Racial epithet makes news

Wed Jul 7 20:52:31 UTC 2010

I think one point (among others) has been missed in this thread, to wit: Our
modern conservatives don't lose points among their constituents for being
(wink, wink) racist/careless in the use of (wink, wink) racist, or possibly
racist, remarks. So, those who think Steele stupid are thinking about it
from their own point of view of taking offense at what he said and, oh my,
how could a public figure be so stupid as to give offense? Well, if that
public figure actually gains stature within his constituency, then it was
not (necessarily) stupid at all. While the liberal side is running around
gnashing teeth and wringing hands, the conservative side is saying something
along the lines of "There go the whiners again. Imagine, being upset that he
said Injun! Good for Michael!" Even if the guy (wink, wink) apologizes about
it after, it's just pro forma throwing of bone to the opposition. If you get
my drift...
DAD

PS: If someone made this point before (i.e. it had not been missed) and I in
fact missed seeing it, then apologies are proffered. I didn't, after all,
ready every single post to the end...

_________________________________
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Lighter
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:17 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Racial epithet makes news

---

The general reaction proves that Steele's statement was indeed stupid. But
was it stupid because it "shows" that Steele hates Indians, or doesn't care
how he insults Indians, or something similar; or was it stupid because in a
careless moment he uttered a term that has been condemned in its essence as
"racist" and thus opens him to knee-jerk condemnation?

My guess is that the reason is primarily (I almost wrote "chiefly" but that
might have offended) that he violated the taboo against uttering the
proscribed pronunciation "Injun."

I wonder how many people, whether they use or don't use or have quit using
"Honest Injun!" know why it has been proscribed. (Presumably because
Indian-hating bigots in fact and fiction, use it frequently. Why they do is
another, mor historical, issue.)

I wonder too by what semantic perfidy "Honest Injun!" (however spelled)
really or probably or essentially means "Most Indians are dishonest."  But
even if it does mean that, my linguistic sense since age 5 tells me that the
phrase also means no more than to represent the usage of an honest Native
American guaranteeing his own truthfulness. (That's where Dan's "Scout's
honor!" comes in, albeit tangentially.) Is it an insidiously racist concept
if unconsciously one is thinking in those terms?  Does this putative Indian
really mean to say that some or most Indians are not honest?  Or does he
mean, deep in the actual speaker's unconscious, that all Indians are in fact
honest, and he is merely emphasizing that point?

Maybe it all depends on what "means" means.

If one wishes to trudge the tedious road of
subliminal-yet-overwhelmingly-real-and-important meanings, one may as well
interpret the phrase as asserting the high degree of trustworthiness of
Native Americans. This interpretation is made plausible by the received
stress-pattern. "Injun" always gets the emphasis. If dishonesty were being
alleged, I'd expect the emphasis to fall on "Honest!" The putative Native
American in my unconscious is saying, "I am an Indian! Therefore you may
trust my word!"

But maybe that's just my unconscious, formed by exposure to positive, albeit
simplistic, pop icons like Tonto (Jay Silverheels), Cochise (Michael
Ansara), Chingachgook, Sitting Bull, and Pocahontas. And there was Tomahawk
in DC comics. And the guy on the nickel, whose honesty was beyond reproach.

JL

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:

-----
>
>  The first time, I meant to write (4), the second--(3). I was
> distracted from three sides and sent the follow-up without re-reading. I
> did NOT intend (5).
>
>     VS-)
>
> On 7/7/2010 2:02 PM, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Victor Steinbok wrote, as the entirety of
> his response to a posting of mine (reprinted below):
> >>   There is not reason to fail to call someone on a stupid statement...
> (1)
> > i'd say this as
> >    There isn't (any) reason to fail to call... (2)
> > or
> >    There is no reason to fail to call... (3)
> >
> > but all of these versions. (1)-(3), are ok for me (though (1) is awkward
> for me, archaic in tone), and for me all three convey something very close
> in meaning to
> >    There is no reason not to call... (4)
> >
> > which is not what you wrote.  you wrote instead
> >    There is no reason to call... (5)
> >
> > i suppose i should have made this utterly explicit in my posting, but my
> implicit question there was whether you *intended* to write (5) -- that
is,
> whether (5) can convey (4), or (1)-(3), for you, a possibility i
entertained
> in my posting -- or whether your (5) was an inadvertent error in conveying
> (1)-(4), another possibility i entertained in my posting -- or a typo, as
> you might be suggesting in your unhelpful gnomic response above.  (brevity
> isn't always a virtue.)
> >
> > just what is it that you're saying?
> >
> >> On 7/7/2010 1:06 PM, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
> >>> On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Victor Steinbok wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ... I give no discount for ignorance. There is no reason to call
> someone on
> >>>> a stupid statement just because he's unaware of it being offensive.
> >>> POTENTIAL UNDERNEGATION ALERT!
> >>>
> >>> i'm pretty sure Victor meant what i would frame as "There is no reason
> not to call someone on a stupid statement just because ..."
> >>>
> >>> note that Victor's version has an explicit negation. in "no reason
INF"
> and, in "call someone on X", an idiom with negative tone (similar to
"object
> to X"), so maybe for some people that's enough negativity to go around.
>  that is,  maybe this one has become conventionalized for some people.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2987 - Release Date: 07/07/10
03:36:00

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