|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Being niggardly with language
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Does this have to become a pond war for God's sake?
You're right. Ponds, plural.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Leaf, I'm not sure from your post immediately above this one whether you're admitting you're spoiling for a pond war, or acknowledging your previous comment on this thread could have been taken that way.
Either way, that previous comment was needlessly inflammatory. For now, I'll give your reply to mousethief and its implications the benefit of the doubt, but consider yourself warned. You've been around here long enough to know that we take an extremely dim view of pond wars, their instigators, and (everyone else please note) anybody who then adds fuel to the fire.
/hosting
[ 27. April 2014, 06:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Context. A private management meeting discussing financial management.
Etymology. A word whose meaning is meanness, penny-pinching.
User of the word. A gay white man in some position of authority, but who might, reasonably, be expected to have some personal experience of prejudice.
Effect. A misunderstanding, but not one openly explored at the time. Rather, it became the subject of office gossip and a witch hunt.
Where does the blame really lie in that scenario? A man who used a word without appreciating its potential for misinterpretation? Or those who misunderstood, didn't bother to seek clarification, but instead thought the worst and spread a bit of "ignorant self-righteousness" around?
This subsequent argument and our differing views may have had something to do with pond differences but it seems to me to have a lot more to do with a proper assessment of who behaved badly.
And, I repeat, the one who read it right, from across the pond, was the Chair of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. He saw very clearly where the ignorance and bad behaviour lay and it was not with the unfortunate gay man who became the victim of a witch hunt.
That's the way the specific incident looks to me. People who appear to have been hypersensitive about a word simply because of the way it sounded, but remarkably insensitive to context, etymology, and the probable experiences of the speaker re prejudice. Their behaviour is either explainable that way, or there were other reasons not in the public domain.
I'm not saying that is the only way of interpreting what happened, but I cannot see anything unreasonable about that interpretation.
[ 27. April 2014, 07:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you B62, for your usual calm words.
A couple of aspects which have not really been explored. The first is the assumption of his workmates that the man who made the comments did so in bad faith and with the wish to insult them. The second is the apparent lack of apology directly from those people. Neither does them much credit in my view.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
I withdraw any geographical references, while underlining the irony of those who refuse to learn any new information complaining about those who refuse to learn any new information.
Seriously, how do you not see yourselves as engaging in exactly the same behaviour: continuing to rely on your own assumptions rather than taking on board new information?
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Leaf, I said in an earlier post that I would avoid using the word in any subsequent visit to the US, rather than risk causing gratuitous offence. That's something I've learned. Better to be careful.
But I remain convinced that in the specific back story the objections to the word, however much they were influenced by cultural sensitivities, were neither rational nor fair. The Mayor and the Chair of the NAACP both recognised this at the time. Were they both blind to potential cultural insensitivity? That seems pretty unlikely to me. That's something else I've learned from looking at the specific back story.
Surely it is possible to separate out the specific issues of justice and the more general issues of cultural sensitivity and see them for what they were and still are? There is no need to attribute blindness to other people in this discussion, just because we do not necessarily agree on which factors were most important.
[ 27. April 2014, 13:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I would say, "If a word offends you, find out whether you are wrong to feel that way."
Moo
slowly moving the goalposts: best way to win a debate.
How do you react if someone gets angry with you because they have misunderstood what you said and don't think you deserve an explanation/discussion of what the problem is.
I have the impression that you don't believe there is such a thing as an honest misunderstanding.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All I meant is that the origin of the word is when Spanish sailors first encountered black people along the African coast.
Yes. And what were white people called? People.Or by their nationality.
It is natural that a first encounter with people so remarkably different might focus on the factor most immediately identify as different. However, that identifier was never let go, never superseded by any of the criteria used for white people. Therein lies the difference.
Actually, not quite so. Across North Africa, all Europeans were referred to as 'Francs' and the local population thought the northerners all looked and sounded the same. It is from this we get the term 'Lingua Franca' (lit. language of the Francs), a polyglot language used for trade in the southern Mediterranean. the term 'Franc' was pejorative (i.e. implied inferiority) in an exact mirror image of the terms 'Turk' and 'Moor' used by Europeans at the time.
The tragedy is as you describe but perhaps more pointed than is assumed.
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have the impression that you don't believe there is such a thing as an honest misunderstanding.
Moo
I begin to suspect that some people here subscribe to the doctrine that "the anti-racist is always right", alias "if a black person says something is racist then it's racist".
To someone who holds such a view, there is no such thing as an honest misunderstanding, and the accused is guilty until proven innocent. And even then guilty for not anticipating that they'd be wrongly accused...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
@Russ: You've got a point there.
This whole issue is a minefield, and many of the mines were laid out by people who need to channel their aggressions into something that cannot possibly be questioned, thereby making them always right, their anger righteous, and their standing as defenders of the oppresse impeccable. Discursive taboos, so to speak.
I don't like their self-righteous anger. I suspect they enjoy the fact that ue to current cultural constraints, they cannot bev counter-attacked. All very nasty.
[ 27. April 2014, 18:59: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
How do you react if someone gets angry with you because they have misunderstood what you said and don't think you deserve an explanation/discussion of what the problem is.
Has happened. I asked what was offensive, explained what I meant, and make a mental note to be careful that choice of phrase in the future, especially around that person. Those of us who live in ridiculously diverse cities have had that conversation at least a dozen times in their lives, on both ends of it, I would guess.
SO, yeah, i guess I agree that firing the guy in this case was overkill. But at the same time, those of us who have had that conversation dozens of times might tend to wonder, "If an easy, accurate shift in vocabulary will solve the problem, why not just do it?" I don't feel oppressed in any way because I chose to stop calling people "a Jew."
That does not change the fact that I think the firing was overkill. (now that I have a more accurate picture in my mind of the context.) People should have just let the individuals in question hash it out themselves.
I just think the person who took offense didn't do anything wrong by saying so.
[ 27. April 2014, 19:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Those getting hot under the collar about the correct use of a proper English word should be directing their ire to the education theorists who said that children did not need to be taught anything but allowed to be creative; and then the authorities who adopted that load of garbage. You need to beable to carry out such calculations as 2 + 2 = 4, and so forth.
I think that misses the point. As well as a missing an important fact about the way language actually works, which is that even when used 'correctly' words carry connotations which go beyond their meaning, and some level of awareness of these connotations is an aid to the effective use of those words.
There are, for example, almost certainly occasions when you or I or anyone else here would avoid using words like "cock", "ass", "prick", "bastardise", "hoar", "gay", or even "bottom" in some perfectly correct and innocent sense, if only to avoid provoking puerile sniggers when trying to say something serious. It's not ignorance that makes me avoid the word "gay" to describe someone who is colourfully dressed - it's the common sense realisation that many people hearing that word will inevitably find that it raises other associations which I do not intend to convey. I don't think it is saying too much to note that "niggard" sometimes belongs on the same list. The sound "niggar..." will inevitably have an effect in the minds of my hearers.
It would be a distraction from the effect that I want my words to have, so I'd pick a different word. I wouldn't judge someone who used "niggard" to be a racist - it isn't in itself anything to do with race - but to use it in a context where racial issues are even capable of arising would be damned poor rhetoric, if nothing else. I wouldn't complain about English teachers encouraging creativity, if it raises awareness of the associations of words and their sensitive use. That is basic rhetoric, and is certainly part of an English teacher's job, at least as much as etymology and grammar.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Robert Heinlein commented once that many animal names have been used to insult humans: cat, dog, bull, cow, fox, wolf, rabbit, mule, ass, chicken, rat, worm, ant, crow, shark, etc. Other people have pointed out that the English language has vast numbers of synonyms for "divorce", "adultery", "theft", "murder", "lying" and so on.
It can be very difficult to say anything of any length without running the risk that someone, somewhere, will find some way to take offense.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It can be very difficult to say anything of any length without running the risk that someone, somewhere, will find some way to take offense.
The problem with a subjective test, it seems to me, is that the views of anyone, no matter how crazy or irrational, are as equally valid as the next man's. I can't help but think that 'don't-use-'niggardly'-in-case-someone-misconstrues-the-word'-type arguments play into the hands of such people.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There are, for example, almost certainly occasions when you or I or anyone else here would avoid using words like "cock", "ass", "prick", "bastardise", "hoar", "gay", or even "bottom" in some perfectly correct and innocent sense, if only to avoid provoking puerile sniggers when trying to say something serious. It's not ignorance that makes me avoid the word "gay" to describe someone who is colourfully dressed - it's the common sense realisation that many people hearing that word will inevitably find that it raises other associations which I do not intend to convey. I don't think it is saying too much to note that "niggard" sometimes belongs on the same list. The sound "niggar..." will inevitably have an effect in the minds of my hearers.
It would be a distraction from the effect that I want my words to have, so I'd pick a different word. I wouldn't judge someone who used "niggard" to be a racist - it isn't in itself anything to do with race - but to use it in a context where racial issues are even capable of arising would be damned poor rhetoric, if nothing else. I wouldn't complain about English teachers encouraging creativity, if it raises awareness of the associations of words and their sensitive use. That is basic rhetoric, and is certainly part of an English teacher's job, at least as much as etymology and grammar.
Bang on.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I would say, "If a word offends you, find out whether you are wrong to feel that way."
Moo
slowly moving the goalposts: best way to win a debate.
How do you react if someone gets angry with you because they have misunderstood what you said and don't think you deserve an explanation/discussion of what the problem is.
I have the impression that you don't believe there is such a thing as an honest misunderstanding.
Moo
Then you're not reading my posts.
As I've said at least twice, I think such misunderstandings happen all the time. They're inevitable.
Your initial post suggested that we should check out every word said by another human being to make sure we are correctly understanding it. While that would go a long way to reducing (tho not eliminating) such misunderstandings, I pointed out that such a task was impossible-- we would be tediously stuck in a loop of definitions and definitions of definitions for all eternity. You later moved the goalposts by suggesting we do this only if we're offended. Still probably unworkable on a grand scale, but, as I indicated, not bad as a general principle.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It can be very difficult to say anything of any length without running the risk that someone, somewhere, will find some way to take offense.
The problem with a subjective test, it seems to me, is that the views of anyone, no matter how crazy or irrational, are as equally valid as the next man's. I can't help but think that 'don't-use-'niggardly'-in-case-someone-misconstrues-the-word'-type arguments play into the hands of such people.
This seems to be predicated on the assumption that words have some inherently "true" meaning. But the reality is that all words are symbolic, they only mean what we all agree they mean. If the vast majority (not suggesting that is the case here) of people believe "niggardly" is a racist term, then it is a racist term, regardless of it's etymology. It has evolved to mean that despite it's prior meanings. That happens all the time. That doesn't mean that person who said it is a racist or deserves to be fired. But it also doesn't mean the people who hear it that way are "crazy" or "irrational" any more than the person who hears the word "chair" and thinks of something to sit on.
Now if, as you suggest, the offensive interpretation were only held by a radical few, you'd have a point. But the outcry would seem to suggest that it's more than just a few.
Again, that's no excuse for not accepting a reasonable explanation, especially when it fits the context (and the racial interpretation does not). But it's also not a radical fringe view either. It's simply a miscommunication-- the sort that happen all the time.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, that's no excuse for not accepting a reasonable explanation, especially when it fits the context (and the racial interpretation does not). But it's also not a radical fringe view either. It's simply a miscommunication-- the sort that happen all the time.
I agree. What got my goat in the original case was not just the assumption of prejudice but the way that assumption was used to bad mouth the aide. The root of prejudice is pre-judgement. Which is the problem with all forms of assumptions. They are prejudicial. And certainly were in the original case.
Words do change their meaning and their incidental associations through time. We don't have much option over keeping up with the dynamics of that. But the dangers of assumption, particularly the assumption of guilt and acting on that, don't change. Assumption has always been one of the causes of injustice.
[ 27. April 2014, 21:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Your initial post suggested that we should check out every word said by another human being to make sure we are correctly understanding it. While that would go a long way to reducing (tho not eliminating) such misunderstandings, I pointed out that such a task was impossible-- we would be tediously stuck in a loop of definitions and definitions of definitions for all eternity.
I never intended to suggest that every word should be checked out. I meant that every word which gives offense should be checked out.
In other words, ask before you blow your top.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I don't think the vast majority of people are even aware of the word "niggardly", so I don't think they have pre-formed opinions about it. The phenomenon we are commenting on has to do with a highly vocal group of people who do object to it.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Just so. And on the idiot member of the elite who flung it out into the middle of Chocolate City.
[ 27. April 2014, 21:24: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I meant that every word which gives offense should be checked out.
Somewhere along the line the person who is offended needs admit they were offended and explain why it is offensive, though, or else the person is going to keep walking around giving offense. Pointing out how a word lands on you is helpful`--definitely more helpful than not saying anything, muttering about it, and getting the person in trouble at work.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
.. Chocolate City.
This may be more difficult than I think. Isn't Chocolate City seen as a racist epithet by some folks?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Back to fags in clubs-- if I heard someone talking like that, and I liked them even a tiny bit, I would pull them aside and tell them to change their phrasing, and why. If I was out to sabotage them, I would praise them on their word choice and tell them to ignore the oversensitive folk who had a problem with it.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I meant that every word which gives offense should be checked out.
Somewhere along the line the person who is offended needs admit they were offended and explain why it is offensive, though, or else the person is going to keep walking around giving offense. Pointing out how a word lands on you is helpful`--definitely more helpful than not saying anything, muttering about it, and getting the person in trouble at work.
spot on.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I can't help but think that 'don't-use-'niggardly'-in-case-someone-misconstrues-the-word'-type arguments play into the hands of such people.
Oy, has anyone said never use the word? What I am advocating is think before you speak. Something that is generally considered good advice.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I begin to suspect that some people here subscribe to the doctrine that "the anti-racist is always right", alias "if a black person says something is racist then it's racist".
Then you suspect incorrectly.
quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
Actually, not quite so. Across North Africa, all Europeans were referred to as 'Francs' and the local population thought the northerners all looked and sounded the same. It is from this we get the term 'Lingua Franca' (lit. language of the Francs), a polyglot language used for trade in the southern Mediterranean. the term 'Franc' was pejorative (i.e. implied inferiority) in an exact mirror image of the terms 'Turk' and 'Moor' used by Europeans at the time.
I had thought francs was eastern description of Western Europeans. None the less, it does serve to illustrate that such terms are not descriptive as much as they are derogatory.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Somewhere along the line the person who is offended needs admit they were offended and explain why it is offensive, though, or else the person is going to keep walking around giving offense.
Well, the conversation should have gone something like:
Speaker: blah blah blah niggardly blah
Offended: What did you just say?
S: Huh?
O: I can't believe you just used the n-word. You can't say that, you despicable racist pig.
S: I didn't use that word. I said niggardly. N-I-G-G-A-R-D-L-Y. It means miserly - penny-pinching. It has nothing to do with the racist n-word at all.
O: Oh, OK - I've never heard that word before.
S: Moving on.
And yes, if this happens often, a prudent S would avoid his argument being sidetracked like this by choosing a different word.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If the vast majority (not suggesting that is the case here) of people believe "niggardly" is a racist term, then it is a racist term, regardless of it's etymology.
Well, sure - the etymology doesn't matter, the fact that a word is/has been used to brand a particular group of people as effectively subhuman in what matters. But in this case, the majority of people don't believe "niggardly" is racist. The majority of people have never heard of the word, and some of those guess that it might have something to do with the most similar sounding word that they have heard of.
Specious nonsense about how "nigger" is OK really, because it's just a funky pronunciation of a dialect word meaning "black" is indefensible, because "nigger" has been used in a wide and well-documented fashion to dehumanize black people.
Being told "niggard isn't related to the racist n-word," on the other hand, should be sufficient to have the offended party revise his or her understanding.
Unless, of course, we have a spate of wise-cracking racists using the word "niggardly" about black people, and only black people, in which case it would acquire a racist meaning.
It hasn't.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Somewhere along the line the person who is offended needs admit they were offended and explain why it is offensive, though, or else the person is going to keep walking around giving offense.
Well, the conversation should have gone something like:
Speaker: blah blah blah niggardly blah
Offended: What did you just say?
S: Huh?
O: I can't believe you just used the n-word. You can't say that, you despicable racist pig.
S: I didn't use that word. I said niggardly. N-I-G-G-A-R-D-L-Y. It means miserly - penny-pinching. It has nothing to do with the racist n-word at all.
O: Oh, OK - I've never heard that word before.
S: Moving on.
See, I disagree. If I were O, I would follow up "never heard that word before" with "Gee, that word is a total sound- alike with a very racist term well all know-- are you sure you don't want to play it safe and go with 'miserly'? "
(Oh and also I would not throw name calling into my observation that I just heard the N word, I would simply state it.)
I really would not feel right about not saying that. If S responded, "Screw that, why let the teeming millions decide my vocabulary?" then I would shrug and say "Moving on."
[ 28. April 2014, 02:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yes. We have covered this ground already.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But in this case, the majority of people don't believe "niggardly" is racist. The majority of people have never heard of the word, and some of those guess that it might have something to do with the most similar sounding word that they have heard of.
I imagine they thought it was the adjective form of the all-too-familiar noun. Just as the first time you heard the words "geeky" or "wifely" you probably didn't ask what they meant, if you already knew the nouns "geek" or "wife". Which means that the protestors probably didn't know that they didn't know the word.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Being told "niggard isn't related to the racist n-word," on the other hand, should be sufficient to have the offended party revise his or her understanding.
Yes. I think we have all agreed on that, several times.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Being told "niggard isn't related to the racist n-word," on the other hand, should be sufficient to have the offended party revise his or her understanding.
That assumes the speaker knows the etymology of the word as well as the meaning.
I posit the vast majority of people do not know the etymology of the vast majority of the words they use, even when properly understanding usage.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Leaf, I said in an earlier post that I would avoid using the word in any subsequent visit to the US, rather than risk causing gratuitous offence. That's something I've learned. Better to be careful.
But I remain convinced that in the specific back story the objections to the word, however much they were influenced by cultural sensitivities, were neither rational nor fair. The Mayor and the Chair of the NAACP both recognised this at the time. Were they both blind to potential cultural insensitivity? That seems pretty unlikely to me. That's something else I've learned from looking at the specific back story.
Surely it is possible to separate out the specific issues of justice and the more general issues of cultural sensitivity and see them for what they were and still are? There is no need to attribute blindness to other people in this discussion, just because we do not necessarily agree on which factors were most important.
Confused right back at you. My response was not directed at you, Barnabas62, but rather to those who believe that they have nothing to learn (about context) but have only to teach others (about some imaginary world in which language is pure and context doesn't matter). Indeed, you noted this was not the case for you in the bit I bolded above.
Nor was I speaking to the specific incident in Washington DC mentioned in this regard, which I think was ridiculous: people reacted out of panic. All of it could have been handled a whole lot better, IMO.
I am not sure I would use the "blindness" as above; "willful obliviousness", maybe. I am struck by the accusation, "You are ignorant because you will not learn anything new" from people who will not learn anything new about a context differing from their own.
I could wear a T-shirt with an ancient swastika symbol to a Holocaust museum. If challenged about it, I could helpfully explain, "No, it's not what you think! See, the etymology is actually 'lucky' or 'auspicious' and the symbol dates back thousands of years before the Third Reich." I would of course be technically correct - the best kind of correct - yet if I kept wearing it for repeated visits I would still be thought of as an asshole, and I would be one. I would have failed to learn anything new about my context and would have sought only to teach others from my POV.
The beautiful thing about clothing and language is that one can make other choices! I could choose to wear another T-shirt; someone can choose to use a word other than "niggardly".
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
... Chocolate City.
This may be more difficult than I think. Isn't Chocolate City seen as a racist epithet by some folks?
Yep. As with nigger, it depends on who's using it and in what context, but the stakes aren't nearly as high.
In my social circle I can get away with, but perhaps you couldn't.
Oh, and I'm being intentionally unhelpful.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Oh, and I'm being intentionally unhelpful.
That's not a good idea. Especially not in the context of this thread.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
In my social circle I can get away with, but perhaps you couldn't.
Maybe that's the key thing to learn here. Sensitivities vary. As we discover every day. Personally, I'd avoid Chocolate City if visiting friends who live in communities with a high Afro-Caribbean percentage population. I know some folks who wouldn't like it. And, knowing that, I guess I've learned to avoid the term altogether, just in case. It's on my personal censored list.
I suppose a modernist approach to niggardly, which is an old word with Norse origins, is simply to appeal to a dictionary definition and point to the absence of racism in the word. And think that should resolve the matter. The problems with this are nicely illustrated in the Urban Dictionary entry.
quote:
English buff- "Boy that gentleman at the picnic sure was niggardly."
Ignoramus- "You said "picnic" and "niggerly"! Racist!"
English Buff- "*Sigh*! "Picnic" is from a French word that refers to what we'd call a pot luck, and "niggardly" is from an old Norse word that means "stingy". They have nothing to do with race!"
Ignoramus- "Racist!"
English Buff- "*Sigh*..."
Basically, both are ignorant about something. And maybe ignoramus can be socially dodgy too!
My sympathies are a little more with the English buff, who at least knows there is a standard to refer to and a standard way of considering whether use of a particular word implies racism, rather than ignorance of a particular social norm. But not too much. The question "why do you think that?" Is a lot more useful than any "I know better" appeal to authority.
Leaf, thanks for the helpful clarification, appreciated.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Well, the conversation should have gone something like:
Speaker: blah blah blah niggardly blah
Offended: What did you just say?
S: Huh?
O: I can't believe you just used the n-word. You can't say that, you despicable racist pig.
S: I didn't use that word. I said niggardly. N-I-G-G-A-R-D-L-Y. It means miserly - penny-pinching. It has nothing to do with the racist n-word at all.
O: Oh, OK - I've never heard that word before.
S: Moving on.
See, I disagree. If I were O, I would follow up "never heard that word before" with "Gee, that word is a total sound- alike with a very racist term well all know-- are you sure you don't want to play it safe and go with 'miserly'? "
(Oh and also I would not throw name calling into my observation that I just heard the N word, I would simply state it.)
I really would not feel right about not saying that. If S responded, "Screw that, why let the teeming millions decide my vocabulary?" then I would shrug and say "Moving on."
I wouldn't just shrug. I'd mentally file S as a willfully insensitive jerk. They've been told why it's a problem even if the intent was innocent. But clear communication is obviously not something they value or they'd be happy to switch to words that have less chance of causing trouble. Not accidentally offending others clearly isn't something they value (as they've just stated). Using common and easily understood language again clearly isn't something they value (miserly is a much more commonly understood word than niggardly).
So if they don't care about communicating clearly, they don't care about causing misunderstandings, and they don't care about not upsetting people I have to ask why they are talking. And I can only come up with three theories. First they are talking to an in-group and the exclusivity of their communication is a bonus (something they have in common with every user of slang ever). Secondly they are talking because they like to hear the sound of their own voice and don't like the idea of even being constrained enough to tailor the message to the audience or even a general one (I'd call this a fundamental unwillingness to communicate). Thirdly they know exactly what they are doing and are trolling. I've seen all three - but if it's the first one I probably shouldn't be in the conversation in the first place.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
That's exactly the type of attitude that dumbs down language. It's not the fault of the idiot who jumps to conclusions about a word he doesn't even understand but the person who has a broad vocabulary. Using less well known words chanllenges others to broaden their vocabulary too which in turns benefits the language as a whole. Sorry, but you've got it all arse over tit.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's exactly the type of attitude that dumbs down language. It's not the fault of the idiot who jumps to conclusions about a word he doesn't even understand but the person who has a broad vocabulary. Using less well known words chanllenges others to broaden their vocabulary too which in turns benefits the language as a whole. Sorry, but you've got it all arse over tit.
I would agree with this, if there is some significant shade of meaning in the obscure or controversial word that the more common word lacks. For example, ISTM there is no difference in meaning between the words 'felicitous' and 'lucky' - so any use of the former would not be in order to bring out a nuance of meaning. (It might be for another good reason, mind you; e.g. as an amusing alliteration, or to gently poke fun at one's own loquaciousness!)
But I'm not sure that's the case in this specific example. Does 'niggardly' carry some additional shade of meaning that is absent from the alternative, less likely to be misunderstood words?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
If I might offer a couple of comments...
Firstly, one of the joys of English is its wide vocabulary, which results from the range of source on which it draws. The result is that one can have a choice of near synonyms and so make find distinctions in meaning. Loss of words because of confusion with offensive terms is unfortunate.
There is a difference between the use of a word with both legitimate and offensive uses (e.g. 'bitch') and a word like 'niggardly' which has no actual offensive uses that I know of, i.e. when offense is intended by the user. (Well, I suppose if I was described as niggardly I might be offended, but that not the kind of offense under discussion here).
Part of the problem here might have been that the use referred to was spoken. I can see that 'niggardly' might be spoken with the 'a' more like a short 'e', and the 'd' not clearly enunciated and thus heard as 'niggerly' (perhaps interpreted as 'like a nigger'), which I can see would be a problem. I do think that 'niggardly' in a written text would be much less likely to be understood, the 'a' and the 'd' are clear here.
Chinese is a tonal language, and there is often no relationship between words which differ only in the tone. I believe polite Chinese speakers will avoid some perfectly ordinary words precisely because if the tone were misheard, the word would be a rude word.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's exactly the type of attitude that dumbs down language. It's not the fault of the idiot who jumps to conclusions about a word he doesn't even understand but the person who has a broad vocabulary. Using less well known words chanllenges others to broaden their vocabulary too which in turns benefits the language as a whole. Sorry, but you've got it all arse over tit.
So in other words, you don't talk to communicate, you talk to educate your listener and elevate the culture by sharing your superior knowledge.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's exactly the type of attitude that dumbs down language. It's not the fault of the idiot who jumps to conclusions about a word he doesn't even understand but the person who has a broad vocabulary. Using less well known words chanllenges others to broaden their vocabulary too which in turns benefits the language as a whole. Sorry, but you've got it all arse over tit.
I'm writing a sermon. My theme is that an experience of the divine often serves to awaken us from our spiritual slumbers, and that the human need for this is universal. I'm looking for a figure of speech by which I may expressly pithily this idea.
Fortunately, there is a male barnyard fowl with a common English name whose proverbial association with arousal is well known to almost all English speakers. So there should be nothing wrong with me starting my sermon with the line "Our God is like a great big cock", should there? Anyone who disagrees is just dumbing down the language.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Apples and oranges: 'cock' has more than one meaning including the more vulgar one; 'niggardly' does not.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Apples and apples, it is about effectively communicating with your audience.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
...which is a two-way street...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If S responded, "Screw that, why let the teeming millions decide my vocabulary?" then I would shrug and say "Moving on."
I wouldn't just shrug. I'd mentally file S as a willfully insensitive jerk.
So would I. That seems to nail the issue, really. Incidental and inadvertent offence (something I guess every single one of us has given at some stage) becomes wilful offence precisely at the point where we ignore the lesson of the revealed misunderstanding. Given the history, taking steps to avoid stoking the ancient fires is more important than sticking grimly to some purist view of 'my communication rights'.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apples and oranges: 'cock' has more than one meaning including the more vulgar one; 'niggardly' does not.
A trivial difference, given that 'cock' has exactly one meaning in my hypothetical sermon, and that is not obscene.
The point is that when I make the phonetical sound which I'll write as "cok", it has certain inevitable associations for most people, which, if I am at all sensitive to language, I will avoid in at least some contexts. Exactly the same thing happens if I make the phonetic sound that I'll write as "nigguh". That sound is not neutral. You can't expect it to be heard as if it didn't sound like a strongly taboo term of racial abuse, any more than I could open my sermon with my "cock" and not have people think "penis".
Language just does not work like that. Words and sounds just do have associations beyond their plain dictionary meaning. Everyone knows that. "Niggard" is not a special case, it's one of a long list of innocent words that should be used with care and an awareness of context.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's exactly the type of attitude that dumbs down language. It's not the fault of the idiot who jumps to conclusions about a word he doesn't even understand but the person who has a broad vocabulary. Using less well known words chanllenges others to broaden their vocabulary too which in turns benefits the language as a whole. Sorry, but you've got it all arse over tit.
You're demonstrating the type of attitude that gets intellectuals a bad name. (And I'm not remotely claiming that all intellectuals are a part of this). The attitude is one of deliberate elitism and obfuscation, and often one of active obscurantism.
Words used properly are a tremendous aid to clarity of thought and communication. They are elegant, beautiful, and graceful. However misused they obfuscate and look elitist and pointless. Why does it matter that disinterested and uninterested don't mean the same thing? Because for all the superficial similarity, disinterested is an ideal for groups of people who care about what they are doing, uninterested is apathetic. An important distinction. What is the distinction in meaning between niggardly and miserly? Is there one - because if so I'm not aware of it. If there isn't a meaningful distinction between the two words used as they normally are intended I'd be delighted to hear it.
And the attitude that dumbs down the language is, I believe, the attitude that fails to appreciate the tools. And the attitude that in failing to appreciate the tools it convinces others that those tools are there for the purpose of showing off and making the people using them feel good about themselves. To those outside the club it appears to be an exclusive club where the point is to know as many words as possible and use them to score points off those who don't.
Vocabulary is not an end in itself. It is no more than stamp collecting (and my apologies to any philatelists for the hackneyed comparison). Vocabulary on the other hand should be an enabler for clearer communication and even clearer thought. Using less well known words where more common ones will concisely and accurately convey the intended meaning is an impediment to communication. Further it teaches many people that language and vocabularly are ugly, picayune, and quite simply counter-productive for communication. Now I like words for aesthetic reasons as well as for functional ones, but as a rule I would not impose my subjective aesthetic taste on others - especially not in cases where attempts to impose my taste will actively impede the primary purpose of having a language in the first place.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
If that is the case, though, where do you stop? Do you, for example, say 'piccalilli'?
[reply to Eliab]
[ 28. April 2014, 14:35: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If that is the case, though, where do you stop? Do you, for example, say 'piccalilli'?
You consider your audience. It's not rocket science. If a word seems close to an offensive one, you might introduce it. Myself, I wouldn't know a piccalilli from a droettboom. But as it sounds like "pick a lily" I doubt very much it would cause offense. You appear to just be coming up with random shit now. An effective speaker considers their audience, and their audience's likely reaction to the things they say. "They should just know what 'niggardly' means" is bullshit, and for that reason "it's a two-way street," in this context, is a cop-out.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If that is the case, though, where do you stop? Do you, for example, say 'piccalilli'?
[reply to Eliab]
"I know it when I see it". I'm not sure what Piccalilli is meant to sound like except a circus in central London. When the difference is one between an "e" and an "a" most of the way through the word - and neither shapes the syllable (as for instance the difference between run and rune) it's unfortunately close. (I don't have the technical vocabularly to show how close the words under discussion are). Unlike Picallilli.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
