Say what's on your mind

Language is a communication device and words convey ideas. Ideas can be both good or bad, but words themselves are neutral. Granted, some words are far more harsh than others, and some should probably be retired from the common lexicon, however it is up to the individual speaker how they utilize words to express their ideas.

What they mean to the user and the context in which they are expressed is how words should be judged; by the specific audience being communicated to, and not by an outsider's interpretation of the words themselves, or their reaction to that usage.

Recently, there has been a minor controversy regarding something that Suge Knight said about usage of the "N-word". I am personally censoring this word, as I find it distasteful myself, and not for fear of offending anyone. I don’t use it, so I won’t use it here.

This word is one that I don’t particularly approve of, and choose not to use, but I understand it’s usage and the contextual format in which it is used by specific individuals. When Mark Twain used it in Huckleberry Finn it was not in a derogatory fashion, and should not be viewed as such. On the other hand, when the Aryan Brotherhood uses it, it has a completely different context and underlying meaning, which is definitively pejorative.

Suge Knight made the point that using the "N-word" with the “a” ending (although he didn't mention the “r” ending), was more acceptable to him than the term “African American”, and that in common usage, anyone and everyone should be able to use it, regardless of one’s own color or ethnicity.

Though I disagree with him on usage of the word altogether - I prefer the term “black” - what he said does have some merit. The "N-word" is still a nasty invective, but that invective is displayed in the manner in which it is used. If one of my black friends or family members says it, I don’t have an issue, but if one of my white friends uses it, they had better explain themselves quickly, or they’re getting put on their ass.

The part of his comment that I found most interesting though, was his admonishment of the term “African American”, and I whole heartedly agree - this is a term that needs to go away. It is a bad euphemism that is misleading and dismissive.

I have a former employer who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of fourteen, a ginger Jew from Johannesburg. At the same time, I worked with two black guys, one from Belize, the other a native Texan with ancestry tracing back to Jamaica.

In all technical senses, the boss was African American (lily white as could be, but actually from Africa), whereas the other two would have been Latino and Caribbean, as Belize is a Latin American nation and Jamaica is a Caribbean island. The truth is though,... one was white, and two were black.

The fact is, most black people in this country cannot trace their ancestry to Africa. This is not to discount or dismiss the four hundred years of slavery in this country, nor the fact that many cannot trace their roots because of broken ancestral heritage. This is just a simple statement of fact. Many black Americans actual have no ties to slavery and are from immigrant families, just like the rest of us, and not here as a result of forced bondage.

But, as Knight stated clearly, Africans don’t consider themselves Africans. A person from Kenya is a Kenyan, an immigrant from Congo is Congolese, and in immigrant from Somalia is Somali. Whites aren’t considered Europeans - they are Italians, or Irish, or German, or Dutch and so forth. So why classify blacks as “African” regardless of whether they have any African heritage at all?

Black seems the most appropriate terminology as it is a basic descriptive term without being demeaning or untruthful, and yet avoids the blatant insult of being a politically correct term, for usage in mixed company. Skin pigmentation is related to the proximity to the equator of your ancestors, and the last I checked, the equator wasn’t exclusive to the continent of Africa.

Political correctness does little to make  people feel better about themselves, it is used as a means to make others feel badly about how they express themselves. I don’t use the term “African American”, I use “black”. I don’t feel guilty for using it, and I won’t just because somebody tells me that I should. It makes more sense to me than the “appropriate” politically correct label.

Political correctness seeks to punish us for offending others’ sensibilities. Now we should certainly respect the usage that people prefer to be referred to by, however this should not be done at the expense of truth, context, or reality.

“Native American” is less demeaning than “Indian”, yet we fought the French and Indian War, not the Franco-Native American War. They did not originate in India, and therefore I can see the significance of this particular misnomer, however if you want to be truly correct, they should be called “aboriginal Americans”, and would include everyone here prior to Columbus’ landing, from Alaska to Patagonia. Oh, but calling them “aborigines” might offend Aussies.

I understand the offense taken by usage of names such as “Redskins”, but I don’t regularly refer to the Redskins outside of the context of football. As such, Native Americans should be more embarrassed that the team looks like shit, rather than being offended by their logo and name. The underlying principle here is that the term is not intended to offend.

If people insist on being offended by something without clear ill intent, then they will be offended regardless. Their offense carries little weight without malice aforethought; therefore it is a form of self-hatred, and not a racist attack upon them.

“Native Americans” embrace that specific term, so aside from using their tribal designation, I use “Native American” as a broad descriptor out of respect for their wishes. That is, unless they pride themselves as “Indians” as in: the American Indian Movement (AIM). But my Zuni friends are Zuni, my Hoopa friends are still Hoopa, and my Tlingit, Narragansett, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Apache friends and family members are still Tlingit, Narragansett, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Apache, respectively.

Political correctness permeates the way that we view others, not how they view themselves. If I say that someone is black, they are not surprised by this, as they are generally well aware of that fact themselves. If I say that the Tlingit are the only Indians that won - driving the Russians out of Alaska - they beam with pride, instead of seething with anger. I’ve said it before: context is everything.

I was chastised recently for using the term “third world”, being told that this insults people from these countries, and that it would hurt their feelings to have their home nations described as such. Hardly. There is a reason why people leave the third world to seek a better life elsewhere - it’s the third world, and they know it.

The phrase “third world” may make white folks uncomfortable because of the fact that many third world countries are third world countries due to white oppression and puppet dictatorships, but most immigrants I’ve met from the third world have far harsher terms that they use for their homelands, and take little or no offense at that designation. They aren’t stupid, but our political correctness makes us seem so.

Recently, great strides have been made in the LGBT community. C’mon, it’s the Gay Rights movement, okay!?! “LGBT” is the worst offender in the new politically correct vernacular. First of all, as an acronym, it disproves the idea of community itself. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered. That seems to separate each into their own little subcategory, which negates the idea of community. So can we quit with this shit and just call it gay again?

First of all, gay refers to homosexual. It didn’t always, but like “Native American”, it has been the largely accepted terminology for decades. Gay refers to a person who identifies as homosexual. It is not gender specific, nor is the concept of homosexuality.

Lesbian however, is gender specific. This term refers exclusively to homosexual women, clearly separating themselves from other homosexuals as something special. Bullshit. Lesbians are gay women; gay men don’t have to be called by a specific politically correct phrase in order to be self-empowered. They may use “fag”, or “queer”, or “bitch” (which most of my gay friends use frequently), but they still consider themselves gay.

Bisexuals don't exist. I don’t mean this as an insult, but sexual preference is classified as hetero or homo; there is no middle ground. If you have sex with the opposite sex, you are defined as heterosexual. If you have sex with people of the same gender, by definition, you are homosexual. I’ve known many people who consider themselves “bisexual”, but frankly that is a self identifier, and they are still gay; homosexuals, at least occasionally. Not that there is anything wrong with that…

Transgendered is a different case entirely. Our transgendered brothers and sisters are not generally gay. Gender identity is a whole different phenomena. Every transgendered person I have ever known felt that they were born with the wrong gender. Men who felt that they should be women and loved men; women who felt that they should be men and loved women - that makes the transgendered straight as far as I can figure.

Transgendered people just have the wrong equipment, and seek to remedy that genetic mistake. Sexual preference and sexual identity are two different subjects, and it’s actually a bit insensitive for the gay community to co-opt the transgendered, regardless of the similar struggles they have faced.

Although, I hardly think that my opinion is likely to change minds within that group, I will never refer to the gay community as the “LGBT” community, because it is fallacious language designed to make me the bad guy for stating the truth. Fuck that shit.

Which brings me to the work “fuck”. Without getting into the etymology of the word itself, it must be said that this is distinctly powerful word that conveys an idea better than any other can, when used properly.

I have been told from time to time that my usage of this word displays ignorance. Crassness yes, even rudeness, but never ignorance. To use this word properly and creatively often displays the opposite; requiring artistic and intelligent usage of language. To those who would argue against that, insisting that it is an ignorant word, all I can say is: Tell it to somebody who gives a fuck.

The word “fuck” can convey an idea much more clearly than other euphemisms used in its place. For instance: “What the fuck?” is far more effective than asking “What do you mean?”, “Why?”, or “What is that all about?”, and needs little extraneous explanation when asked. It’s all about inflection and intonation.

“Fuck” can be used in differing contexts, situations, and has a myriad of different definitions depending on the specific usage of the word. Not only is it a brutally honest word, but it cuts to the chase, conveying an idea with the utmost brevity.

Basically, it should be remembered that language is used by the individual to convey their personal ideas to a specific audience. As these ideas are tailored to an audience, it is entirely the speaker's prerogative to speak directly to their audience in a way that they feel conveys their ideas effectively.

The speaker has the duty of expressing themselves to the best of their ability regardless of how an outside observer may perceive it or take offense. The speaker is the only one who should censor their language (as they see fit), not some politically correct fuckhead who wants to police how people think and express themselves. Their audience will determine what is offensive and what isn’t. That is the beauty of two way communication.

So voice what's on your mind, and not what the self appointed word cops tell you is acceptable to say.