Arnold Zwicky zwicky at STANFORD.EDU
Mon Nov 28 02:21:06 UTC 2011

On Nov 25, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Victor Steinbok wrote:

> 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.)
>     VS-)
> 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.
>> ...

we went through "uppity" here in September 2008.


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

More information about the Ads-l mailing list