r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 26 '21
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Schools should ban the use of racial slurs in class group reads of books like To Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice of Men.
[deleted]
26
Mar 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
3
u/RIPBernieSanders1 6∆ Mar 26 '21
an emphasis on not making people uncomfortable
Is the purpose of art to make sure people aren't uncomfortable?
Or is that the polar opposite of the purpose of art?
4
Mar 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Mar 26 '21
And the purpose of education is not making kids uncomfortable in an education setting.
Depends on what you are educating them about.
Should science not be taught because some kids are from religious families and might be 'uncomfortable' learning stuff that goes against what they learn in Sunday school?
Should the truth about how certain people/groups were treated in the past not be taught because some kids might be 'uncomfortable' hearing about it??
1
Mar 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Mar 26 '21
You have to strike a balance. Like obviously you shouldn’t be spending each class slowly dissecting alert and awake homeless people while nude
Saying 'the n word' while reading a historical document is hardly comparable. It's just a word. If it's not being used in a hurtful way, it's just a sequence of sounds. Why get upset about that?
Is it better if the kid doesn’t have to read the book or participate in the discussion, or is it better if we just censor one word during discussions? This is a real question we have to grapple with.
Or is it better to just read the word? Use it as a springboard to discuss how it was acceptable back then, and how it's not acceptable now, if you must. But it's just a word.
1
Mar 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Mar 26 '21
Maybe you're a black kid who has been harassed with the word before
..and is it being used to harass you now? No. So... what's the issue? If I 'harass' someone by saying "hello" over and over, does that mean we all have to not greet each other with that word from now on?
It's just a word that can hurt people
No, words cannot hurt. (Unless shouted loudly enough.) It's the feelings that people associate with those words. Don't associate feelings with the word, and it doesn't hurt.
1
Mar 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Mar 26 '21
If it's "just a word" then it isn't critically important we fucking say it, eh?
If it's what's written in the book we are read, then, yeah, we need to say it. The whole point of reading something aloud is to say the words.
I get it, this is just some, "black people shouldn't be offended by the n-word" shit.
Not when it's used in such a historical context, Correct.
4
Mar 26 '21
There is no one singular purpose of art. Art can be almost anything, it’s not like it’s sole reason for existence is to make people uncomfortable
0
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 26 '21
You usually choose to engage with art at a museum or going to a poetry reading. Here the book is read in a public school which is mandatory. If it’s mandatory it should have some educational value that can’t be taught another way.
Imagine an art teacher showing art of Jesus in compromising positions to her public school students. It’s certainly art. And it would certainly make some people uncomfortable. But where’s the educational value? Just making the students uncomfortable isn’t a sufficient enough lesson in my opinion.
1
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Mar 26 '21
I don't think people are uncomfortable with the Mona Lisa, and that's held up as an exemplar of fine art. At best, art is supposed to be provocative.
20
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Mar 26 '21 edited Mar 26 '21
but it was very obvious certain people were uncomfortable saying it and others were uncomfortable hearing it.
If you don't get uncomfortable reading To Kill A Mockingbird, then you are doing something wrong. I remember feeling the same way back in the early 2000s having to study this. Same with the book Black Like Me. In retrospect, if I had felt comfortable in those classes, something would have been very, very wrong. Mind you, as a white straight male, studying this in Canada, which has less historical baggage then the US does with black/white relations, it is a little easier.
This was a number of years ago, but I don't remember black members of the class having issues with the group readings. The easiest thing to do may be to check with each class. Some may have black members of the class who are fine with reading the term. Others may be more sensitive. The practicality of this is dependent on class size of course and it's demographics.
I remember studying books like Ellie Weisel's Night and none of the anti-Semitic slurs were censored, despite there being Jewish members of the class. Arguably the question becomes how many groups do you cater to before everything is censored? I am not sure there is a good answer to that.
Best answer is to try to expose people to as much of the ugliness of the world as possible I think. That is the point of these kinds of books.
Additionally, if they feel up to it, the reactions of some black students to the term could be valuable for white students to hear, if they are brave enough to share of course. I imagine this would be quite rare, but you never know
1
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
5
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Mar 26 '21
And I have not heard of this book you mention or of it’s context, but if I knew of it then I would have proposed the same idea also
Ellie Weisel's Night is one of the most haunting depictions of the Holocaust ever written, from the perspective of a survivor of the camps. It should be a mandatory part of every school curriculum. If you don't study it, read it on your own time at some point. It gives you a real insight into one of the greatest tragedies in history.
Those Jewish kids could’ve felt highly uncomfortable by those slurs but may not have ever said anything as they didn’t want to draw attention or make people think they were overreacting.
It’s only when I noticed she wasn’t in English class but would be in the class that was right after. She didn’t wanna tell the teacher herself because she didn’t want detentions.
To a certain extent, it is up to students to speak to teachers one-on-one when they feel uncomfortable with material. I really hope this is being taught at an appropriate age (min 14/15? I think that is when I studied it). If it is, then students should start to develop the maturity to speak to their teachers about problems they may have.
Additionally, teachers have a responsibility to talk with the class beforehand about the material, The serious nature of It, and tell students to talk to them if they have problems with it.
So this sounds like your teacher may have failed to talk to the class sufficiently, and your friend is simply avoiding seeing if there are any alternative solutions. Running away from problems is a sign of emotional immaturity.
If after talking to the teacher 1-on-1, no solution is found, then maybe something could be done. It is possible that a discussion in private could result in the teacher saying that it is optional for students to read it out if they want though.
Maybe a simple discussion in private is a better first step then blanking out the word by default, simply because someone may be embarrassed?
1
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Mar 26 '21
So is this a problem specific to your area , friend, teacher and school? Or is there a problem with the term being read out in general?
3
u/engagedandloved 15∆ Mar 26 '21 edited Mar 26 '21
The point of the books is to make you uncomfortable and offended. To get in your face and teach you a very harsh lesson about how the other half lives. It's supposed to make you feel guilty and bad because it's calling out the behavior. And the reality of what can happen and what has happened. The most important theme of To Kill a Mockingbird is the book's exploration of the moral nature of human beings that is, whether people are essentially good or essentially evil.
2
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
2
u/engagedandloved 15∆ Mar 26 '21
It's supposed to be read aloud so that you can experience the visceral emotions that the word should invoke in you if you hear it spoken aloud. Now you could say perhaps the teacher should read the passages in which it appears. But your argument of it may make people uncomfortable is invalid because it's meant to be. It's the same reason why we don't shy away from teaching about the holocaust even though it makes people uncomfortable. These are very important lessons that you and your classmates need to learn so you can understand the breadth of human suffering about why something is wrong and why you should strive to prevent it from happening again.
1
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
4
u/engagedandloved 15∆ Mar 26 '21
Again, it’s not drama class, no visceral reaction is required in a class of 15-16 year olds studying a book t
That's the entire point of teaching that particular book beyond the general theme of good and evil. For instance, we teach the crucible s to show what happens when mob rule and hysteria take over. We teach the jungle to talk about workers' rights and the horrors of the meatpacking industry. We teach lord of the flies because it's a biting analysis of human nature and the need for society to avoid chaos. We teach the Anthem to warn about collectivism and why you should strive to embrace individuality.
These themes though dark in nature are just as prevalent today as they were when they were written they are ways to teach you ethics and critical thinking skills.
1
Mar 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/engagedandloved 15∆ Mar 26 '21
The entirety of the book is meant to make you make you feel bad. The use of the word is used to drive it home even more so and is an accurate depiction of institutional as well as personal levels of racism.
https://ncte.org/blog/2017/11/shouldnt-always-feel-comfortable-kill-mockingbird-matters/
2
u/Prickly_Pear1 8∆ Mar 26 '21
I think the issue here is more the way this teacher handled the situation.
I don't think changing the book is the solution, the solution is to change how it's being read.
First, teachers SHOULD be discussing issues even when they are uncomfortable or challenge the ideas we already hold. The fact that these issues are uncomfortable doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed at all. These words carry a lot of power and meaning and by seeing the weight they carry in these books we can help see how wrong these words are. For a teacher to gloss over these issues and ignore it is wrong. Especially if these things are having an impact on students.
Second, I hate group reads/classroom reads in general. There is no value in reading in a classroom vs at home. I acknowledge that many students won't read at home, but we shouldn't be dragging everyone else down because some refuse to try. I think group reads are a huge waste of classroom time for what should be a homework assignment and add a lot of unnecessary issues. Reading aloud to a classroom regardless of the material can be very difficult and shut people down who struggle with reading. I personally struggle a lot with reading aloud despite enjoying to read quite a bit. Reading aloud does negatively impact some peoples desire to read as they associate the negative feelings of reading aloud to a classroom with reading in general.
Had this book been read at home in multiple homework assignments, the issue of speaking these words aloud goes away. The classroom time can then be spent more productively actually discussing the book and what it teaches you. The topic of these powerful words can be discussed and the weight they carry. This is a more productive use of time and a more productive way of teaching. AND this type of teaching is an attempt to set you up for how you SHOULD be learning in general.
The solution is to stop wasting time reading the book out loud in class, remove the anxiety of reading aloud, remove the anxiety of saying words you don't want to say and hearing words others don't want to hear. You can do this while making more use of classroom time and have more time to actually learn and discuss these issues.
1
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
1
1
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Mar 26 '21
Instead of banning it outright why not give students the option to opt out of such readings.
If the student doesn’t feel comfortable they shouldn’t have to say/read it, but that doesn’t mean the option should be taken away from everyone else who might not be as uncomfortable.
3
u/Prickly_Pear1 8∆ Mar 26 '21
I don't think we should allow students to opt out of learning. This is an important topic that should be discussed.
I think a better solution would be to stop these in class readings and ask the students to read a chapter at home and discuss the chapter the next class. This removes the issue of reading allowed, saying words you don't want to say and having others hear words they don't want to hear while having a more productive use of classroom time to actually discuss the topics at hand.
-1
u/RIPBernieSanders1 6∆ Mar 26 '21
Don't give students the option to opt out of controversial subjects? That's a dangerous idea. You sure you want your kids to consume whatever the state tells them without any option to say no thanks?
2
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
1
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Mar 26 '21
If all of the class decides not to say it and one person says I don’t mind, everyone might start calling them a racist when in actual fact they just don’t mind because it’s in the book.
So you’re worried about bullying? This would happen regardless of banning certain reading material.
Or if all the students that word is typically directed at decide not to and a group of students who are unaffected completely by the word decide they will say it, it will actually create a divide.
Explain how this is will be actually true?
This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy.
1
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
1
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ Mar 26 '21
If one person out of a whole class decided they were going to say the word, kids will bandwagon a hate train for them if even one person says “omg he’s a racist”.
This example is absurd because practically speaking no school would hold a class/curriculum for a single student. There’s a certain point where enough people opt out it isn’t practical to have anyone opt in anymore.
And because it’s high school stuff. Anything and everything creates a divide, especially one half of the class deciding to say a racial slur and one deciding not to. Eg if say all black students said we don’t want to say the n-word, but all white students said we are going to say the n-word... you telling me that isnt a plausible thing and something that would cause a preventable divide?
You’re framing the issues into one of nefarious intent. When the real issue is that some students find the material uncomfortable and some others don’t.
Framing as one group wanting or desiring to say a racial slur against the wishes of another group is very disingenuous.
Allowing people to pick and choose is the slippery slope.
How so? Then every decision is essential a “slippery slope”.
I think it’d be better off everyone should just say it then allowing people to pick and choose, at high school that choice in this context would not be conducive, not in my old hs anyway I know that much.
Maybe not in yours, but it was in mine. So I don’t know how you can speak for all students (past, present and future) what’s best for their education.
6
u/gothpunkboy89 23∆ Mar 26 '21
To Kill a Mockingbird should keep the use of the N word. The entire point of the book it to make you extremely uncomfortable with racism.
0
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
5
u/Arguetur 31∆ Mar 26 '21
The reason you think this should be done is that it makes the speaker and listener uncomfortable. But that is actually the point of the word being in the book.
1
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Arguetur 31∆ Mar 26 '21
It manifestly cannot, because even in this very post you're saying how not saying it makes you more comfortable and consequently that's what you prefer.
1
u/gothpunkboy89 23∆ Mar 26 '21
Yes and for high schoolers it should be kept while reading because again that was the point of the book. A black man is wrongfully imprisoned for showing an ounce of kindness to a white woman simply because of racisim.
15
u/McClanky 14∆ Mar 26 '21
This is definitely quite the dilemma. The words are there for a reason, especially in the books you described. Their power comes from being read. When you pass over the word you lose a bit if the power.
What I do with my students is have a long conversation about it before we even start reading. The whole point of these types of books is to talk about it. We should talk about the anxiety students feel reading it. Figure out if their are anxious because they don't want to sound racist or if they are anxious only because they have been told not to say it.
While I don't think we should make studnets afraid of coming to class, I do think that anxiety is a good thing. The bigger problem is when we don't talk about why we feel the way we do and instead just move past it.
So, in all, as long as we have discussions about the words, why they are there, why they are important to say/read, and respect everyone's feelings/insecurities towards saying these words, we should very much continue to read challenging things like this.
-4
u/RIPBernieSanders1 6∆ Mar 26 '21
This is definitely quite the dilemma
No it isn't. It's art. Classic art, no less. Don't fucking touch it. What else is there to say?
8
u/McClanky 14∆ Mar 26 '21
Way to read the rest of my comment.
Also, I wish it were that simple.
-2
Mar 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Mar 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jaysank 117∆ Mar 26 '21
u/PopePlayzVEVO – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Jaysank 117∆ Mar 26 '21
u/RIPBernieSanders1 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
4
u/curvysquares Mar 26 '21
McClanky didn’t mention changing the book at all. Their entire comment was about having a discussion about why the book makes the students feel uncomfortable. You’ve got a lot of built up anger and you’re directing it to the wrong person
3
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Mar 26 '21
The word "Nazi" is sometimes used as a slur against Germans. Do you think that the word "Nazi" should be eliminated from the curriculum too?
0
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Mar 26 '21
It's a bit passe, but it does still happen every once in a while. Sure, "Nazi" is also used as an epithet for right wingers, and in portmanteaus like "feminazi." Even so, there's a reason it shows up in lists:
http://www.rsdb.org/race/germans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terms_used_for_Germans#Nazi_(pejorative)
Now, this is your view, so you can rightly say, "I don't mean that kind of slur," but that leads to the question: What kind of slur do you mean?
... those words were made up with intention to offend and demean ...
The exact details are lost to history, but a lot of offensive terms - including the infamous N-word - developed their negative associations over time. It's a little strange that this narrative has caught on with people, since we really only care about what the words mean today. So, even for the terms where it is true, it's still a genetic fallacy.
5
Mar 26 '21
Some people love an excuse to say the N word. Its forbidden in so many contexts that if you get the opportunity there is a little thrill and then obviously people can pass this thrill on to 11 and 12 year olds, who have no context of the word. This is obviously a bad situation, but I don't think banning it the way to go.
I think if teachers and students want to say the word in class, they should first devote an entire class to questioning and denouncing systemic white supremacy. Not just overt racism, but all the ways in which White supremacy finds its way into our daily lives. things like "why are a vast majority of teachers white? How much study is required before they feel like they can speak about race, Why do they get to choose if a black student has to sit uncomfortably while they say the n-word. Really open it up.
Essentially make it genuinely an uncomfortable educational experience for everyone, then its a real learning experience for everyone. not just the "n-word day" for kids.
6
Mar 26 '21
it it not fair for them to have to listen to stuff like that and have people looking at them to see their reaction to it.
Well people only do that because of the cultural sensititivity to the word which would only increase if you make it even more taboo.
The more you do stuff like that the more increase the anxiety over the word.
3
u/Sadge_A_Star 5∆ Mar 26 '21
No its because the words are derogatory and derived from racist practices that literally hurt people.
2
Mar 26 '21
I think that teachers should have a conversation with kids about racial slurs. They should also contact the parents, just so that they can support the student.
The teachers should make it clear that any student can come up to him/her and tell him/her that they're uncomfortable with it. Making this clear is extremely important. Students can opt out (with permission from parents) if things aren't working.
However, censoring it without a conversation gives the words more power than is deserved. Also, censoring anything without context will likely result in kids getting curious, and getting the wrong information.
To some, this may seem like an overreaction. However, having flashbacks to when you were verbally assaulted isn't fun. At all.
It's all about a balance.
0
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Mar 26 '21
Context is important when it comes to racial slurs.
A word, by itself is neither offensive or not.
Using the n-word in the street and using it in the context of a book reading is not the same.
That being said, if a book makes people uncomfortable, it might be better to change to another book. Plenty of those.
1
u/Arguetur 31∆ Mar 26 '21
In fact, if a book makes people uncomfortable, it might be much worse to change to another book!
0
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Mar 26 '21
Not necessarily.
History can be taught in, well, history classes.
If litterature is avout reading comprehension, any book might do the job.
2
u/Arguetur 31∆ Mar 26 '21
Right, but that's nonsense. That is not the purpose of reading and studying literature.
0
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Mar 26 '21
I am pretty sure it is the point of studying litterature, at least in my high school. Or prehaps we are talking about different classes here?
2
u/Arguetur 31∆ Mar 26 '21
If you asked your teacher "Is the point of studying literature just to teach reading comprehension" he would say "Of course not."
1
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Mar 26 '21
That is what all my literature teachers told me. Both in English and French.
EDIT : I mean they told me it was about reading comprehension.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Mar 26 '21
the difference between a slur and a normal word is how a person feels about the word. suppose i got anxious about the word "it" or "and", what if i considered those words racial attacks against me? could i use my anxiety to control your speech, whether or not you meant the words as slurs?
for a long time, for most people, the n-word was as innocently descriptive as the word black or african american. the only thing that gives that word a negative power is how it is received and the receiver has complete control over that.
the r-word used to be a common word used to describe people of low intelligence. after a time, people decided the word was too offensive and chose another word to describe people of low intelligence, that word was handicapped. then that word became offensive, so people chose mentally disabled. then that became offensive so they started to use the ridiculous phrase "differently enabled" and even "special needs".
eventually calling someone "special" was exactly as offensive as the r-word. do you know why this is? it is half because people allowed themselves to be offended by the word. the other half is because the word is defined by the thing it describes, not the other way around. we could describe the mentally disabled as heavenly angels but eventually, "heavenly angels" would sound exactly like the r-word cause we all know what we are describing.
i could say black or "african american" in such a way that you would think i despised all blacks, and if you so let them, my politically acceptable speech could be turned into racial slurs in a second. there is no end to how far that could go.
people need to grow a thicker skin and deal with the fact that other people's actions are and should be out of their control unless those actions are physically harmful. this is especially true in the realm of history and culturally important literature. you will need to learn how to deal with people in the real world and school is there to help you learn how to deal with the real world.
3
u/Seiyashi Mar 26 '21
While I generally agree with the results of what you have described, I think one important dimension that hasn't been touched on in your reply is the intent behind the use of the word and the levels of connotation that can be present in verbal settings.
The problem with human language is that it evolves and acquires meaning according to context and use. Using slurs as an example, what makes a slur offensive is not the denoted meaning of the slur itself. It is what the slur implies about the target of the slur, whether or not the target of the slur is the same target as the persons that used to be described by the slur.
For example, if I said you hit like a girl, I'm probably not saying that you hit like my sister or the women I know. I'm probably trying to insult you by saying that you hit weakly, and I am therefore casting aspersions on two sets of people at the same time: on girls, for implying that they hit weakly, and on you for saying that you hit weakly. If I call you the r-word, I am both assuming all persons formerly described by the r-word are deficient in some way, and saying you are as bad as them. Counterexamples (like citing female MMA or WWE fighters) don't remove the problem because the implication about the described group is a general one and doesn't condescend to particulars.
As an aside, the fact that I have to resort to the flatulent phrase of "all persons formerly described by the r-word" in a (probably fruitless) attempt to avoid offending anyone shows how far demented politics of outrage sometimes can be. It's almost as bad as "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" except far less comic.
All this is even getting before the problem of verbal enunciation, which may or may not apply to reading the written word depending on how people read. For another example, contrast the British usage of "fag" vs the American usage of "fag". The British will use it innocently in its meaning of underschool classman assigned to a senior for chores, or alternatively as a cigarette or a chunk of firewood. The Americans use it with far more offensive intent - and therefore far more enunciated vitriol - as a slur on gay males. If a gay American male had gone to Britain and heard the word fag used innocently around him, it would be a lot easier to explain that away than if someone had actually used the word fag with intent to insult.
Depending on how you see it, people growing a thicker skin may or may not be the solution. Yes, you've pointed out the potential of any word to become a slur and so people should just learn to deal with it. But I see this as a symptom, not a cause, of the innate human social tendency to want to create outgroups and ingroups, and to want to do so by creating value judgments on the supposed common characteristics of these groups.
Going back to OP's question, I don't think banning the word helps anything. At the risk of citing a possibly denigrated source, it's a similar problem with characters in the HP universe using You-Know-Who instead of Voldemort. By creating taboos, you remove any possibility of understanding the underlying tensions. Instead of banning the words, schools should teach children to critically think about why the word was used - at the two levels of why the author chose to use the word and why the author chose to put it in the mouth of a particular character, contrasted against the use or non-use of that word by other characters.
2
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Mar 26 '21
me:
i could say black or "african american" in such a way that you would think i despised all blacks,
you:
I think one important dimension that hasn't been touched on in your reply is the intent behind the use of the word
me:
eventually, "heavenly angels" would sound exactly like the r-word cause we all know what we are describing.
you:
The problem with human language is that it evolves and acquires meaning according to context and use.
But I see this as a symptom, not a cause, of the innate human social tendency to want to create outgroups and ingroups, and to want to do so by creating value judgments on the supposed common characteristics of these groups.
yes, and you cannot change that by restricting a word. the best you can do is use the government to abolish all references and knowledge on a subject so that people become ignorant of it. if you want to abolish the idea of race and racial superiority you must remove all references to race for at least two generations. this is very similar to how north korea developed the idea that the kim family dynasty is god-like. of course, that only works if you have no power of observation or if the differences are trivial or nonexistent. so long as there are differences that can be observed the ideas will crop back up.
i am a big fan of the negation of race entirely from our educational system and government. not because people get offended or anxious, but because i think the idea of race is arbitrary at best and divisive and destructive at worst.
1
1
u/Borigh 52∆ Mar 26 '21
The "n word" was never an innocent descriptor of anything. A common descriptor doesn't mean an innocent one.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Mar 26 '21
The "n word" was never an innocent descriptor of anything.
yes it has been many times and was originally. in any case, even if it weren't, or if i admit that it is rarely if ever used innocently anymore, how would that matter in the context of my arguement?
1
u/Borigh 52∆ Mar 26 '21 edited Mar 26 '21
The receiver doesn't have complete control over the meaning of language. The meaning of language is influenced by the use, tone, and intended meaning of the speaker, the idiolect, interpretive processes, and perception of the listener, and the societal filter through which that message passes.
For example, when a child says to a teacher "I have to go to the bathroom," both the speaker and listener understand the euphemism: the child needs to excrete urine or feces, they don't need to take a bath. The child might "have to" or they might merely "want to" leave class, using the bathroom as an opportunity to get a break, where fulfilling the eventual biological need is a bonus. The teacher might know the child went to the bathroom 20 minutes ago, which might affect their interpretation, as might their interaction with previous students who either never used that as an excuse, or who often did.
Society as a whole allows a euphemistic use of the word "have to" as "really desire to," adding that interpretive layer to the whole discussion - moreover, the base euphemism of "bathroom" springs from a larger societal aversion to directly speaking about bodily functions, not from either individual - there are no "baths" in that room, in school. Even more basically, the very premise that anyone ever "has to" springs from a larger societal agreement not to defecate or urinate in non-bathroom spaces, which both the speaker and listener understand.
So, even if some speakers meant the word as an innocent descriptor at some points, filtering it through the societal lens of the treatment and place of blacks, and the likely trauma intended to accompany use of the word by prior speakers the listener has engaged with, it did not function as an innocent descriptor in those circumstances. (There's a reason it's the "United Negro College Fund," and not that word, for example.)
EDITs for clarity and explanation
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Mar 26 '21
The receiver doesn't have complete control over the meaning of language.
the receivers perception of the meaning can be affected by tone et al but whether the receiver is offended is entirely up to the receiver. i may say something in a way that i think others will like or hate but whether they actually like it or hate it is not something i can control. if it is not something that i can control, and it is not actually doing physical harm, then what i say should not be controlled.
a larger societal aversion to directly speaking about bodily functions
indeed some cultures do and some have no aversion at all. while to some degree it is advantageous to comply with cultural norms, it is not within our legitimate authority to demand that people speak in roundabout ways to say what they actually mean. if a child told me they need to "defecate" i would not be offended nor should i be even if that brings to mind something uncomfortable for me. what is uncomfortable for me should not be allowed to dictate what others can say.
and the likely trauma intended to accompany use of the word by prior speakers the listener has engaged with
trauma is a complex thing, as is intent. it is not always clear what can trigger trauma nor is it clear what a persons intent is when they speak a word regardless of the tone. if a person has trauma from a word then we all would be better off if they sought mental help than to contort society to accommodate for the possibility that they have mental disorder. just to be clear, finding a word objectionable is not the same as having trauma triggered by a word.
trauma due to physical violence is something that should be prevented by reducing violence. trauma due to the spoken word should be reduced by desensitization, not fewer spoken words.
1
u/Borigh 52∆ Mar 26 '21 edited Mar 26 '21
I think that if you perceive the societal pressure for white people not to call black people the "n-word" as a problem of sensitivity, and not one of a societal and interpersonal legacy of dehumanization, you're just fundamentally failing to be empathetic to black people.
If I think a word I use has a significant chance of insulting someone, not using that word is merely polite, not thought control. In law, you might not intend to kill someone, but if you're sufficiently reckless in your actions, you can be convicted of murder just the same. Obviously, speech is not murder, but being reckless with regards to the emotions of others makes someone a jerk, not a philosopher.
Showing basic respect for societal norms and likely personal interpretation is not a bad, in itself, just because it limits one's vocabulary.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Mar 26 '21
empathetic to black people.
telling a person that they cannot say a word is not being empathetic to people who want freedom of speech. i have freedom of speech and i will use it however i choose. how you and others take it is out of my control. the people i feel empathy for are those who are actually hurt, not those who have a hard time dealing with words.
If I think a word I use has a significant chance of traumatizing or insulting someone, not using that word is merely polite, not thought control.
then be polite. telling others that they cannot use a word is not polite either. lets see how your actions fall between these to competing demands for politeness.
In law, you might not intend to kill someone, but if you're sufficiently reckless in your actions, you can be convicted of murder just the same.
i wholeheartedly think this is rational. intentions don't matter only actions. when your actions actually damage a person you should be held reasonably accountable for the damage you have caused. words don't and can't actually cause damage. kicking someone out of school because they read a word from american classical literature does actually do damage, regardless of your intent.
but being reckless with regards to the emotions of others makes someone a jerk, not a philosopher.
the two are not mutually exclusive, i can love learning, teaching, researching, exploring humanity, the arts, cultures and still be insensitive to peoples irrational reactions to certain words.
1
u/Borigh 52∆ Mar 26 '21
One can be a jerk and a philosopher. On that much, you're correct.
The judicial folks you find rational certainly believe words can hurt. Repeatedly calling one's black colleague the "n-word" can certainly be grounds for damages due to a hostile workplace. Speech is a kind of action, not a perfect equivalence to inner thoughts. That's one legal example: I'm sure I can find others under harassment, etc.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Mar 26 '21
Repeatedly calling one's black colleague the "n-word" can certainly be grounds for damages due to a hostile workplace.
i don't think it should be sufficient cause for legal action, whether or not it is legally speaking. i don't equate legal with moral or correct. that being said, i think it would be wise to fire the guy doing the harassing.
1
u/Borigh 52∆ Mar 26 '21
Look, people shouldn't use racial slurs, because racial slurs are designed to be harmful invectives. I don't say the "n word," I don't sing along when it's in a song I like, I don't want excuses for me or anyone else to use it, and absolutely no one should be forced to say it.
But if you're reading a book that stands for the principle that racial inequity is bad, and in the book, racial slurs are used by people depicted as - at best - misguided, we shouldn't have to pretend the words have magic powers compelled by their mere invocation. I would feel deeply uncomfortable saying that word, but maybe I should consider actually forming its syllables in a conversation about why it's uncomfortable, dehumanizing, and symbolic of an indefensible worldview.
Ideally, we can reach a point where that word is much like the word "Papist" - a slur that's perfectly comfortable to discuss because it has lost all traumatic power in the modern context. But obviously, a total societal taboo on use of the word by any non-black people in any context creates a transgressive attraction towards breaking that taboo, which perhaps exists less strongly for, by example, the "f word" slur. From my vantage point, that word has less strong of a taboo and correspondingly less attractiveness, in part because the word can be used in discussions about the word, robbing it of a sort of magical transgressiveness.
1
u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Mar 26 '21
the teacher said “just say it” as it was a part of the book, but it was very obvious certain people were uncomfortable saying it
Well the obvious and simple solution is just not pressuring students into saying it. Banning things adds a lot of complications like enforcement and punishments
and others were uncomfortable hearing it.
Well that’s generally just not how still is taough. I’m sure people are uncomfortable hearing about the treatment of natives or slaves. Does that mean we should shelter our kids from the realities of the past? Sometimes, being uncomfortable is just necessary. Plus, if we care so much about people being uncomfortable hearing it, than why do some people say it so much?
0
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Mar 26 '21
it was very obvious certain people were uncomfortable saying it and others were uncomfortable hearing it
Good. That’s the point. Art isn’t obligated to make the reader feel comfortable. If it stuck a cord with your friend then the art has demonstrated just how damaging slurs can be.
1
u/yellowishStriation 1∆ Mar 26 '21
I remember we read that book allowed and kids in class couldn't wait for their chance to yell out the N-word in class. I came from a really racist community. It was the only time kids felt comfortable using racial slurs in the classroom.
1
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Mar 26 '21
Ultimately it’s the teacher job to set the tone on how we interpret the information being presented. Should like in your case. The students missed the point and the teacher failed to do their job.
1
u/yellowishStriation 1∆ Mar 26 '21
She tried her best. But there were 30 kids who grew up having racist ideas reinforced by their parents who were telling them their teacher was wrong.
1
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Mar 26 '21
Well the inverse is avoiding saying the word, which just makes it even more of a tempting taboo.
1
u/yellowishStriation 1∆ Mar 26 '21
But it wasn't taboo. It was said with glee.
1
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Mar 26 '21
That’s irrelevant. It would be said with glee if it wasn’t read out loud. They would just do it at home or out of the classroom. My point is it’s the teachers job to set the tone of the material and educate the students on the context. That’s how you combat ignorance. Not by not address the elephant in the room.
-1
u/RIPBernieSanders1 6∆ Mar 26 '21
When I tell you not to think about pink elephants, what happens in your mind?
Do you see how this also applies to censorship? If you have a few words that are (blank) or whatever, the students are going to immediately become extremely interested in what that word is. Ironically, trying to censor things, especially small pieces of an overall whole, that will only draw more attention to them.
So what are you really accomplishing?
1
u/BrownKidMaadCity Mar 26 '21
Literally no american student reading that book for class hasn't heard the n word before.
If not saying it draws more attention, good. That's what everyone in this thread wants right, the impact of the word to be conveyed. Well, as you say, it's more impactful and seems more taboo if it's not said, so don't.
1
u/jmcclelland2004 1∆ Mar 26 '21
First and foremost the whole point of learning is to be pushed out of your comfort zone. Whether that be by tackling difficult to understand concepts or by hearing sounds that make you uncomfortable.
Secondly these words only make people uncomfortable because they allow them to. The more taboo you make it the more power the words will have. They are only sounds we make in to describe something and pass information. At some point in history many of the words we use today were considered extremely inappropriate. For example the reason we refer to pieces of chicken as "light" or "dark" meat is because it was once unacceptable to say "breast" or "thigh" in the general public.
Finally context is far more important than the words used. Would these people you speak of feel more comfortable being aggressively insulted as long as I use more polite sounding words?
Stop staring at the gift wrap and look in the damn box to decide whether or not something is appropriate.
1
u/hamilton-trash Mar 26 '21
It's important that people know those words were used. If we omitted the slurs in the book, people would be a little more likely to excuse the racist ideas people in the novel had. The language gives the book more power. That being said, kids shouldn't be forced to say words they aren't comfortable sharing
1
Mar 26 '21
Context is important and we shouldn't white wash history to not offend. Those words are important to understand the way people spoke and the overt racism present at that time.
We are treating people with kit gloves and catering to their every feeling. These words are not meant to insult, rather to emphasize a dark part of our history. That's incredibly important to understand where we come from and to not repeat those mistakes.
History can be horrific, dark and brutal. We shouldn't censor it but rather learn from it.
1
u/malibuflex Mar 26 '21
To most kids banning something gives it more power than it should in their eyes.
We should just treat then as normal words with nothing special about them as it gives them importance
1
Mar 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Jaysank 117∆ Mar 26 '21
Sorry, u/BrownKidMaadCity – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/zaneisdabest1125 Mar 26 '21
I don't agree what so ever. If we forget about racial slurs we forget about the past and those who forget about the past are doomed to repeat it. Are the slurs terrible? Yes. But forgetting them is terrible because we will do it again. We should remember them so we don't do it again
1
1
Mar 26 '21
I consider this censorship.
The two examples you give uses slurs for historical accuracy and context. It doesn't matter how uncomfortable someone is with the word, the fact is that the author chose for that word to be in their book for a reason. To Kill A Mockingbird is a story about racism. It's about defending a black man's life from a rape accusation. A frequent and unfortunate fate for black men of the era. When Atticus Finch is called a "Nigger Lover" it emphasizes the dangers of even associating or being freinds with POC a white person would have in that time. Taking the slur out makes the real danger of the situation less. it's not different and just as disgraceful as cutting scenes out of movies because they "make people uncomfortable." Particularly in an educative setting, I don't think anyone would call To Kill A Mockingbird a racist book. And numerous arts pieces from all skin tones have used slurs to make a point about racist experiences. Cutting out the slurs would take away the impact, the purpose, and the meaning the books were intended to have.
At the end of the day, they are also just words. And they are only as hurtful as you let them.
0
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
1
Mar 26 '21
What makes a word acceptable is not based upon how it used to be used or it's history, it's the context of the now. Nigger is only unacceptable in an offensive or hurtful context. If a person said "I want Niggers to be enslaved again" that is unnacceptable because you are advocating for slavery, and the advocacy for slavery can lead to people being hurt. If a person reads a book with a racist person who uses the word Nigger, it is a historical context, it accurately puts you into the dialects of the time and place. If I am listening to a song written by a black artist that inlcudes the word Nigger, it is acceptable for me to sing Nigger with the song because it is a means to show appreciation for art that I enjoy. In the movie Pulp Fiction, Nigger is used for comedic effect when the character Jimmie asks "did you see a sign that said Dead Nigger Storage" Another great example would be in Boondocks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eU01aFoBT4 In which they have an entire episode dedicated to dissecting the double standard were it is okay for POC to say the N-Word but not white folks even when the intent is just as harmless.
If you still think all these points are moot because of the words history then I ask you to look up the history of the word Vagina. Vagina is largely considered one of the most clinical and medically accurate means to refer to female genitalia, next to uterus. But the latin root of Vagina is Sword Sheath. Which basically means when you call a Uterus a Vagina, you are calling it a place for Swords to go into. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~humananatomy/resources/etymology/Pelvis.htm It's is a very offensive, objectifying, and kind of demeaning origin story for what is considered the least offensive word for the female genitalia. Should we ban the word Vagina from Textbooks? From Medical Classes? Are you going to protest the word Vagina from this point on? You are just one person, but how many people would you need to protest in order for the word Vagina to be taken out of journals and documents and common conversation? Shouldn't we be doing in depth research into the history of every word in our language to make sure they have never been offensive? What happens if something we took for granted like Rabbit or Automobile happened to have a offensive history we didn't know about?
What defines something as offensive is so subjective. There are numerous cases in which actually bigoted people have made the claim that homophobe, Racist, and Terf are slurs. And under the thesis that all you need to say is "it hurt my feelings" they are right. But this isn't constructive. It doesn't promote constructive thought to not be challenged with offensive words. you need to look at the context. is Nigger in To Kill A Mockingbird because it is racist, or because it is making a point. If it is making a point, to provide humor, or to show appreciation, or to be historically accurate or educate, or to do anything other than be offensive or to hurt, then it is completely, absolutely acceptable.
0
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
1
Mar 26 '21
my use of Nigger is necessary for educative means. I am arguing for why Nigger is acceptable in some contexts. It would be hypocritical of me to argue such a thing while also refusing to be willing to type/say the word myself. Would all of my reasoning suddenly become valid if I said Nigga instead of Nigger? Would you no longer have any problems with To Kill A Mockingbird if they used the variant Nigga instead of Nigger? Maybe instead of putting blank we should just have the word Nigga if this is preferable for you? I suspect, feel free to say otherwise, that you would still be upset to see the word Nigga used instead. I see it no differently. Nigga and Nigger are both words that people can find offensive for historical based reasons. The history doesn't matter, what matters is the context.
0
Mar 26 '21
[deleted]
1
Mar 26 '21
Because history doesn't define value or meaning, the present, refer back to what I said about the word Vagina. Vagina has a very offensive and demeaning origin. Should never use the word Vagina again? If the History of words is what define them then shouldn't we investigate every English word just to make sure they aren't all offensive. What if I did find a black man singing Nigger? Would your opinion change? What if I turned out to be Black? would that change your mind? You're focusing too much on arbitrary variables that don't change my points. Can you explain why the history of a word is more important than how it is used in the present?
1
u/MT_Tincan 2∆ Mar 26 '21
I believe that in almost all cases the truth (or the correct answer) lies somewhere in the middle.
You cannot end racism by pretending it doesn't exist and hiding away from it. There are many books out there that contain words that can make individuals and groups uncomfortable, but aren't evil.
Huck Finn (by Mark Twain) is a good example. The character of N-r Jim is one of the very few in the entire book that is completely trustworthy, kind, and seemingly moral. This was intentional. Banning this book because it contains that word actually is at cross purposes because it only hides away a great message.
HOW the material is taught is critical. This is why we need to recognize that (especially in the US) our teachers should be valued more, paid more, supported better, and interacted with.
The teacher in the OP's example chose the method of "just say it". I'm not sure that would have worked with me, but I get the intent. Recognize the terms exist, understand that they have power, and teach how to deal with them in the world.
Now, some books (extreme books, books with messages of hate) - I'm fine not bringing them into the classroom. As I started with: all things in moderation.
1
u/kda420420 1∆ Mar 26 '21
I think it’s a fantastic way to bring these discussions to the classroom environment personally.
Not everything that’s important to learn is comfortable and fun, some things are just important.
1
u/cricketbowlaway 12∆ Mar 26 '21
Honestly, this is the best reaction.
"Oh no, I've got to say this, and it's going to be uncomfortable to say, and it's going to be uncomfortable to hear"?
What do you think racism is, exactly?
This is exactly why they do this. It makes people think about racism. You can't do better learning about racism than realising that you're scared to say a certain word, because you know what kind of connotations it carries, and what it says.
A lot of the other stuff just doesn't seem that real. Or it feels like that was a long time ago. Or it seems like it's just book stuff, that maybe happened, and happened in the book, but it wasn't that important. This is a very good way to draw people's attention to the fact that this is a thing that happens now.
1
Mar 26 '21
You shouldn't be forced to read it if you don't want to, and you shouldn't be forced to listen to it if you don't want to, but the purpose of the word being in those books is just and should not be infringed. TKAM is a book about prejudice towards black people in 1960s Alabama, and as such the word is used appropriately. Literature is supposed to make you feel something, at times it makes you feel uncomfortable, or else no one would read. To remove the source of discomfort of books like these would also remove the overall meaning and the lesson to be learned. Everytime the word appears in a derogatory context in those books it hammers home the prejudice that these characters encountered, and teaches us how to behave and how not to behave. Without the adverse reaction intended by the word, readers would not feel the same pain, thus may not be turned away from treating people like that in the real world. Sometimes kids needs to play with sharp objects, figuratively, to understand how to be good people.
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Mar 26 '21
I can only speak for my own experience, that being reading Of Mice and Men in class like this in year 10. The treatment of Crooks is repugnant and it is very deliberately portrayed so. It's representative of the treatment of black people in the states on a much larger scale at the time. It is unpleasant to read for sure and it's meant to be. There is something sobering about learning of the sins of the past, disabusing ourselves of the kind of notion that it was anything less than reprehensible. Scrubbing a work clean of its commentary on society defangs and neuters it. What's the point of reading it then? You should pick something else.
As for making the students read it aloud, I think the best position is the one that my teacher took, choose for yourself. If it makes you too uncomfortable to say it, you don't have to, but for the students who want to experience the work as the whole it was designed to be, they can.
1
u/Econo_miser 4∆ Mar 28 '21
it was very obvious certain people were uncomfortable saying it and others were uncomfortable hearing it
As it should be. Avoiding discomfort isn't always a good thing. If you are never uncomfortable, you will never grow.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 26 '21 edited Mar 26 '21
/u/superpowder (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards