When does a racist term stop being racist?

[Sarahfeena]

On another board I read, there's an ongoing conversation about the term "gypped." It started when someone used the term, but spelled it "jipped." She was told that it was racist and she shouldn't say it, but she clearly had no idea where the term originated or that it was referring to an ethnic stereotype.

If such a term is so "whitewashed" away from its original meaning, even to the point of being spelled in a way that you would never associate it with the ethnic group in question, is it still racist? What if the person using it is so unfamiliar with the ethnic group that they are not aware of the stereotype? Can it ever be deemed acceptable to use?

[Myrnalene]

If it is still capable of being understood and causing offense to the target group, it is not acceptable to use. It's fine to use a term like this without knowing the origin, but once it is pointed out, the proper thing to do is apologize and not use the term again.

Also, I am kind of opposed to the idea of "whitewashing" the meaning of such a word, as it seems like ignoring or covering up the negative history of the treatment of that group, which I don't think should ever be done.

[Sarahfeena]

Sorry, I didn't mean "whitewashing" as a conscious or deliberate act, more just a washing out of meaning over time through evolution of language and ignorance of the term's origin.

Oh, and what if the offense is being taken by someone other than the target group? Are there really any Gypsies (meaning, the actual ethnic group) around here in the US to even take offense at that term? Should a group of people take offense on their behalf if they aren't around to hear it?

[Exy]

If it is still capable of being understood and causing offense to the target group, it is not acceptable to use.

Okay, well, what about the word "Eskimo"? In some places (though not all), Eskimo communities tend to find the term offensive, because (at least as far as I'm aware) it's thought to have been descended from a racial slur in some other First Nations language, meaning "Eaters of Raw Meat". Except it doesn't mean that at all, and the two leading theories of its origin are that it means either "Snowshoe Makers" or "People who Speak a Foreign Language". The problem is that there's no term in any of the Eskimo languages that encompasses all Eskimos; Inuit, Yupik, Kalallit, et al. all refer only to some of them. But legitimately one might want to, say, discuss the origins of Eskimo culture, or make reference to all Eskimo languages. Should we make it more difficult to do so in order to humor a heartfelt, but erroneous, belief?

What about extremist types? I'm sure somewhere you can find someone mad about being called "gay" or "black" or whatever, do we need to humor them because they are offended?

[Myrnalene]

Sorry, I didn't mean "whitewashing" as a conscious or deliberate act, more just a washing out of meaning over time through evolution of language and ignorance of the term's origin.

Right, using "gypped" unthinkingly means that you must be ignorant of the history behind the term, and of the persecutions that group has faced. I don't like that, I want people to remember.

Oh, and what if the offense is being taken by someone other than the target group? Are there really any Gypsies (meaning, the actual ethnic group) around here in the US to even take offense at that term? Should a group of people take offense on their behalf if they aren't around to hear it?

There are certainly Romani and a here a larger population in Europe. (Besides, internet communities should be assumed to be international communities.) As for taking offense on behalf of a group that you are not a part of, it's sort of hard for me as a privileged person to answer that. I think it's better to speak up than not.

[Exy]

Well, does it matter how direct the relationship is? If you "jewed someone down" or "nigger-rigged" something, it's easy to see the racist implications. "Gypped" is a good deal further from "Gypsy" (which is not what they're called anyway); at a certain point, is the distance enough that it becomes silly to worry about it? If the relationship is tenuous and distant enough that you have to be explicitly taught that it exists, it's not that much different from a fictional explanation, is it?

(For another example, relating this time to sexism: a lot of women's studies majors are taught that the term "rule of thumb" is a sexist reference to an item of common law that held that a man may beat his wife with a stick no larger around than his thumb. Of course, that's completely untrue, and in reality the term relates to craftsmen measuring things with their thumbs. Is it offensive to use the phrase "rule of thumb"? Some people say it is. Do we need to humor them?)

[Inner Stickler]

If a word is far enough removed from the public consciousness that no one is aware of the derogatory meaning, then I see no problems using it.

[Sarahfeena]

Right, using "gypped" unthinkingly means that you must be ignorant of the history behind the term, and of the persecutions that group has faced. I don't like that, I want people to remember.

OK, let's say that the term in question is the only thing that still reminds people...otherwise, the stereotype is dead (I think that for the Romani in the US, that's probably pretty much true). Is there any use in remembering? For them, or for anyone?

There are certainly Romani and a here a larger population in Europe. (Besides, internet communities should be assumed to be international communities.) As for taking offense on behalf of a group that you are not a part of, it's sort of hard for me as a privileged person to answer that. I think it's better to speak up than not.

Sure, there are Romani here and in Europe, but let's say I'm using the word in everyday conversation, not on the internet, what are the chances I'm speaking to someone who is actually of that ethnic background? And if it's people who aren't of that background, but who are speaking up on their behalf, at what point is it just being a member of the offenderati?

I'm sort of just playing devil's advocate here, trying to figure out my own POV on this.

[What Exit?]

I would say jipped has largely lost its racist meaning but as I would consider jewed-down and nigger-rigged very offensive I see the other side too.

How about welshing on a bet or even welching on a bet? I would equate that to jip.

Indian Giver? Still seems to be very bad.

"As frugal as a Scotsman" is probably not even used in this country anymore but was once a common phrase. But there was also "as cheap as a Scotsman" which I imagine would still be considered negative. I would think the first would offend very few though it is still and odd generalization. Much like, "but Chinese are great at math". Is this last offensive, a silly generalization or an observation and none-negative fact?

Where does observations end and racism begin? "Most African-Americans are darker skinned than those of European descent". Is that racist?

"Italians talk with their hands". Racist or observation?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Honestly, I think it is largely dependent on context and the intent of the speaker. NOT the understanding of the auditor, for otherwise the word niggardly is racist.

To give an example based on gender rather than race, I have a group of female friends who always address one another as bitch. Between them it's a term of affection and empowerment; it would be something else again if I called either of them that. I also used to sleep with a woman whom I always called that, and, again, she understand it (and I meant it) as a pet name, among other things. It would be something else again if I used it on another woman.

I've called other black people nigger, though not recently, as the backlash against the word has robbed it of some associations it had in the 80s.

It's always context.

[The Original An Gadaí]

Most Roma, in Europe anyway, have more to worry about than that term.

[Sarahfeena]

Most Roma, in Europe anyway, have more to worry about than that term.

Well, sure, but it's all part of it, isn't it? Here's a spin on my question: is it less racist or offensive to use the term here in the States, where the origin is hazily understood, if at all, and where an actual Romani is unlikely to hear it being used? Is there a point where the word is completely disassociated and takes on it's own meaning and existence?

[Myrnalene]

Well, does it matter how direct the relationship is? If you "jewed someone down" or "nigger-rigged" something, it's easy to see the racist implications. "Gypped" is a good deal further from "Gypsy" (which is not what they're called anyway); at a certain point, is the distance enough that it becomes silly to worry about it?

I disagree that "gypped" is so very far from gypsy. I think the root word is pretty obvious after a second's thought, and idea of "gypsies, tramps and thieves" is hardly removed from the public consciousness. If no one is aware of the racist origins of a term, that's a different thing, but I find it hard to believe that there are no Roma about who would be offended by "gypped".

(For another example, relating this time to sexism: a lot of women's studies majors are taught that the term "rule of thumb" is a sexist reference to an item of common law that held that a man may beat his wife with a stick no larger around than his thumb. Of course, that's completely untrue, and in reality the term relates to craftsmen measuring things with their thumbs. Is it offensive to use the phrase "rule of thumb"? Some people say it is. Do we need to humor them?)

No, I don't think that people who object to "rule of thumb" and "niggardly" should be humored. I think they should be made aware of the actual origin of those terms and if they continue to take offense in the face of reason, then that's their right but I would not change my vocabulary to suit them. Your "Eskimo" example is a bit more complicated. You shouldn't call a group by a name they object to, even if they are "wrong" about the origin, but I certainly have no idea what you should call them as a group instead.

I find it really hard as a white person with privilege to answer these questions. I'm afraid on the one side of doing too little, on the other side of overstepping my place and being patronizing.

[Myrnalene]

Well, sure, but it's all part of it, isn't it? Here's a spin on my question: is it less racist or offensive to use the term here in the States, where the origin is hazily understood, if at all, and where an actual Romani is unlikely to hear it being used? Is there a point where the word is completely disassociated and takes on it's own meaning and existence?

But you do know it Sarah. We know it. The problem with talking about offensive terms completely losing their original meaning, to the point where no one remembers what it was, is that in order for that to happen people need to make the conscious decision to just ignore the offense. I personally, as a member outside the target group, don't feel comfortable doing that. It's not my word to whitewash.

[Exy]

I disagree that "gypped" is so very far from gypsy. I think the root word is pretty obvious after a second's thought, and idea of "gypsies, tramps and thieves" is hardly removed from the public consciousness. If no one is aware of the racist origins of a term, that's a different thing, but I find it hard to believe that there are no Roma about who would be offended by "gypped".

I'm not saying there aren't, and I wouldn't use the word myself. I wouldn't leap to assume racist intent on the part of someone who said it, but I agree that it's fair to inform people of its origins and suggest they not use it. But I think it's a lot less clear-cut than other racial slurs. I would certainly assume someone who said "nigger-rigged" was a racist. I think "gypped" is at least less offensive.

(The word "Gypsy" is another example of one of those words that doesn't have an exact, non-racist equivalent; not all groups traditionally termed "Gypsies" are actually Romany; there are a lot of other nomadic people who have also been traditionally called Gypsies. I don't really know anything about how Irish Travellers and other groups like that feel about being called "Gypsies".)

The "niggardly" example always comes up in these discussions, and I've always felt a little troubled by it. It's not hard to imagine how someone could use it, deliberately, to communicate a racist message. A white person could easily say, "We wouldn't want to be . . . niggardly . . . now would we?" while staring at a black colleague and their intent would be clear, even though of course the words are unrelated. And it would be particularly pernicious since if someone complained it would make them look like a nutcase or an idiot. I'm not saying that's what happened -- I don't know anything about either of the two famous cases where black people have complained about the word. But I always have wondered a little if the media ridicule of those two incidences might actually be off-base.

[Sarahfeena]

But you do know it Sarah. We know it. The problem with talking about offensive terms completely losing their original meaning, to the point where no one remembers what it was, is that in order for that to happen people need to make the conscious decision to just ignore the offense. I personally, as a member outside the target group, don't feel comfortable doing that. It's not my word to whitewash.

Yeah, I know it, and I wouldn't use it. But there ARE people who use it who have no idea, and no one they are talking to know it, either. How can it be a racist term if it's got no connection whatsoever to the ethnic group in the minds of the people who use it? Think of it this way. If I asked the person who used the term what it meant, and they were like, "it means that I was ripped off." And I said, ok, but where did it come from? And the person said, "I don't know, it's just a word I've always heard used." Is that person being racist by using the term? And if they're not, how can the term really be racist?

[The Original An Gadaí]

Is there a point where the word is completely disassociated and takes on it's own meaning and existence?

I actually think this term has got to that point, even in Europe.

[The Original An Gadaí]

Two terms you hear regularly in Ireland, and one of which got a politician in trouble recently.

Nigger in the wood pile. I've heard it but don't really understand it, I think it is something like the thing that upsets the apple cart?

He/she/they worked them like blacks. A prominent politician used this with regard to her campaign team a couple of years ago and got in trouble for it. Now persumably this has something to do with slavery but it means, they were worked very hard. It actually doesn't mean anything negative necessarily but is seen as racist.

[Cluricaun]

Nigger in the wood pile[/I]. I've heard it but don't really understand it, I think it is something like the thing that upsets the apple cart?

See here in the states, if you make a big pile of wood it's inevitable that a black person will come and hide in it. Nobody knows why. Even the people hiding in the pile don't know why they're there. Cities with large African American populations, like Atlanta or Compton were once vast logging communities that had to be abandoned due to the fact that the lumber surplus quickly became housing when the loggers weren't looking.

[jali]

See here in the states, if you make a big pile of wood it's inevitable that a black person will come and hide in it. Nobody knows why. Even the people hiding in the pile don't know why they're there. Cities with large African American populations, like Atlanta or Compton were once vast logging communities that had to be abandoned due to the fact that the lumber surplus quickly became housing when the loggers weren't looking.

We LOVE to play hide and seek!

[Cluricaun]

Well there you go. Hide and seek, I should have guessed that.

[Glazer]

The underground railroad was just a big game of hide and seek.

[Papaw]

Nigger in the woodpile in my part of the US means there is probably some Negro blood in the family tree. (and I don't mean the hangin' tree!)

Personally, I think we make too much of whether someone or some group might be offended by the use of a word like gypped. Obvious words that truly are offensive should be avoided, but one could make the case that many of our expressions may have been offensive at one time or another.

[The Original An Gadaí]

In about 1993, Collins Dictionary (I think) had a secondary definition of Irish as "stupid".

[What Exit?]

In about 1993, Collins Dictionary (I think) had a secondary definition of Irish as "stupid".

Odd, I had heard the expression "Get my Irish up" usually said by Irish-Americans, and thus I would have thought Irish meant something like misguided righteous anger not stupid.

[The Original An Gadaí]

It could have another meaning in North America, I believe this was primarily used in Britain.

[Cluricaun]

I know that "Irish" in America can also be a slang term for alcohol, as in "Hey Bob, want me to Irish up your coffee?" i.e. to add a shot or two of whiskey to it.

[What Exit?]

I know that "Irish" in America can also be a slang term for alcohol, as in "Hey Bob, want me to Irish up your coffee?" i.e. to add a shot or two of whiskey to it.

Good point, I forgot that one and have not heard it in years, many years.

[Exy]

Good point, I forgot that one and have not heard it in years, many years.

Huh, I always thought that was made up for an episode of the Simpsons.

Anyway, I would say that that term doesn't really have racist origins. You'd say "Irish up this coffee" because you're making Irish coffee -- so named because it has Irish whiskey in it. Right?

[Myrnalene]

Well, if you squint you could say that it refers to the stereotype of Irish as drunks and therefore is offensive, but that's rather too far down the rabbit hole for me.

[Cluricaun]

Based on the different contexts that I've heard the term used, it denotes that the Irish are a drunken group, and therefore adding alcohol to anything makes it "Irish", regardless if you're adding Powers or Smirnoff.

[parzival]

Then there's the other use of 'Irish', as in "get s.o.'s Irish up" - make them angry. Both of those I've only ever heard used semi-ironically by people of Irish descent, not by anyone actually trying to offend the Irish. But I don't doubt it used to work that way.


Just yesterday I saw someone post in a discussion forum a solution for someone's problem. Another person chimed in with "Cool, Negro!". Now, the person being responded to was from Italy and the other person was (apparently) from Ukraine or Russia. I don't think there was exactly offense intended, but clearly this isn't the sort of thing one expects in a public forum.

[The Original An Gadaí]

So Irish means angry, stupid and drunk. It's actually kinda accurate. Objection withdrawn your honour.

[Obelix]

He/she/they worked them like blacks. A prominent politician used this with regard to her campaign team a couple of years ago and got in trouble for it. Now persumably this has something to do with slavery but it means, they were worked very hard. It actually doesn't mean anything negative necessarily but is seen as racist.

In French, a nègre littéraire or simply nègre (literally, literary Negro or nigger) means a ghostwriter. That is, someone who works hard with little recognition for someone else's profit. It doesn't seem to be considered a racist term as far as I can tell. I find it a bit jarring (the word nègre is usually avoided in French, even though it isn't nearly as offensive as "nigger" is in American English), but it's true that it does not actually impugn the character of black people.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Nigger in the wood pile. I've heard it but don't really understand it, I think it is something like the thing that upsets the apple cart?

Not really. The original meaning, as seen in such works as Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (originally titled Ten Little Niggers in Britain, then Ten Little Indians in America), is "some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed - something suspicious or wrong". As in, "The new legislative plan seemed good, but the nigger in the woodpile was that it would bankrupt the state in five years with no additional funding." Note: I am not in any way advocating the return of this phrase to general use.

Racist cartoon from Wikipedia calling the Republican party's anti-slavery stance the "nigger in the woodpile" of their platform:


Political cartoons used to have a lot more dialogue.

[Exy]

Not really. The original meaning, as seen in such works as Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (originally titled Ten Little Niggers in Britain, then Ten Little Indians in America), is "some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed - something suspicious or wrong". As in, "The new legislative plan seemed good, but the nigger in the woodpile was that it would bankrupt the state in five years with no additional funding."

That may well be true, I found the same thing when I looked for information on the phrase, although I've only ever heard it used in the other sense -- as in speculating that a white person might have a black ancestor. Not that it's in real wide use anymore, but I'm wondering if the (apparently) original definition has faded from use entirely.

[Hatshepsut]

Just to add another example to the discussion, perhaps "Dutch treat" could be interpreted as a slur? I never thought of it as such, but I did spend one merry afternoon being entertained by an Indonesian family who were startled, when they were in Holland, at what from an Indonesian standpoint they interpreted as shockingly stingy behavior. For example, when they were invited to dinner, the host served new potatoes. Before she cooked them, she went around the room asking everyone to say exactly how many potatoes they were going to eat, so that she could cook just the right number. Indonesians would never do that - they would proudly serve whole heaps of potatoes, more than anyone could be expected to eat, and then they would encourage guests to leave with leftovers.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Just to add another example to the discussion, perhaps "Dutch treat" could be interpreted as a slur?

Yeah, of course it is. All those "Dutch <something>" terms originate from Anglo-Dutch rivalry, particularly the Anglo-Dutch Wars. Usually, it means "cheap" or "false". Examples:
—"Dutch treat" or "Going Dutch" is "treating" someone to a date in which they have to pay for their own expenses.
—"Dutch courage" is alcohol-induced.
—A "Dutch wife" is a prostitute.
—"Dutch comfort" is saying that things could be worse.
—A "Dutch uncle" is someone who is harsh yells angrily at people to criticize them, rather than being friendly, permissive, and "uncle-like".
—A "Dutch over" is a cooking pot, not an oven.

[Oliveloaf]

Gosh, it's been a coon's age since some Indian giver asked me this. Let me Jerry rig an answer, or you'll feel gypped. It's like watching the Redskins or the Indians at a bar. You want to mention "team speed" but you look around the place quickly to see who's within earshot. Well...if you gotta look, don't say it.

It's like my uncle Whitey used to say before bargaining with the local money lenders, "If there's skirt steak on the menu, the owner's probably Greek."

[The Original An Gadaí]

I think there's a beauty and poignancy to the term Indian Summer that belies its racist origin and I think it would be a shame for this term to be proscribed. I wonder do any Indians find it offensive?