itself to another group that has been historically persecuted. Pro-life people compare abortion to the Holocaust, even though the two of them have absolutely nothing in common. Is that personal bias for me to say that it is an inappropriate comparison, or is it my unwillingness to compare apples with oranges?
In the end, this discussion is much bigger than the words that Mr. Sherman used to refer to Ms. Davis. This discussion is about the hijacking of the terminology and emotions of the black civil rights movement by a religious minority who has, on the worst of days, not been treated as horrifically as black Americans.
As an atheist, I would never compare my “struggle” to that of people who actually had to struggle. I don’t have the chutzpah to pretend that being an atheist is in any manner comparable to being not white.
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:
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!
interesting discussion. I probably wouldn’t use the word negro, not because I think it’s offensive, but because it seems overly formal and dated. I have to say that I was surprised to find out that anyone would find it offensive at all.
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.
I think it’s all BS and I am so tired of all the “Word Wars”. One week we can say “Colored”, the next “African American”, the next “Black”, and then repeat. But those aren’t the only words. Some people get angry if you call them “white”. No, they are Caucasian (what the hell is that anyways), and then it’s European American….like all “white” people come from Europe (and apparently since I am white it’s okay to point it out, otherwise, I’d be racist). Everybody is so freakin’ hypersensitive over words.
Even we “atheists” have jumped on the bandwagon. One week we like atheists, then freethinkers, then non-theists, and back again….and on, and on, and on.
It’s all utter BS. I am even pissed over the big deal over [insert dramatic music] “cuss words”. What makes one word more “educated” than another? And if I wasn’t sure Hemant might get a little bent out of shape about it, I’d love to give it all a big hearty F U.
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.
Paul,
Yes, discrimination is wrong, whether it’s in the form of dragging someone behind their truck until they are dead and pieces of them disintegrate off their body, or putting the Ten Commandments in a public, government-owned space.
I’d say that the discrimination which leads to the most vile and violent response is “wronger”, but…I’m not arguing over which one is wronger.
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.
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?
Er… “attack?”
Also, to anyone who thinks racial slurs and other similar words are “always” offensive, I highly recommend you read the book Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. Honestly, I don’t see how anyone can maintain that a word is inherently offensive, even in the face of the historical fact that these words have been documented to go from popular, even benign, use to becoming taboo. In reality, words are just strings of letters, and meanings can be pulled from them in a variety of ways, but we have to be judicious in how we do that. If I’m reading a work from earlier in the 19th century and the author uses the word “negro” in a tract about abolishing slavery, it would be absurd for me to argue that he is racist or bigoted based solely upon his use of that word, and nothing else. To appeal to the historical fact that the word later became a slur is irrelevant to how the author is actually using the word. As another example, if someone uses the word “gay”, and I infer that he is talking about a bunch of “happy” people based upon the historical contexts in which that word was used in the past, I’d rightly be be thought foolish.
Appealing to the fact that the majority of people will get offended by a statement is a moot point, if you ask me, because the majority can often be wrong. In the case where a man lost his job for using the word “niggardly”, for example, it wouldn’t matter how many people thought this word offensive–they’d be wrong in trying to pin bigoted or racist connotations to the original use of the word.
Then again, I’m one of those people who thinks the whole concept of “taboo” words to be inherently silly. It’s rather arbitrary that we consider “fuck” taboo while “sex” is acceptable and find “negro” offensive, while African American or black is okay. In essence, constructing taboos just gives society the power to condemn, judge, and criticize needlessly, as well as foster a sort of moral elitism through the creation of these useless norms. If we reduce “racism” to the use of a word like negro, ignoring how an individual acts and feels about racial issues, then we are guilty of trivializing racism. It would be as if we one day decided to find the word “murder” offensive, and anyone who subsequently used it would be considered a murderer, even if, you know, they didn’t actually perform any physical act or even think about murdering anyone. This would quite obviously trivialize the concept of being a “murderer” for a large fraction of society, whereas the other fraction would disproportionately fret over the use of the word murder as if it is on par with murder itself. We’ve got the same problem with these taboo words that refer to identity, and I’ll be happy to see the day when we rid ourselves of this linguistic nonsense.
Miko said:
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…
Rob Sherman has always struck me as a man who likes to say anything, no matter how outrageous, to get attention. He has worked on good causes, but I never thought he was a good spokesperson for atheism. This “negro” statement is just the latest example.
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.
I think that the choice of words was fairly inoffensive compared to the rest of the sentence. Generalizing African-Americans with political power is a bigger no-no than using a certain word.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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…
I find it odd that dozens of people on this atheist blog, most of whom are presumably atheists, really do not see any parallels here.
Sherman makes a perfectly legitimate point, albeit in an uncouth and politically stupid fashion. You would think that a person such as Rep. Davis who, as an African American woman, has no doubt felt the sting of both racism and misogyny in her life, would know better than to go around making comments about how certain groups of people are “dangerous” and should be kept away from children, for fear of “infecting” them with their ideology. While there is a difference between the unalterable characteristics of race and the ideological position that is atheism, it should be obvious to all the readers of this blog that Davis is exercising the same type of snap judgment and stereotyping that racists use.
It is further worth pointing out that really, the only thing offensive about this statement is his politically idiotic word choice. Most of the controversy here wouldn’t exist if Sherman had been smart enough to use the phrase “African-Americans”.
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,
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.
[...] Seems to be a trend. [...]
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?).
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?
How silly to think that experiencing racism should make you less racist. Ever read “Maus?” There’s a great line, I wish I could remember it exactly– the author’s father survived the holocaust, and is also extremely racist, and at some point the author muses that there was nothing in those gas chambers that taught sensitivy or tolerance.
In the same way, I fail to see how having family members lynched or growing up in poverty should make you more understanding towards people who don’t believe in God.
As far as words, let’s all be reasonable humans about it. Pick a term that generally doesn’t offend people. Personally, I say black. (And I think it’s downright pointless to capitalize the B, whose idea was that?) If someone finds it offensive, as judged by their change in tone, body language, or direct communication, use a more formal word or ask what to use. Then go on like two adults.
Easy, huh?
Josh Spinks,
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.
From Hemant’s other post, Eric Zorn says
So he acknowledges he did know it was offensive (”… when they were being discriminated against”). If he understood the word’s connection to a history oppression, it was irresponsible for him to use it.
Josh Spinks 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.
okay, i’ll cut sherman some slack. perhaps he really was unaware to “negro” not being appropriate. i’m more surprised by the reaction of annoyance and anger that “negro” is no longer acceptable.
and to the people making the snarky comments about how they didn’t get the latest memo that “negro” was a bad word - well, i’ve got news for you. that memo was over 10 years ago. i guess i’m surprised by how many people on this forum probably don’t have any black friends and live in a vacuum. if you do have any black friend, have you ever called them a negro? what was their reaction? and the meaning behind words change all the time. i’m sure that there are some words for white people that were acceptable back in the 50s,60s,70s that are no longer acceptable now. things are not static. culture is not static.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro
to a certain degree, i can understand your frustrations, 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.
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.
Josh Spinks wrote:
No one is arguing that words can mean anything at all. What we are arguing is that language is too fluid to cohere with the idea of an “objectively” offensive word, but no one has said it is so fluid to such a degree that anything could mean anything to anyone.
As an example, if I am in a windowless room, point to an open door, and say, “Close the window,” you’d probably know exactly what I mean, in spite of the fact that there really isn’t any precedent for using “window” as a synonym for “door”. If you were to ignore the context of my utterance and search fruitlessly for a window to close, it would be obvious that you are a poor judge of what the word “window” actually means in that sentence, given my intentions in using it and the context.
Now, this does not mean you could assume the phrase “Close the window” meant “Rape a puppy.” There is no context or evidence of any sort, linguistic or otherwise, that would lead us to think that is what is meant. No one is arguing for the sort of linguistic nihilism you are portraying the position as. Our side of the spectrum simply realizes that the word “window” can sometimes mean “door” depending on the context of the utterance, like the speaker’s intentions–but this doesn’t mean it could mean anything, and that context clues can be ignored to fabricate whatever meaning we want.
So the point isn’t that words can necessarily mean anything. The point is that we can determine meaning that may differ from ordinary usage based on context cues. Even though using the word “Negro” may usually be said with an intent to degrade African Americans, in the context involving Sherman, the evidence seems to show otherwise. To ignore this evidence is folly.
Cautious said:
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.
I’m amongst those who think Sherman was really dumb here and needs to apologize, but this is a pretty lousy argument. His point was that African Americans, having faced discrimination in their history and own lives, should be inherently more sympathetic to other groups who are discriminated and insulted. In this case, race is relevant, and its not racist to cite it. It’s actually much more commonly pointed out in gay rights issues, given that homophobia seems to have a much stronger hold in the African American community than in other places.
blackskeptic,
It’s petty and stupid, that’s annoying.
Who is being culturally insensitive here? Surely it’s the ones that are whining about being offended.
blackskeptic said:
You completely mistake our reaction in this regard. The annoyance and anger are not about the status of the word at all, but about some people’s attitudes (including yours) that if we somehow don’t instinctively know that the word is offensive, we are completely ignorant and probably a closet racist. I am neither, and I resent the implication.
Feel free to tell us when and how it was sent, as I didn’t get it either.
I never use the word because it’s passe. I have friends and also coworkers who are black, and like most americans, we don’t discuss race frankly or often. So if I don’t use it, and they never told me, exactly how the hell was I supposed to know?
As for your wikipedia reference, I already discussed those in a post above. Those citations don’t make the case that the word is generally offensive to all, only sometimes offensive to some, so there’s another place where it isn’t clear.
Claire said,
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.
paul, since you asked:
First, I’ll ask: Are you saying that hating the Jews before 1940 was the same, intellectually, historically, emotionally, and ethically, as hating the Jews after 1945? Is discrimination a blind force that ignores history and sociopolitical change? Is it somehow outside of culture?
Second, I’ll answer. YES, it went from bad to worse. Getting genocided automatically makes discrimination against your group all the more loathsome, since history has already shown where that discrimination leads.
I …guess we can find a common ground in this because you think that, one day, atheists too can get genocided. (Which, by the way, congratulations, you are more pessimistic about the world than I am.) I think I follow your reasoning: all discrimination is equally bad because everyone has been, is going to be, or is capable of being genocided.
Aj, you responded greatly, by pointing out the one major difference between being a religious minority and a racial minority: we can pretend to be part of the religious majority, and until the thoughtpolice become a real thing, no one will know any better. You didn’t really …answer my question, but ok, at least you made a valid point.
everyone, I realize that I’m in the intellectual minority on this topic. I have been since a week ago when I was the only person in the initial thread on this Davis v. Sherman incident who mentioned Davis’s Negroes comment.
Let’s make this clear: Davis said that black Americans are totally cool with discrimination as long as they get to do it. That’s fucked up, because it was stereotypical, and wrong, and compared atheism with America’s (second) original sin of black-white relations.
I’m saddened by where this conversation has gone and it sucks that we are so bent out of shape over what words were used, when the problem is the thoughts that Davis, and now we, are trying to convey.
I am of the opinion that our movement’s attempt to gain equal socio-political footing with religious folks can be acquired without comparing our struggle to the struggle of black Americans. I believe that attempting to do so either marginalizes their struggle or inflates ours, and is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate, unless and until we have been forced to walk a path through history that is equivalent to the path that they have been forced to walk.
Everyone else here who’s speaking up either disagrees with this opinion or doesn’t care. So I’ll shut up about it on here, but invite more take downs of my fallacious arguments here on the forums.
(sits back down to enjoy the conversation on whether words mean things)
Josh Spinks said:
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.
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.
cautious,
I’d like to see you logically justify such rubbish. What are you talking about? Also, you’re using the type of paranoid hyperbole that you’re complaining about when people compare minor discrimination to Rosa Parks bus incident. Many people do this, for any type of descrimination, or anything, it’s a form of rhetoric.
It’s clear that they’re not comparable because atheists cannot be targetted because of what they look like. However, when they are found out it is certainly comparable discrimination. Also, the attacks on atheists in general are tolerated by a majority, where racism certainly isn’t.
No one should inherit the sins or grievances of their ancestors. Where haven’t the people been conquered, slaves, and oppressed? We’re all human afterall, these things existed at many times in many places.
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.