The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionIn Defense of Rough Language
by Michael Sean Winters on Aug. 03, 2011
In 1999, David Howard, an aide to D.C. Mayor Anthony Wlliams, made headlines because he used the adjective “niggardly” in reference to the city’s budget. Howard was white, and a black colleague objected to what he perceived as a racial slur. The word evidently has Norse origins: nigla means to worry about small things. Howard resigned but after an internal review demonstrated, amply, that no racial slur was intended, he was offered a different job by Williams.
I thought of this incident today when the homepage of Politico has two items about controversies surrounding word choice. And the front section of the Washington Post has a third article about another incident.
Vice President Joe Biden is in hot water because he reportedly told Democratic colleagues that the GOP Tea Partyers were acting “like terrorists.” Mind you, there are different kinds of terror in life and, so, different kinds of terrorists, but since the 1970s and the attacks at Munich and the killing of Aldo Moro, through the attacks of 9/11, the word terrorist means someone without sovereign authority who uses indiscriminate violence to achieve a political end. It could be argued that the prospect of a national default were terror-filled. It could be noted that for weeks, many commentators, on both sides, accused the other of holding the government “hostage” (something terrorists do, but also something some bank robbers do). And, it can be further noted that politicians should be able to say one thing in a private meeting that would not be appropriate on the floor of the Senate. I give Biden a pass.
Pat Buchanan, a sharp-tongued conservative, is in trouble because, in an interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton, he referred to President Barack Obama as “your boy.” Now, there is a very ugly historical association of using the word “boy” to refer to black, male adults. And, Buchanan has a tradition of race-baiting. If you recall his speech to the 1992 GOP Convention, with its invocation of mobs and lawlessness, while addressing an almost exclusively white audience, you will know that Mr. Buchanan is well advised to mind his words. But, in this instance, I am prepared to give Buchanan a pass. The phrase “your boy” clearly was meant to indicate a partisan affiliation, not a racial slap at the President.
Finally, Congressman Doug Lamborn apologized for describing his desire not to be associated with the President thusly: “I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby, and you get it – you know, you’re stuck, and you’re part of the problem now, and you can’t get away.” In this context, it is clear that Lamborn used “tar baby” the way Br’er Rabbit did, and the way the dictionary does, to indicate a “sticky situation.” Yes, the word has been used in southern slang as a derogatory word for blacks. Lamborn is from Colorado.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
There is something dangerous about repeating cultural tropes that have been used to justify racism in the past. When someone calls a Jew a “shylock” that is a sign of racism. When someone uses the N-word to describe a black person, that is a sign of racism. Pat Buchanan’s invocation of mobs and lawlessness in 1992 was far more dangerously racist than his calling Obama “your boy.” And, the most dangerous kind of racism expresses itself more subtly. You will recall the campaign ad run by Jesse Helms in which a pair of white hand opened a rejection letter, and the voice over said, “You wanted that job. You needed that job. But they had to give it to a minority.” That is racism.
Three issues present themselves from these incidents. First, words have meanings. When Mr. Howard used the adjective “niggardly” it was ignorance and ignorance alone that accused him of a racial slur. Yes, some words have historical associations that are offensive, but “niggardly” is not one of those words. Other words, like “tar baby,” require context and, in the case above, the context is obvious. And, there is a difference between saying someone is a terrorist and saying they are behaving like one. Just because the hearer does not like what is being said, they should not have cultural carte blanche to exercise a heckler’s veto over such speech. For one thing, crying wolf makes it harder to hold those who do dabble in racist stereotypes accountable when something truly offensive is said.
Second, there is a danger of our political speech becoming anodyne. I am all for respectful dialogue. I am all for avoiding ad hominem attacks – although, I reserve my right to deliver them occasionally against a small number of especially miserable fellow humans from Maureen Dowd to Herman Cain. But, I also do not want our politicians so fearful of giving offense that they become unwilling to draw sharp distinctions, to inveigh strongly when they feel strongly. If they do it too often, or too recklessly, their verbal sorties will come back to bite them in the behind. But, politics is a tough sport and I do not mind a bit of tough language in its pursuit.
Third, those who worry that such harsh speech can further polarize the political landscape have not been paying attention. Our politics is already polarized. Even very sophisticated people can make the mistake of thinking that if they are reasonable and if their speech is reasonable, their political opponents will mimic them. I think it is fair to say that President Obama completely misjudged his political opponents in the debt ceiling negotiations. His overly sweet reasonableness did not occasion anything but further intransigence from the other side. Obama needs to learn how to dig in and to put up his fists.
So, everybody, take a deep breath. The world is not going to come crashing down because a politician gets edgy. And, before condemning anyone for using words you find offensive, grab a dictionary first.
But what are we supposed to
But what are we supposed to do in political speech if we don't simply shout down the other person as a racist, a classist, a bigot, etc.?
What are we supposed to do, actually DEBATE ideas coolly and calmly? Judge ideas on their own worth instead of resorting to attacking the person giving the idea? Are you crazy?!?!?
Excellent comment. The
Excellent comment. The greatest argument for campaign finance reform came from former President Jimmy Carter who said in 1976, he and President Ford didn't have the money to slander and sling at each other. All they had (could afford) to debate were the issues. But that's not sexy and it doesn't sell pizzas or beer on cable news channels.
Give Buchanan the microphone.
Give Buchanan the microphone. Whenever he speaks, Democrats win elections.
This is a good article to
This is a good article to read.
Regarding: "...old Democratic colleagues that the GOP Tea Partyers were acting “like terrorists.”"
- VP Biden, having raised teenagers, no doubt recognized rowdiness, and adolescent stupidity which is the social glue that unites the tea party crowd and whose behaviour in this context definitely is a terror. VP Biden no doubt understands that teenagers act as roving thugs if their elders, the senior legislators in the Republican Party, allow them to do so.
- Now, as the tea party begins to understand that they owe more to their constituents, even the ones who did not vote for them, and thus their vision of their representative tasks expand beyond their self granted permission to tantrums, one wonders how far they will go. One wonders if even they will be able to legislate at all during the rest of their terms.
I disagree with your
I disagree with your interpretation of Buchanan's using the words "your boy". Everyone in his position knows that is not the kind of language to use, especially when "your guy" is so available. IMO that was a lowblow intended top get Sharpton to react in anger, and to pander to the lowest part of the right's base. I'm white, I'm old, and I'm from the south. That was racist.
We'll se if Buchanan tries that again.
"Pat Buchanan, a
"Pat Buchanan, a sharp-tongued conservative, is in trouble because, in an interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton, he referred to President Barack Obama as “your boy.” "
The real irony of the Buchanan situation is that he made the comment to an outrage Sharpton, who defined race-baiting, and stoked anti-semitic feelings. And yet he has his own cable show now. THAT is disgusting.
As for the Tea Party and "terrorism", I find it ironic that so many on the Left are considering what the Tea Party did as akin to hostage-taking or terrorism. As that noted firebreathing right-winger Tom Brokaw said Sun on MTP: all they did was get angry, get organized, voted and got elected. If the Left considers that akin to terrorism, what does it say about liberalism?
The Tea Party goons showed up
The Tea Party goons showed up to rallies packing guns. In Texas they thrive on an "us verses THEM" tone of race, gender, and orientation baiting. The violence implicit to their means and their message says that while we liberals can still identify an overt threat when it's made with a holstered weapon or a noose.
I find the selective defense
I find the selective defense here disturbing when in fact, the defense smacks of support. You term the response to Mr. Howard's choice of adjective, (miserly, stingy, cheap are all in the dictionary as well as our lexicon) ignorant. Yet you give race-baiter, Mr. Buchanan "a pass."
How magnanimous. But if I'm not mistaken, your inference is his use of slang somehow negates the pejorative connotation of this very loaded word. You also omit or pass Mr. Buchanan's obvious regard for and understanding of language. You omit that he spearheaded Alan Bloom's defense of the literary canon both in debate and print. No, this man chose his words/weapons precisely to wound while debating/baiting Reverend Sharpton.
Most offensive of all is your pitiful attempt to defend Mr. Lamborn and his pointed, racist declaration. "The Tar Baby," as historical metaphor? Really? This is not rough language, this is loaded, pointed, hate speech. It is divisive and destructive.
You say, "But, I also do not want our politicians so fearful of giving offense that they become unwilling to draw sharp distinctions, to inveigh strongly when they feel strongly."
Consider the extremism in our political culture-- fear and bigotry fanned by opportunist. It's very similar to the tone of discourse and culture prior to the Civil War. If my US history serves me, I think US Congressmen "drew sharp distinctions" and when the debates grew incendiary, sharp knives, blunt clubs, and even pistols. There were beatings, stabbings and a shooting in the aisles of the Capitol building. When Tea Party goons show up at rallies locked and loaded, how far are we from 1858?
My point (and I have one) is your defense is actually passive support for language already protected by our Bill of Rights without regard to responsible exercise. Like other protected freedoms, there must a component of accountability and consequence for abuse. The right to bare arms does not make a gun the appropriate too for carpentry, cooking, or public policy.
In supporting/defending this language, you are championing language that is not the appropriate tool, does not lend to productive discourse, worse, it is language that destroys discourse. Invectives are invectives and hate is hate. You cannot pick and choose.
I genuinely expected more from this publication.
I find the selective defense
I find the selective defense here disturbing when in fact, the defense smacks of support. You term the response to Mr. Howard's choice of adjective, (miserly, stingy, cheap are all in the dictionary as well as our lexicon) ignorant. Yet you give race-baiter, Mr. Buchanan "a pass."
if I'm not mistaken, your inference is his use of slang somehow negates the pejorative connotation of this very loaded word. You also omit or pass Mr. Buchanan's obvious regard for and understanding of language. You omit that he spearheaded Alan Bloom's defense of the literary canon both in debate and print. No, this man chose his words/weapons precisely to wound while debating/baiting Reverend Sharpton.
Most offensive of all is your pitiful attempt to defend Mr. Lamborn and his pointed, racist declaration. "The Tar Baby," as historical metaphor? Really? This is not rough language, this is loaded, pointed, hate speech. It is divisive and destructive.
You say, "But, I also do not want our politicians so fearful of giving offense that they become unwilling to draw sharp distinctions, to inveigh strongly when they feel strongly."
Consider the extremism in our political culture-- fear and bigotry fanned by opportunist. It's very similar to the tone of discourse and culture prior to the Civil War. If my US history serves me, I think US Congressmen "drew sharp distinctions" and when the debates grew incendiary, sharp knives, blunt clubs, and even pistols. There were beatings, stabbings and a shooting in the aisles of the Capitol building. When Tea Party goons show up at rallies locked and loaded, how far are we from 1858?
My point (and I have one) is your defense is actually passive support for language already protected by our Bill of Rights without regard to responsible exercise. Like other protected freedoms, there must a component of accountability and consequence for abuse. The right to bare arms does not make a gun the appropriate too for carpentry, cooking, or public policy.
In supporting/defending this language, you are championing language that is not the appropriate tool, does not lend to productive discourse, worse, it is language that destroys discourse. Invectives are invectives and hate is hate. You cannot pick and choose.
How could that cracker even
How could that cracker even think he could get by with calling obobo a boy? Especially in front of that jungle bunny, sharpton!
Classy. Why are you here,
Classy. Why are you here, Anony? Couldn't access Fox at work? Or are you sitting shiva for Dreamboard?
Post new comment