N-Word: The Inaugural Debate

Last Friday, we engaged in a public debate with one another about who can use the “n-word.” Held on the campus of North Central College, we spent an hour and a half pushing each other to consider the nuances of the debate, while some of the 130 audience members in attendance asked questions that further probed the difficulties of this contemporary issue.

TWIR readers will recall that we have blogged on related topics a number of times in the past year. On March 2, we addressed New York City’s banning of the word. Then, on July 14, we addressed how the “ban-the-word” trend had been gaining more momentum. But our discussion Friday centered not on whether the word should be banned, but rather assuming that the word is to be used, who should be able to use it and under what circumstances.

To that end, we framed the debate in this way. We can envision a continuum on which this issue can be discussed. That continuum is bound by the two extremes: anyone can use it under any circumstances, and no one can use it under any circumstances. But in between those extremes is a great deal of variance.

1. (extreme) Anyone can use the n-word under any circumstances.
Very few Americans hold this position today. Recognizing the painful history of the word, few would argue that it is appropriate for white folk to use it as an insult toward African Americans.

2. Any racial minority can use the word, and they can use it anytime and any way they like.

Stemming from a belief that members of racial minority groups are similarly oppressed by a power system that puts them at a disadvantage, it can be argued that use of the n-word by Latinos, for instance, is acceptable. Few Americans would accept this position because of the implications of having the word be used in a hateful way toward African Americans by non-blacks. Latino hip-hop artist Fat Joe uses the term often, for instance.

3. Persons of any race can use the n-word so long as it is not used derogatorily and the context is understood. This is increasingly common with white youngsters who have grown up listening to hip-hop music where black artists use the word liberally. In this scenario, the white person’s black friends (some race theorists have referred to them as “post-black”) must explicitly or tacitly approve of the word being used.

4. Any racial minority can use the n-word, but it can not be used in a derogatory manner toward African Americans or anyone else. This is similar to number 3, but by expanding the usage to all racial minorities (similar to number 2), the implicit solidarity between members of historically disadvantaged racial groups is preserved.

5. Persons of any race can use it with persons of color who use it in one of the contexts noted in positions three or four. For instance, if a white person is singing along to his or her favorite hip-hop song, he or she does not have to censor the n-word if it is used by the artist.

6. Persons of any race can use the word, but only with respect to talking about its historic power as a symbol and tool of oppression. For instance, white professors teaching about it may use it in an academic context.

7. Only African Americans can use the n-word, and they can use it anytime and any way they like. While this position is rarely advocated, it is used in practice. We hear, for instance, black youth using the word toward one another in anger.

8. Only African Americans can use the n-word, but not to offend; it may be used in an effort to reclaim the word and, therefore, disempower it. Much like LGBT folks have appropriated the once-harmful word “queer,” it can be argued that since it is widely unaccepted for whites to use the n-word, but at the same time commonplace for blacks to use it, African Americans have wrestled the word from the oppressors and maintain it for themselves.

9. (extreme) No one can use the n-word under any circumstances. This is the position taken by the NAACP, Bill Cosby, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. That is, it’s the “bury the n-word” position.

In the debate Friday, Charlton essentially argued position 4. Stephen advocated explicitly for position 6 (though he did not offer any language that would rule out positions 2, 4, 7, 8 or 9). In other words, Stephen argued that white people should not use the word under any circumstances whatsoever. He gave three reasons for this argument:

1) As a group, whites have benefited by the use of the n-word, so we should not be involved in the discussion about whether black folks should use it. Any attempt to do so is intellectual colonialism.

2) The argument that it’s a double standard to accept the word’s use by black folk but not by whites doesn’t hold water. Fairness does not always necessitate equality. If both groups were on equal footing with respect to power (both historically and currently), it may.

3) Even in intellectual settings, the use of the word by whites should not be used; whites do not deserve a seat at the table where determinations about the word’s use are held. Charlton argued that symbolically burying the word dooms us to repeat our past. If white educators, in particular, avoid the word, such action only serves to give the word more power. He challenged the white audience members to read aloud the name of Randall Kennedy’s book “Nigger,” and none would do so. He asked if they would be willing to carry the book around campus.

It was an excellent discussion, which will be revisited at a closed session for faculty and graduate students at the Adler School of Professional Psychology on November 14. The North Central debate was recorded, however, and will online soon. We will include a link to the file here when it is available.

Louisiana Elects Its First Non-White Governor: But How Smart Is He?

In a crowded field of 12 candidates, Bobby Jindal emerged with a majority of the vote for Louisiana governor, avoiding a runoff election that would have been mandatory under Louisiana’s rules that a candidate must receive a majority (as opposed to a plurality) of the votes to take the office. The election is notable because Jindal is of Indian descent, is only 36 years old, is a racial minority Republican, is the state’s first non-white governor since Reconstruction, and– since he’s not black – he was smart enough to win and may just be smart enough to do the job.

Earlier in the week, Nobel Prize-winning DNA scientist James Watson reportedly told The Times of London that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.” On Thursday, Watson apologized, saying, “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.” Watson added, “I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.” Okay, that’s not true, but the apology sounded eerily similar to that statement, which Michael Richards gave after his racist tirade last November.

The truth is that while it is possible that Watson was misquoted (he’s stopped short of saying that), there have been reports in the past (all discredited) that persons of African descent were less intelligent than Caucasians. There’s no evidence of this, but even if there were, it would not render moot the nature v. nurture debate that has been ongoing for centuries – a debate that has increased in relevance in the wake of movements worldwide for rights of racial minorities, women and non-heterosexuals. To clarify, even if the field of evolutionary psychology eventually came to embrace the notion that there are significant differences in intelligence between members of different races that are larger than those that would occur by chance, it would hardly be justification for oppression or inequality. Contrary to popular notions that infer that early findings in the subfield result in (and/or are driven by) essentialism, the reality is that genetic adaptation leading to biological differences (nature) comes about as a result of environmental factors (nurture).

So while such findings do not exist with respect to intelligence and race, their existence, far from justifying centuries of mistreatment of Africans and persons of African descent, would rather suggest that the mistreatment has been so persistent and severe as to result in biological adaptation. The whole thing is a big “what if” at this point, but even though Watson’s comments were irresponsible and misguided, we are not concerned that they are anything more than 1) a misquote; 2) an unclear statement misinterpreted; or, at worst, 3) a racist comment made by someone who just happens to be involved in DNA science. He appropriately canceled his British book tour, should be pressed about the comments, and deserves the embarrassment that will surely plague his career (though this is not the first controversial statement he has made). Our real concern, however, is that he may actually be right if the results of the Louisiana governor’s race is any indication!

In a gubernatorial contest that spawned vociferous voices for and against the young phenom, Bobby Jindal – featuring websites with creative names such as JindalIsGood.com and JindalisBad.com (seriously, we did NOT make that up) – it was African Americans who may have made the difference. Many Louisiana pundits believed the election hinged on the black vote, and while we have not seen exit poll results, we wonder if Jindal was simply able to outsmart black voters. Maybe he just walked through predominantly black neighborhoods and told folks that he would give them each a car if they’d vote for him. Or perhaps he told them that he could guarantee reparations if he got elected. Maybe he told them that they would never have to worry about world peace with a Jindal administration.

Perhaps James Watson has a future in political consulting.

Divide and Conquer: African Americans Expelled from Cherokee Nation

An op-ed in this weekend’s USA Today brought back to the national agenda an issue that has been stewing since last winter. In a dispute apparently driven by financial incentives, Cherokee nation members voted overwhelmingly in March to purge some 2,800 blacks of tribal membership. The “freedmen” are, in part, ancestors of former slaves who were awarded Cherokee citizenship via a treaty from the mid-19^th Century. With the potential of new casino revenues on the horizon, purging these members of their membership would result in a bigger payoff for those with Cherokee blood.

Spencer Overton at blackprof.com was all over this when the vote first took place, as was Yo' Nas Da LoneWolf McCall-Muhammad, an Oglala Lakota black woman. She asks why groups of oppressed minorities are turning on one another rather than fighting together.

While the details are unique, this is a familiar story. When one group has predominant access to power and systemically deny that access to “others,” the marginalized groups have two choices: to fight together for access to power or to fight with one another for the scraps that might remain. Throughout history, we have seen both strategies; the former has led to more equality while the latter has allowed the dominant group to remain in power.

In an AP story last week, Gillian Flaccus noted the racial element of the current situation. We want to point out, as well, that racial stereotypes are certainly at work here. John Velie, attorney for the freedmen, is quoted as saying, “They're scared that if the freedmen come in and vote, a bunch of 'welfare blacks' will come in and take their benefits. . . It's just racism.” The vision of African Americans being happily dependent on handouts is a long-standing image, reinforced most prominently by the Reagan Administrations depiction of the “welfare mother” in the 1980s. Even though “welfare” benefits were dramatically reduced during the 1990s, such a stereotype remains.

It is common with respect to political and military strategy to “divide and conquer.” The only way a minority group (i.e., white men) can continue to dominate the majority is to make sure that the latter is not unified. By introducing and reinforcing racial stereotypes, disparate “out groups” learn to be distrustful and suspect of one another, leading them to compete with one another, rather than work together for common benefit. Such a scenario is being played out in the Cherokee nation – part of a group that had been targeted for genocide (successfully, for the most part) – which has every intention of protecting what its members perceive is “theirs.” When it was beneficial to join with black Americans in solidarity, they did so. Now that it seems preferable to split, more then ¾ have voted to do just that. Two social groups that should be allies for long-term gains are thus enemies for short-term profit. The winner: the dominant group. It’s a familiar story.

Maybe Someone Was Just Leaving the Doll As a Gift for a Black Co-worker?

This past Monday, a black doll bearing “a racial epithet directed at an unspecified black woman” was found hanging in an employee-only area in a Pittsburgh Port Authority garage. This is merely the most recent of a string of similar incidents, including last year’s most visible episode in Jena, Louisiana. Last week, a noose was found hanging in a police station in Hempstead, New York after the department posted a notice of their intention to participate “in a count-ywide effort to recruit minorities and women as police officers.”

Such incidents are intolerable and abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of Americans. There’s no question about that. We know that, you know that, and the perpetrators of these acts surely know that. Then why do it?

Those who wish to intimidate people of color almost always do so anonymously these days because of the understanding that such acts – indeed, such attitudes – are socially unacceptable. The easy answer is that these folks are 1) bigoted and 2) cowardly.

Both are true, but leaving it at that has consequences beyond condemning the acts and vilifying those who engage in them: It allows the rest of us off the hook for wondering why these blatant forms of hatred still occur some 50 years after nine scared but brave black students defied their state’s governor (and, in reality, a significant segment of the American public) by showing up for classes at Little Rock High Central High School. We can chalk it up to a handful of bigots whose parents simply didn’t raise them right. We can congratulate ourselves for not being racist since we would never do something like that, and for being outraged that anyone would.

The reasons that such acts are done, however, is that they can be effective despite public outrage. If you are African American and work in the Pittsburgh Port Authority system, live in Jena, Louisiana or work as a police officer in Hempsetead, New York, you have yet another powerful reminder that you live in a nation that: was founded on perceptions of your inhumanity; slowly and reluctantly accepted your status as human; continued to find creative ways to legally, socially and psychologically keep you in your place; skirt legislation ostensibly designed to level the playing field by “red lining” real estate, under-funding public schools in your neighborhoods, and incarcerating your children at rates highly disproportionate to your community’s population; and, most recently, have learned to hate you more quietly. Similar to the reasons that so-called “negative” (attack) ads are used in political campaigns, the risk of offending public sensibilities is offset by the likelihood that one’s substantive point will be made, and made clearly.

Both the Pittsburgh and Hempstead cases provide illustrations of how badly we all wish to believe that these cases are anomalies, rather than indications of deeply ingrained racism in our communities. Patrick McMahon, president and business agent of the union that represents some Port Authority workers, responded to the hanging doll incident as follows: "As far as it being racial, I haven't heard that. . . .This is upsetting, just a very upsetting thing. It's so unfortunate that, in today's world, we have people who are so ugly and small-minded. . . .To me, there is no room for that kind of nonsense."

He hasn’t “heard” whether it might be racial? Seriously? A black doll with a racial epithet was found hanging – lynching style – in a workplace. What, we wonder, would be a clear indication to Mr. MacMahon that something racial was going on?

John Nedd, president of a black police officers’ group in Hempsetad Village (we’re guessing he’s black) responded as follows: “It's astonishing to hear something like this is happening in Nassau County in 2007, especially in Hempstead Village.” This is the president of the black police officers’ association, we should remind you. If HE is surprised that this stuff still goes on (even in a two-week period where there were three incidents that made national news), we need little more evidence that most Americans have been convinced that racism is dead. Or, perhaps, Nedd understands that it’s there, but expects bigots to be smart enough to keep it hidden. Either way, we find little comfort in our continued collective self-imposed blindness with respect to racism.