This story is so gay.

you're right, Lindsay. this editorial is so lesbian.

yes, there are many words in the English language from which to choose, but the point is: why resist the obvious changes in usage? why are people arguing that nigger, bitch, cunt, and queer have to retain their hostile connotations when, in fact, they can be and are used with different intentions.

Samantha: The words you listed as examples each carry different weights and significance. While I agree with your overall statement, that we should accept the way they have been appropriated into contemporary vernacular, some of them still carry associations with historical wounds that have not yet healed. The N-word, spelled and/or pronounced with "er", is at the top of that list. Its connotations are in fact so strong that I try to refrain from using it verbatim myself (hence my abbreviation), and I'm quite an unprincipled person.

Spelled and/or pronounced with the "a" ending, it instead becomes associated with a word, claimed for use by a specific demographic (namely young American blacks), that is fresh enough in their vocabulary that I do not feel other people, specifically American non-blacks, are ready to lay claim to it as well. It still carries that historical baggage, regardless of its current version, function, or meaning. As a society we have a certain obligation to be sensitive to politically-charged language. I would emplore you to consider it a gesture of good will, and also to rethink the instances in which saying that word is actually necessary to you or anyone else.

If you (and here I use the theoretical "you" as a non-Black) need a derogatory term for blacks, there are plenty of them to choose from, but then you need to question why you need a derogatory term for blacks in the first place. And don't get all bent out of shape when they use it, that's their problem to deal with. It's also rightfully up to them to decide when they're comfortable hearing it from someone else's mouth.

The reason I am so willing to let go of that word, for my own use, stems from the same detachment with which I feel comfortable using other words that were formerly taboo. It has to do with an effort to obtain a clearer view of the ways in which society operates, in an historical and sociological context. That's just how it ended up--one word is okay, another is not. We can't always be absolutists about language; it has to fit with the society that speaks it. If we're not ready, we're not ready.

Maybe it would help to understand this example: it's very different when someone uses the word "bitch" to describe someone or something else, than when they are calling you one. I think that because of the implications of American social history, black people hear the N-word ("er" ending, specifically) and cannot help but feel it is directed at them.

I believe intent (and internalization) is everything.

Is the N-word offensive to a deaf Black person? Probably.

The word itself is arbitrary.

If someone is calling you a derogatory term, in a language you don't understand, and you know what their intent is, are you offended? If so, then the word has no value, only the intent and the way you internalize it.

You can take away every derogatory or offensive word and it won't make a bit of difference. New words will just replace the old ones.

Reclaiming words. Geez, what a stupid concept. Let's all reclaim the word 'bullet' so nobody can ever be shot!

J, you said: "You can take away every derogatory or offensive word and it won't make a bit of difference. New words will just replace the old ones."

This is correct. I guess the hope is that as the dynamics of society change, more and more derogatory terms will be "unemployed".

Of course the reclamation of words is a stupid concept (so are speed limits on the freeway), but it's a fact of life that needs to be accepted just like the words themselves. I believe this phenomenon stems from the idea of certain relative entitlements, which could be argued the one way or the other. A good indicator to look at is the professional standup comedy business. Those comedians have to have their fingers on the pulse of what's acceptible and what's not, so that they can effectively be funny while appearing to push the envelope. That awkward silence in the room after a white comedian tells a "black joke" or drops the N-bomb is so familiar that it has become the substance of jokes itself.

EIU Grad Student,

For time's sake, I'd like to respond to both your last post in this column and the one in the diversity column, since you're one of the few people on this board with an intelligent viewpoint, free of the ad hominems that are usually accompanied by the uninformed.

Derogatory terms only exist where there is a fair amount of diversity. I don't think those words can ever go away as long as there are points of difference among groups of people. I don't know of anyone in this country or any other that has a problem with (or has created a derogatory term for) Eskimos, indigenous tribes in the Amazon, natives of Papau New Guinea or any other group(s) they've never come in contact with. Race just happens to be the most salient point of difference. When different races/cultures are forced, artificially, to co-habitate there is going to be tension and derogatory words will manifest themselves.

I think it's noble to desire unity, but it's unrealistic. Trying to take away words only makes them more powerful.

As far as de facto segregation, when left to their own devices, most cultures and/or races CHOOSE to segregate when they have the choice. I've seen countless articles how more and more Black Americans are of the belief that Black children learn better from someone like themselves (i.e. a Black teacher). Why? Because a Black teacher can better relate to the needs of a Black child. This in fact, is one of the many messages in Business classes when they speak of having a diverse workforce. They often claim that it would be helpful to have a Japanese worker in your office if you deal a lot with Japanese clients. I've seen this message throughout every Business course I've taken. Of course, the obvious conundrum is, if it takes a Japanese person to deal with another Japanese person, how does that first Japanese person get along with the rest of his non-Japanese co-workers. The argument for diversity is an argument against diversity, which is why I'm so aggravated with all of these Diversity columns.

In fact, your claim (and mine as well) that people come here for Economic reasons is proof that that they have no desire for integration for integration's sake. If they have economic stability, they prefer to stay with people they feel comfortable with, in their own country. They only want a better life and a better life means going to a country where there is a stable economic situation and/or a safe area to raise their family (it goes without saying which countries I believe are the ones that fit those criteria). And since the White-Liberal guilt in this and many other countries has provided a situation where immigrants don't necessarily have to learn the language of their adopted country and/or integrate into the culture, they choose to live in enclaves where there are people like themselves. In a similar vein, Black people in the U.S. choose to emigrate into White areas, because that is where there is relative safety and economic opportunities. They don't have any desire for integration except for economic and/or safety. It's basically REVERSE COLONIZATION.

Red-lining exists for the same reasons, economic opportunity, or in most cases, avoidance of economic losses. This Sub-Prime crisis is a perfect example of the true intentions of almost everyone. When Banks didn't have a loophole that allowed them to repackage mortgages and sell them to some mortgage-security firm, they chose to minimize their economic risk by Red-lining. Once a loophole was created to rid them of any economic liability for delinquency on a mortgage, they gladly loaned to everyone, especially high-risk borrowers since they were more likely to have a desire for an Adjustable-rate Mortgage. Of course, now that they have lent to Black borrowers, there are countless lawsuits for REVERSE RED-LINING. If you don't lend to Black people, you're a racist. If you lend to Black people, and they default, it's your fault and you're racist.

Even fast-food delivery companies Red-line. When I lived in New York City, any restaurant (including places like McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken) had to offer delivery in order to compete. But they knew from experience that there were certain places you couldn't deliver to, unless you wanted your employees to get robbed or killed. Cab drivers, same thing. These are poor people (the cab drivers), often immigrants and many times AFRICAN immigrants, that only want to make money, but they know from experience that when they pick up a Black passenger, their economic risk increases. It has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with experience.

Bottom line for me, is I have never seen an example of any race or culture (or gender for that matter) that has shown me they would act any differently if they were in the same position as the 'Evil White man'.

Although, there is one major difference: They would never (I MEAN NEVER, EVER), VOLUNTARILY RELINQUISH their particular standing in the world for the sake of diversity, unity, friendliness, doing what's right, being equitable, WHATEVER.

That should be the take-home message for any do-gooder Liberal who thinks, once this country has a White minority, the other ethnicities (whomever it is in charge) will bring this wondrous change to the world where everyone loves his fellow man and we all will live in a beautiful harmonious utopia.

Take a look at the history of Zimbabwe if anyone needs proof.

As creator of "Take It Back?" I take satisfaction in the dialogue the event has generated, and I respect the conclusion at which the editorial board arrived. I should clarify, however, that the panel did not set out "to clean up people's language" but rather to entertain a broad range of perspectives on whether certain words should be reframed as terms of endearment ("Sup n****," "Can't a bitch catch a break?" etc.) and whether that erases social barriers or perpetatues them.

Individual panelists, of course, expressed pro- or anti-reframing sentiment, but the panel as a whole did not endorse one view or the other. It was a discussion, not a resolution, and this context should be considered when reading the editorial.

J: Well stated. Just a couple more points and then I'm done.

You said, "Derogatory terms only exist where there is a fair amount of diversity."
Horsesh*t. Rural West Virginia isn't that diverse. Hell, neither is Charleston.

"I don't know of anyone in this country or any other that has a problem with...any other group(s) they've never come in contact with."
I don't think that the prejudice against people from the Middle East, in the wake of 9/11, was started and perpetuated solely by people in cosmopolitan areas. Most people living in Brooklyn probably don't say "Ay-rab", but I'm sure I've heard the term used around here.

I just have one point:
What about the humor of these derogatory terms? Most of these phrases/terms are pretty damn funny.

Also, don't you think that if everyone took these terms as jokes, like white people do about terms like cracker, etc (can't think of anymore actually), they'd lose their power to hurt?

(And yeah, I realize white people are in the position to not get offended, but that only helps my point)

I mean, come on, you have to admit how hilariously stupid bigots are. These are pathetic little people who seriously hate someone based on a single superficial characteristic. That's pretty funny.

G: Yes, to many of us who are in a position where we don't have to take certain terms personally, we have the liberty of thinking they're funny, or at least being able to. But not everyone is so lucky.