Don’t read into my words
- posted: 13 Nov. 2007
- scrollopinion@byui.edu
An article in last week’s Scroll caused quite a stir in at least one classroom on campus. A few people, the nameless indignant, objected to the use of a certain word, a racial slur known euphemistically as the “n-word.”
“How could Scroll, a conservative student paper representing an LDS school, use such a word on its pages?” one might ask, and with good reason. There is no room in this newspaper, or any other, for racially demeaning language or rhetoric.
The word itself, however, is not the problem. Words are not inherently damaging or offensive. There’s no demon who spends all day finding consonant-vowel combinations that are evil in nature. Rather, it’s the ideas behind the words that are damaging or evil.
If the word itself isn’t harmful, then there’s nothing wrong with using the word in a proper context. In this case, Scroll included the word in a story to show that a book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, had once been banned for the word’s use. The issue in this case was the word itself, not the idea behind it. Scroll was not using “nigger” to refer to a person, but rather was referring to the word itself, a unique combination of inscriptions, a signifier.
Deciding when to be offended by the use of a word should depend on the context of the word itself. Does that mean that we should throw profane words into every discussion about profanity? Absolutely not.
But objecting to the use of a word in a non-derogatory, non-profane way is “seeing evil where there is none,” in the words of one English professor. Our language is always changing — one of the reasons it’s such a wonder — which means that it is not so much the word that matters, but the intent.
So, don’t look for evil where there is none. Don’t assume that every use of a specific word carries the same meaning for everybody or includes the same feelings. Don’t be so “politically correct” that you miss the point.
After all, if we tried to eliminate every word from our language that communicates a hateful, derogatory or harmful idea, our language would be bare, and we’d run out of euphemisms. When you make reference to the “n-word,” how do I know you’re not talking about “nudity,” “Nazism,” “NCMO,” “narcotics,” “numskull,” “necromancy,” “nocuous,” “nitwit,” “neglect,” “nihilist,” “nematode,” “neurotic,” “nerd,” “niggard” “ninny,” “noisome,” “noxious,” “nefarious,” “nut,” or — the real kicker — “newspaper?”
“Nonsense!” you reply. And I can only agree. 
