Victor Steinbok aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM
Sat Nov 26 01:25:30 UTC 2011

Not to disagree, but I don't think it's the issue of the /word/ being
racist. The word is what it is--although, of course, some words may
include that aspect in and of themselves. But, in this case, it is the
/use/ of the word that would be racist--precisely because the idea of
"kept in his/her place" is not as eradicated as you seem to believe.
And, when the comment is made by someone who is /known/ to push the
boundaries on such issues quite deliberately, all bets are off. (Just
recall the total denial following the flap over the comments about
McNabb, for example.)


On 11/25/2011 7:59 PM, James A. Landau <JJJRLandau at netscape.com> wrote:
> ...
> One can claim "uppity" is a "racist" word, but I think not. What
> happens is that "uppity" has such a specific meaning that it rarely
> occurs outside a race-relations context, which means that the text
> surrounding the word can easily be racist, but not the word itself.
> ...

The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

More information about the Ads-l mailing list