Racial epithet makes news

[Baker, John M.]

        I'm in full agreement with Jon's comments on public discourse.
I think that nothing is gained by the current tendency to jump on what
is in reality an innocent use, on the theory that someone might be
offended by it.  I would have more sympathy if those complaining were in
fact American Indians, but I know of no reason to think that was the
case.  Steele's use of "Honest Injun" does not mean that he is
anti-Indian; it tells us nothing about his attitude toward American
Indians.  Frankly, there are plenty of reasons to be critical of Michael
Steele without seizing on what was only a careless choice of words.

        I think there is an interesting question, though, as to what
extent an otherwise offensive term is ameliorated by its use in a set
phrase.  Certainly some speakers and writers think that it is:  For
example, Agatha Christie on several occasions used the phrase "nigger in
the woodpile."  I don't know of any other occasions when she used
"nigger"; she probably would have thought it inconsistent, when used on
a stand-alone basis, with the tone she sought.  Contemporary editions of
her work seem to have the phrase edited out, which would seem to imply
that the word retains some measure of its offensive character, even when
used in a set phrase.


John Baker



-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Lighter
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:57 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Racial epithet makes news

If I may play the devil's advocate, "Injun" may be rightly offensive in
ordinary discourse for obvious reasons. That does not entail that the
phrase
"Honest Injun" is meant to be or should reasonably be understood as
offensive.  For critics to jump on Steele with both feet for saying
"Honest
Injun" and for CNN implicitly to endorse that reaction (when it could
have
reported it without comment) strikes me as disproportionate to the
offense.
(Like that matters.)

By the way, not every member of a given ethnic group is honest.  So
what?
Nobody is claiming, AFAIK, that Steele is an anti-Indian racist,
despises
Native Americans, or used the phrase in anything other than a
spontaneous,
humorous way - humorous because children appear to me to be/ have been
its
primary users; an adult's saying "Honest Injun!" implies to me a
rhetorical
assertion of truthfulness and lack of guile. It is not a way of saying,
"Oh,
I almost forgot!  Never trust an Indian! Now where was I?"

Of course, intention and reason have only limited application to
discussions
of and reactions to language.  The fact that "Honest Injun!" *can* be
understood to imply by  contentious, hyperanalytical persons, that not
all
Indians are honest does not mean that Steele intended it to imply that
or to
imply anything at all about Indians. What it means is, "I'm telling you
the
truth."

And of course the number and proportion of Native Americans who actually
felt offended or outraged by Steele's phrase, or would have felt that
way if
they'd heard of it, is unknowable.  The logic of the critics seems to be
that all Indians and right-thinking others *ought to be* outraged.

I'm not sure just when Steele uttered the fatal words, but the reaction
is
comparable to the programmatic outrage at Harry Reid for alluding
indelicately to Barrack Obama's manner of speech.

I'm not recommending the use of "Honest Injun!"  Obviously, the entire
incident suggests that one should not use it. I'm condemning
self-righteous
knee-jerk reactions and gotcha politics.

Silly me.

JL
--

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