If they are then, it would seem to me, it is simply an extension of the ‘Black Pride’ movement.

But there is a considerable difference between the word being used in that way, and it being used by others.

I doubt there will ever be a time when I would feel comfortable using it, and that, probably, is at it should be.

The fact that it is unacceptable to say the n-word, to the point where even white supremacists would probably hesitate to say it outside of their own circles, doesn’t necessarily change the opinions of those white supremacists. However, it does have two important benefits:

1) The rest of the world doesn’t have to listen to them, making it generally a much pleasanter place to be

and

2) it creates an atmosphere which is no longer quite as conducive to racism, and doesn’t constantly re-inforce individuals’ racism with repetition of racist things.

The fact that it is unacceptable to say the n-word carries with it a whole bundle of other ideas, about it being unacceptable to be racist. To understand why it is unacceptable to say the n-word is to at least absorb a little bit of that rationale.

OK, so it may not have that much of an effect on the hardliners, and it’s not going to solve all society’s race related problems. But it’s a tiny bit of a start, and it’s much better than just saying “everyone speak their mind”!

Incidentally, except in New York I believe, no one is actually prohibiting people from using the n-word. But they face social exclusion if they do – quite rightly, because it identifies them as a racist. There should be consequences like that for individuals. I’m perfectly happy for that to be the case, myself!

“… rooted in the syncretic application of Marxist class theory to the politics of culture and identity …”

Anyone know what syncretic means, apart from being an anagram of ‘syc cretin’ ?

Anyway, my eyes started to glaze over at that point, and the last thing I remember before the desk came up to meet me were the words ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’ – then everything went dark …

I think you are yourself in danger of buying into the myth of the politically correct bogeyman. Every time Phillips, Clarkson, McKenzie, Littlejohn, Gaunt, Heffer, Johnson B, Davidson J or the late, unlamented Manning want(ed) to say something unacceptable, they trot out the spectre of the “thought police” swooping down on them. This gives them the cachet of anti-establishment rebels, when in fact they are singling out vulnerable sections of society to victimise and bully. Let’s remember who the villains are in this debate and not castigate those who go far in too the opposite direction (if they exist) as equally culpable.

“Queer” has been “reclaimed” (that’s two sets of inverted commas already) quite successfully, hasn’t it?

I’ve written plenty of articles on the debate surrounding the reclaiming of the word ‘Paki’. There was even a BBC 2 programme about that whereby some Pakistanis wanted to reclaim the word.

But if a non-offensive alternative exists, and is wisely used, why not use that instead of trying to bring back a controversial phrase that is forever tainted?

If would make no sense at all to replace the use of nigger in that context because a neutral term such as Black or African Caribbean would strip the reference of its full meaning and impact.

But that’s a quote! Of course you’re not going to replace it with anything else. (Although I’d probably be tempted to star out most of the word, myself.)

Lots of interesting info about the history of the term ‘politically correct’. But I would contend that in common usage, all it really means is not talking like or writing like a bigot.

I just don’t see why that should stop serious discussions of the history of the n-word, or racism or any other issue?

My feeling is that most people who rail against political correctness are using the ‘PC gone mad’ argument as a proxy, because they can no longer indulge their racist, sexist or homophobic tendancies in public in the way they wish they could.

In short, I’m going to carry on saying ‘n-word’. Sorry!

I would hope to be more outrageous, natch.

Because they may not suit the context or convey the correct meaning and/or desired impact.

For example, I might – and probably would – refer to the Smethwick by-election in the 1960′s as the one in which the Tories used the now infamous ‘nigger’ slogan – they put out leaflets with the slogan, ‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour”.

If would make no sense at all to replace the use of nigger in that context because a neutral term such as Black or African Caribbean would strip the reference of its full meaning and impact.

I might also use the word ironically in referencing remarks that are clearly racist but careful written to avoid the use of racial epithets, much as I would have no qualms about using nominally offensive terms (say queer or shirt-lifter) as a counterpoint to Mad Mel’s comments that I quoted above in order to drive home the point as to how prejudiced and offensive her remarks are.

When Aaron covered that same article he went with the title ‘I blame the gays’, which is fine if a tad bland for my tastes, which as you know tend towards being somewhat more confrontational. I would have been inclined to go for the throat with a title for that piece that was much more in your face and – taken out of context – even nakedly offensive, purely to highlight just how bad Mad Mel’s piece was, and would have no problems defending that approach as one in which a nominally offensive comment is justified by context.

What would be the appropriate context? And why not just use alternatives like black, African, Afro-Caribbean etc?