I Hate Non-Words

I sent this essay to several editors at The Miami Herald. The copyright symbol is to prevent them from considering it as a letter to the editor, which I do not send any more since they completely messed up one of my letters with poor editing making me look like I supported a cause to which I was opposed.

I know many ppl will disagree with my take on using offensive slang words as a descriptive but it just irritates me to see "N-word" as a substitution. Non-word irritates me almost as much as ppl interchanging "then" and "than."

What do you think?

Non-Words
© Shale Stone
March 22, 2010

I have been writing essays and short stories since high school, when English language skills were a staple of our education system. I have even had a few articles published in newspapers and magazines over the years.

I love using words and consider myself at times a fairly good wordweaver. I know the power of words to elicit feelings both good and bad, but follow the late George Carlin's belief that there are no bad words.

However, the politically correct editors of The Miami Herald disagree with Carlin and I, having designated some words as so bad they cannot be printed. They have relegated one particular Non-Word with an apt code "N-Word." I have always found this code to be quite infantile, like a small child going to potty, saying "#1" or "#2." Adults can interpret this as "urinate" or "defecate" but for some reason it must be spoken in code by the child.

So, I was again upset by seeing the Non-Word appear in the Sunday, March 21, 2010 paper under the headline "Obscenities, racial slurs hurled at Civil Rights icon," written by William Douglas of the McClatchy Newspapers. I have learned in the past that writers actually submit their piece with the word "******," which is offensive slang but nonetheless the actual word used, only to have editors change it to the Non-Word. In fact when I went online to check other sources, I found at least a couple other papers who went with the epithet "******" instead of substituting "Non-Word." (For some reason The Herald had two versions of this report on the Web, the uncensored, politically incorrect version posted on 03-20-10 - An Associated Press version and the euphemised version posted on 03-21-10, which was the one in print.)

Another thing I found interesting with this article was the same piece that substituted the politically correct code for "******," went ahead and printed "faggot." Now, "faggot" is offensive slang, just as is "******." Why would one be euphemised and not the other, although I can see a problem with "F-word." Seems we already have a common "F-word" which is considered obscene by most papers although "fuck" is commonly used by any kid on the street. Still, some online papers used "f-----" as their code for the epithet for gay men that everyone knows and it seems if you are going to use a codeword for one "bad" word you should have used it for both.

I really wish all newspapers would just give me my words straight-up, without encoding, euphemising, or otherwise trying to obfuscate the full impact of a word hurled in offense. I mean, has a crude bigot actually ever yelled to a black gay man, "You F-word N-word F-word." To me that's a bunch of #2.

OK, here are the sources:

Politics AP
THE PROTESTS
Racial slurs hurled at icon of Civil Rights era

BY WILLIAM DOUGLAS
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Saturday, 03.20.10

WASHINGTON — Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol, angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted "******" Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s. ...
Protestors also used a slur as they confronted Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an openly gay member of Congress. A writer for Huffington Post said the crowd called Frank a "faggot."
-----------------------------------------
The Miami Herald
THE PROTESTS
Racial slurs hurled at icon of Civil Rights era
BY WILLIAM DOUGLAS
McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Sunday, 03.21.10 (Print version in Sunday paper)

WASHINGTON -- Demonstrators outside the Capitol, angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted racial slurs Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s. ... A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying ``Kill the bill, then the n-word.'' ...
Protesters inside the Capitol also used a slur as they confronted Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an openly gay member of Congress. According to Huffington Post, one of its writers heard the demonstrators shout ``faggot'' at Frank.

 

Good point, Shale.

I think the media increases our anxiety over words by doing this very thing. Like the wizards and students of Hogwarts, who artificially increase Voldemort's menace by referring to him as "He Who Must Not Be Named," the media artificially increases the power of words like "******," "faggot," and "fuck" by referring to them as the "N-word" or the "F-word." I don't see any good reason for that.

I have a friend in Australia. He frequently sends me news articles from various publications. They don't seem to have the same taboo over words, there. If there is a news story that contains a quote, the quote will be written exactly as stated.

Apparently, we live in a country where certain words have gained so much power that they can no longer be used even in the recounting of actual events. Sometimes, the intentional obfuscation of words reveals more about our prejudices than it hides.

Good letter.

 

I really don't get that at all. When you are writing about what someone has said, they should reprint the words that were used.

If there are people who have issues with seeing a word printed as a quote, they should take it up with the person who actually said it, not the person who wrote about it.

 

1000% agreed.

Making the word taboo is only giving it more power.

This is a very, very lovely story on the subject, that I originally read in my surprisingly great English 102 anthology. I especially recommend it to you, Shale. =)

 

You F-word N-word F-word!

Would make an awesome title for a book about this issue.

 

Great story. Very interesting reading.

 

Thanx for the link, it was an interesting (tho long) read. The professor pointed out that word is nothing more than a word when used in certain context and can only be an offensive invective if hurled with that intent.

I got Randall Kennedy's book ****** back in 2002 when it came out. I even refered to it in a letter to The Herald about another racial issue. They pissed me off then by changing what I wrote to get around printing the title of the book.

I wrote: " ...dared to explore the use of the word '******,' the same as Randall Kennedy the black author of a book so titled."

The Herald printed: "... dared to use the 'n-word' the same as Randall Kennedy the black auther of a book titled after the same word."

Lying sack of shit Miami Herald. Randall Kennedy DID NOT write a book titled "N-Word."

As I found out, the same story submitted to Associated Press using actual quotes of "******" were changed by certain papers, such as The Herald, while other papers went with the story as filed by the AP.

So, it is here in South Florida where the paper tries to be so politically correct that it pisses off those of us who just want the truth with our reporting.

 

my own personal and on a smaller scale censorship story is when i was with my sons mom

i was severely scolded for using the C-word but i only used it because there was just no L-word

 

i like it.

 

I'm a firm believer that it isn't the word it is the intent. When (White Arayan Resistance Leader) Tom Metzger uses the word ****** it has a different intent than when Richard Pryor says ******. It is about the only word in the English Language that decontextualizes itself. You can wisper the word ****** in a crowded room and all conversation will stop. There will be knees jerking and nobody will inquire to the intent of that word choice. This is the reason they don't say it on the news. Because they are afraid someone channel surfing will simply hear the word and start a rain of complaints and a boycott.

I grew up in Maine which after Montana and Vermont is the third whitest state in the nation. Before marrying my dad my mom was married to another man in the same small town where I grew up. It wasn't the prettiest of situations. My moms ex-husband used to drive by our house and scream "******" at my dad. My dad is olive complected with dark hair but white none the less. So my exposure to the word until later in my childhood didn't have a racial connotation. It was just a word. As I grew up I learned about other cultures even within the United States. I have Black friends who I can say ****** in front of and in context if we are talking about Chapelle or Boondocks they are cool with me saying it. But I don't walk up to random blacks and go "Yo Nigga!" Because that to me is disrepectfull. I am that smartass kid in the tie-died t-shirt with a ponytail my friends know that I honestly for better or worse see everybody as equal.

Peace Out,
Rev J

 

Words can both help and harm. It all depends on how they're being written/said. And by whom. Larry Kramer (a gay activist) wrote a book with the title : FAGGOTS. The book sold well, but several critics questioned why it was okay for a gay man to come up with such a title - while it would have been considered offensive if someone like Anita Bryant attempted the same thing.

But Kramer does not think homosexuality is a bad thing. In fact, he has much love and respect for the LGBT community. That's what makes all the difference - it's not the word that matters, but how/why it's being used in the first place. Anyway, that's my two cents. You bring up an excellent point.

--QP

 

'******' is a word unlike any other. A newspaper should report the news verbatim perhaps. Certainly an argument can be made for journalistic integrity when quoting honestly. Then again, it's not like subtituting N-word leaves us wondering as to what word was actually spoken, so some might say that your fight for purism is kind of unnecessary when weighed against the hurt and anger that is felt by some members of the 'black' race whenever they hear or see it.

'Faggot' may also be hurtful but neither it nor any other expression carries as much bitter history as does '******'. Homosexuals have experienced social disapproval throughout to be sure, but sexual proclivities can be kept private - race cannot. Homosexuals have never been enslaved enmass; have never been owned; have never been seen (and used) as beasts of burden, not only be their 'owners' and society in general but by the very law of the land. I'm not going to itemize all the horrors that have ever happened for which the word has association.

But I seriously doubt that there is any other word that is more hated by 'black' people when spoken by any other than 'black' people themselves. You know this to be true and I'm sure you're careful about where and when you speak it aloud. Even when used 'appropriately' (as in a legitimate educational sense), if 'black' persons are present it's common for us to convey, in some way, that we're not trying to offend.

The 'black' race has taken ownership of the word and has pretty much forbidden its use to all others. Taking ownership is empowering for a group that has known little power until very recently. Forcidding it to others is seen also as a form of justice, small though it is. We may feel affronted and resentful by such a tactic, yet it is a very tiny piece of the reality that was theirs. If we get angry over the injustice of being disallowed to use a single hateful word, imagine what it was like to be disallowed everything.

It's in that context that some news organizations (and many others) have made a conscious decision to refrain from using it. The reasoning is that the word should be cast into a state of non-existence, at least intil its power to hurt is gone and forgotten. Some feel that not using it is what gives the word power and to a degree it may be true. Both are legitimate approaches of thought but for the time being it's important to realize that there's more going on with the word than just not being allowed to use it, power-wise.

Context, as mentioned, is very much a mitigating factor in terms of acceptance - how and why it's used and intended. A very good episode of 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' recently highlighted this conundrum wherein the word was used as a negative expression in a caucasian-only setting and then repeated in a neutral 'newswise' manner, yet when overheard by different 'black' persons at different times produced an immediate 'kneejerk' response of anger.

I don't claim to know what the right thing is. To report the word verbatim or to illegitimize it by refusing to repeat it? But with all the examples of improper grammatical errors evident in all areas these days, including the media, this particular word-alternative doesn't represent a fight worth having. Not to me. I'll complain all day about how illiterate and dumbed-down our society is becoming but I'm not gonna bitch about the non-use of that word.

 

Great, an opposing view. And one that even acknowledged my complaint about using N-word.

That being one of my points - why codify a word that everyone actually knows. AND, why give it special consideration as THE N-word.

An interesting aside; I am a nudist and one of the magazines that I have had articles published in was Nude & Natural. They had a feature with the heading "N-Word Spoken Here." I never asked the publisher why he chose that; was he oblivious to the other meaning of N-word or was he just trying to poke fun at the silliness of using codes that could have other meanings.

Personally, if you are afraid to print ******, then use the old "n-----" instead of giving ****** a special code that just makes the omission seem silly.

May I correctly assume that you are not a gay man who perhaps has been beaten by cops or other unsavory bullies while being called a fucking faggot? The history of oppression, while a valid point to consider does not carry as much weight as the most recent injustice.

I guess it is knowing that words have weight when strung together, that they can evoke feelings - which is why some poetry and prose are so effective, is why I do not like codifying a word, even one with a history of hate. I think it should be printed out, particularly in the context of hate speech to show its full ugly impact.

But that is the writer in me. I hate spin on so many levels, which is why I do not care for "journalism" as practiced by the timid, placating, politically correct news sources like The Miami Herald. As pointed out in my original essay, other papers and AP sources went with the word ****** and faggot just as reported by the journalist.

As for ******'s history of hate, it is used quite often and effectively in setting the mood of drama. I just got done watching the video Freedomland which covered hateful racial issues and one of the black protestors made a statement about the city officials and police creating another "****** in the woodpile." Now they could have said "black man in the woodpile" or "negro in the woodpile" but would that have been effective in portraying the dysfunctional, prejudiced and angry social view?

Even Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino with his portrayal of an old man who saw the world in ethnic terms and used chinks, slants and other politically incorrect words for Asians as well as the usual deigo, wop and pollack pulled back on the use of ****** and instead used an old obscure term "spooks" for the black punks he was confronting. Guess his character, being a Ford assembly line worker removed ****** from his vocabulary, something my old dad never did, even after knowing I was living with a black woman.

Sometimes the absence of the obvious brings more attention to it than would have been with its inclusion.

 

How timely. Today I went to the video store and found Blazing Saddles in the cheap bin. (Saw Young Frankenstein there also, gonna go back and get it). While this has nothing to do with the written word, it has to do with the use of "objectionable slang" in a totally politically incorrect movie.

For those who don't know about Blazing Saddles, it is a 1975 absurd comedy/farce that probably could not be made today. Remember that was when we were pushing the boundaries of propriety on all levels and it showed in the arts.

So, after the movie I watched a feature with Mel Brooks and actors discussing what got around censors and how difficult it was dealing with the freely spoken word "******." It was central to the movie, which is set in 1874 when Cleavon Little, (a really cute black guy) was appointed Sheriff of a town by the corrupt attorney general (Harvey Korman) who expected him to be killed by the citizens.

Cleavon Little (1939-1992)


****** and faggot were uttered thru out this movie, as well as ref to other racial stereotypes and the boundaries that we liberals were exposing to truth at that time.

Think of "******" and "faggot" in this sense as the inactivated virus used in a vaccine to give immunity to the disease of prejudice.

I saw this movie in theater when it came out and it was nice to see this groundbreaking movie (First fart scene in Cinema) again. It is still funny.

 

A little off topic but about the word Faggot. I grew up in a small town in Maine. I got an Earring when I turned 13. This was the late 80's early 90's and it amazed me how quickly I got branded Faggot (even though I'm straight). This was even coming from kids I grew up with. I got chased down by guys in pickup trucks. The whole nine.

All I had to do was wait and the Universe got revenge for me. One day in the late 1990's Rob Halford the singer from Judas Priest came out of the closet. Granted if he was truly in the closet he left the door open as he kind of dressed like the Leather Daddy from the Village People. This was perhaps the greatest day of my life. When I was in high school inevitably once a week some fat cocksucker in a Judas Priest t-shirt would body check me into a locker screaming "DIE FAGGOT!!!" I don't think I stopped laughing for three days. To me this is proof that Homophobia can be funny. Did it change the way any of these people thought about gays? Probably not. But it elevated their actions from merely ignorant to straight up Ironic. I still laugh when I think about it.

Peace Out,
Rev J

 

This arguement has been going on for years. I love comedy and allways have and this thread kind of reminded me of this old Lenny Bruce routine. Please read the whole thing:

Are there any niggers here tonight? Could you turn on the house lights, please, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving, just for a second? And turn off this spot. Now what did he say? "Are there any niggers here tonight?" I know there's one ******, because I see him back there working. Let's see, there's two niggers. And between those two niggers sits a kike. And there's another kike— that's two kikes and three niggers. And there's a spic. Right? Hmm? There's another spic. Ooh, there's a wop; there's a polack; and, oh, a couple of greaseballs. And there's three lace-curtain Irish micks. And there's one, hip, thick, hunky, funky, boogie. Boogie boogie. Mm-hmm. I got three kikes here, do I hear five kikes? I got five kikes, do I hear six spics, I got six spics, do I hear seven niggers? I got seven niggers. Sold American. I pass with seven niggers, six spics, five micks, four kikes, three guineas, and one wop. Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, "I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet," and if he'd just say "****** ****** ****** ****** ******" to every ****** he saw, "boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie," "****** ****** ****** ****** ******" 'til ****** didn't mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a ****** at school.

Somehow I could hear Chris Rock say this.

Peace Out,
Rev J

 

That's exactly it.
And the Lenny Bruce reference is great, too.

 

Thanks Man.
Peace Out,
Rev J

 

Part of what press censors object to is the hatred behind the word. Blacks might often call one another '******' in casual speech, but if real hatred is not being expressed, their listener probably won't be offended. The list of obscene or hateful words isn't that long.
As another example, if I call a gay man a 'cocksucker', I may be literally correct, but that particular word is more associated with hate or anger than with what, for gays, is just a form of lovemaking. If I call a non-gay man a 'cocksucker', he may not like the act or the term, and might want to hand me a knuckle sandwich.

In general, the public press (not the underground press) writes for a family audience, and they will not publish so-called obscene words that many readers will find offensive. This is not going to change, whether you like it or not. Deal with it. In every case you can use polite language to express yourself, unless you're being deliberately hateful.

 

One of my favorite movies. In fact, one of my little sister's favorite movies too and one she shared with a black friend.

This movie will be funny as long as America's past racial hierarchy is not forgotten.