Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the N-Word Became Unsayable

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#61

Post by sc__ »

wankeler wrote: post #44
randompwd wrote: post #41

> But today, for Tom to even mention the word at all would be considered beyond the pale — so to speak. Hmmm, maybe a bit too cutesy covering the etymology of a racist slur and then using a different racist slur in a light hearted manner) Beyond the pale being historical phrase to refer something savagery(Dublin being the Pale, rest of Ireland being outside it), which was anti-Irish racism by the Brits at it's finest…

Still in current usage and almost entirely disconnected from historical context. And while we are being so critical of evil Brits I’m sure the phrase has never been uttered by native Dubliners giving their own view of the largely rural regions of their own country? Edit: BTW are you actually suggesting the Irish of the time were a race apart from other indigenous people of the British Isles?

Like many linguistic relics better left buried, the phrase is usually only disconnected from historical context for those who may not fully appreciate the complex circumstances surrounding its origin. Around those who do, to use it like in the specific example you gave would be a faux pas to say the least.

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#62

Post by DanBC »

extra88 wrote: post #56
stavros wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: BTW are you actually suggesting the Irish of the time were a race apart from other indigenous people of the British Isles? Where did you get that from?

randompwd described "beyond the pale" as a racist slur and an example of anti-Irish racism. Sounds like they're calling Irish people a race to me. Or they're confused and think "racist" is synonymous with "bigot." It's not, it's bigotry against people of a certain race (or not of a certain race). I've seen a couple of instances of people using "racist" when race wasn't a factor; they meant "bigot" or "prejudiced" and…

> Or they're confused and think "racist" is synonymous with "bigot." It's not, it's bigotry against people of a certain race (or not of a certain race).

Those people are just using a current legal definition found in many countries that includes nationality as well as race to define racism.

UK: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9

> and I assumed they didn't have a broad vocabulary that included those more accurate words

Maybe crack open a dictionary?

> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution:

> 2.

> a. : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock

> b. : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

> The term race has also been applied to linguistic groups (linguistics) (the “Arab race” or the “Latin race”), to religious groups (religion) (the “Jewish race”), and even to political, national, or ethnic groups (ethnic group) with few or no physical traits that distinguish them from their neighbours (the “Irish race,” the “French race,” the “Spanish race,” the “Slavic race,” the “Chinese race”, etc.).

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#63

Post by extra88 »

DanBC wrote: post #62
extra88 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

randompwd described "beyond the pale" as a racist slur and an example of anti-Irish racism. Sounds like they're calling Irish people a race to me. Or they're confused and think "racist" is synonymous with "bigot." It's not, it's bigotry against people of a certain race (or not of a certain race). I've seen a couple of instances of people using "racist" when race wasn't a factor; they meant "bigot" or "prejudiced" and…

> Or they're confused and think "racist" is synonymous with "bigot." It's not, it's bigotry against people of a certain race (or not of a certain race). Those people are just using a current legal definition found in many countries that includes nationality as well as race to define racism. UK: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9 > and I assumed they didn't have a broad vocabulary that included tho…

Here, we speak American (/s).

The earlier examples of using "racist" along these lines was long before 2010.

> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution

"Common history" is very broad. Do "proper cunts" share a common history? (apparently HN Replies is speedier than one's edits).

Regardless of how broadly "race" is defined by a given law or its use documented in a dictionary, I still think "racist" in reference to a person or act is over-utilized and "bigot" in its various forms not used enough.

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#64

Post by extra88 »

sc__ wrote: post #61
wankeler wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still in current usage and almost entirely disconnected from historical context. And while we are being so critical of evil Brits I’m sure the phrase has never been uttered by native Dubliners giving their own view of the largely rural regions of their own country? Edit: BTW are you actually suggesting the Irish of the time were a race apart from other indigenous people of the British Isles?

Like many linguistic relics better left buried, the phrase is usually only disconnected from historical context for those who may not fully appreciate the complex circumstances surrounding its origin. Around those who do, to use it like in the specific example you gave would be a faux pas to say the least.

We can't all be either Funk or Wagnalls. This is the first I've ever seen an origin explained.

This [0] explanation describes a couple of definitions of "pale," a fence or a sort of political boundary with the Pale of Dublin as an example. It says "to be 'beyond the pale' was to be outside the area accepted as 'home' (outside the paling fence around one's home) and the first printed use was clearly using this sense.

I don't question whether anyone ever used "beyond the pale" in a negative way towards people in parts of Ireland but it clearly wasn't, and isn't, the exclusive meaning of the phrase.

Let's not discard something just because someone, somewhere used it in a bad way (he wrote with '88' in his username). To verb a noun, let's not swastika the phrase "beyond the pale."

[0] https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/beyond-the-pale.html

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#65

Post by extra88 »

randompwd wrote: post #41

> But today, for Tom to even mention the word at all would be considered beyond the pale — so to speak. Hmmm, maybe a bit too cutesy covering the etymology of a racist slur and then using a different racist slur in a light hearted manner) Beyond the pale being historical phrase to refer something savagery(Dublin being the Pale, rest of Ireland being outside it), which was anti-Irish racism by the Brits at it's finest…

I replied to someone else, with evidence, that the origin of the phrase is not prejudiced. I recalled I had access to the OED online and it also supports this. Furthermore, it says about the phrase "The theory that the origin of the phrase relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale or the Pale of Settlement in Russia, is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization."

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#66

Post by jgwil2 »

bloak wrote: post #9

The article has some interesting data points, where the author reports his own experience, but it doesn't really answer the question in the title, and where the author goes beyond his own experience he makes some claims that need further exploration, I think. 1. The etymology of “aethiops” is uncertain. It was believed in ancient times that the word meant “burnt-face” but that may be just folk etymology. See the Oxfo…

Just that "tigger" actually is how the word tiger was once pronounced, and there's a character in Pooh named Tigger.

The connection to the children's rhyme is that we now say "catch a tiger by the tail," and in view of the above pronunciation of tiger as "tigger," you should be able to infer how the rhyme originally went (replace tail with toe so it actually rhymes with moe).

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#67

Post by jgwil2 »

randompwd wrote: post #41

> But today, for Tom to even mention the word at all would be considered beyond the pale — so to speak. Hmmm, maybe a bit too cutesy covering the etymology of a racist slur and then using a different racist slur in a light hearted manner) Beyond the pale being historical phrase to refer something savagery(Dublin being the Pale, rest of Ireland being outside it), which was anti-Irish racism by the Brits at it's finest…

Pale means stake and by extension any kind of border (see Russia's Pale of Settlement for example). It is not uniquely tied to Irish history.

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#68

Post by andreskytt »

roenxi wrote: post #8

There is a certain sort of person who will be looking into the meaning of the word to find out what is offensive about it. And then getting confused because the etymology is "black" which is descriptive rather than prejudiced. The actual point, and the reason for the strange tip-toeing, is to do with some very rational effects around how groups signal. Any minority is always at risk from a majority. It helps to have…

The interesting part is how this notion of the word being a slur expands. A Kenya-born person living in Estonia is likely to consider the word “neeger” a slur despite it never having had this connotation before the Internet arrived. And it is increasingly used as one, too. Which is why people are increasingly avoiding the word - no reason to be deliberately offensive. Curious how global culture can indirectly influence language.

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#69

Post by bloak »

jgwil2 wrote: post #66
bloak wrote: post #9

The article has some interesting data points, where the author reports his own experience, but it doesn't really answer the question in the title, and where the author goes beyond his own experience he makes some claims that need further exploration, I think. 1. The etymology of “aethiops” is uncertain. It was believed in ancient times that the word meant “burnt-face” but that may be just folk etymology. See the Oxfo…

Just that "tigger" actually is how the word tiger was once pronounced, and there's a character in Pooh named Tigger. The connection to the children's rhyme is that we now say "catch a tiger by the tail," and in view of the above pronunciation of tiger as "tigger," you should be able to infer how the rhyme originally went (replace tail with toe so it actually rhymes with moe).

I'm not saying it's untrue, because I certainly don't know for sure, but what evidence is there that "tiger" was pronounced like "tigger" in America at a time that overlaps with the appearance of the children's rhyme?

The article presents evidence that "tiger" rhymed with "vigour" in Scottish, but perhaps they both rhymed with "eager", not with "bigger". In Scotland. In the 18th century.

Re: How the N-Word Became Unsayable

#70

Post by jgwil2 »

bloak wrote: post #69
jgwil2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just that "tigger" actually is how the word tiger was once pronounced, and there's a character in Pooh named Tigger. The connection to the children's rhyme is that we now say "catch a tiger by the tail," and in view of the above pronunciation of tiger as "tigger," you should be able to infer how the rhyme originally went (replace tail with toe so it actually rhymes with moe).

I'm not saying it's untrue, because I certainly don't know for sure, but what evidence is there that "tiger" was pronounced like "tigger" in America at a time that overlaps with the appearance of the children's rhyme? The article presents evidence that "tiger" rhymed with "vigour" in Scottish, but perhaps they both rhymed with "eager", not with "bigger". In Scotland. In the 18th century.

It's an opinion piece, it doesn't need to present evidence for everything it says. Take the thirty seconds to look it up on Wikipedia if you want to see all the details.
Post reply on HN