2 ms·

They claimed that describing this word as a slur is inaccurate. This word is commonly used and described as a slur.

drorco 6y ago
I think what happens is that overtime certain groups have taken "ownership" over the word by using it as a racial slur but originally it just means "someone from Kush". In Hebrew if you take a location and add "I" as a suffix it means someone originating from that place, e.g: "Americai"-> someone from America, "Kushi"-> someone from Kush which is a country occasionally used in the bible to refer to Africa. I guess in English there are also such words that originally had no use as a slur but later "denominated" to racial slurs. The reference to Kushi->Kof (monkey) is totally off. Doesn't sound similar at all for my native Hebrew ears.
- legerdemain 6y ago
  Look, this is just childish equivocation. A lot of words that are considered offensive also have (or used to have) other, innocuous meanings. What you're doing is like a child saying "Nah-uh, this word just means happy!" A word is offensive in polite society because a population of people finds it hurtful, or because another population of people uses it in an intentionally hurtful way. Usually it's both. Innocent words can become slurs, and other slurs, over time, can become obscure and lose their power. For example, the "n-word" in English obviously comes from the Spanish or Portuguese for the color black. Despite that, it's an offensive slur. The older colloquial term in the English language for Romani people apparently comes from the word "Egyptian." There is no problem with being Egyptian. But many people find this particular word hurtful, and polite society is actively trying to retire it. Maybe you have personal ideas about what "should" or "shouldn't" be hurtful, but I'm surprised that we don't seem to agree on how people actually use these words in reality. "Kushi" can be a slur even if your grandma's pet name for you was "my little Kushi" and you love that word to death.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    This is just the euphamism treadmill in action. The name for an outgroup becomes a slur over time because it refers to an outgroup.
    - earthboundkid 6y ago
      The treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes. African American/Black have been the main terms in American language for 50 years now, with some back and forth between the two, but no further replacement.
      - Natsu 6y ago
        It doesn't stop, it just shifts to a different outgroup. I'm not aware of any societies without outgroups, are you?
      - michannne 6y ago
        What makes you think that won't change? As a Jamaican American, I look forward to the day when people stop referring to me as "black"
        earthboundkid 6y ago
        Because you prefer “Jamaican”? Or “African American”? Or nothing? I can’t tell what you mean from context. I don’t think “black” “white” and “brown” can go away as descriptors like “blond” and “redhead”, but maybe someday they will stop being identity categories. America already has large non-native black populations in certain areas (West Africans, Somalis, West Indies, etc.), but I think the country still thinks of Black = African American = descendent of U.S. slaves for now, because the non-native blacks are still mostly focused regionally, like Somalis in Minnesota. I guess this is another reason for the treadmill: distinctions that were implicit before maybe need to be made explicit as different things become salient.
        michannne 6y ago

I think what happens is that overtime certain groups have taken "ownership" over the word by using it as a racial slur but originally it just means "someone from Kush". In Hebrew if you take a location and add "I" as a suffix it means someone originating from that place, e.g: "Americai"-> someone from America, "Kushi"-> someone from Kush which is a country occasionally used in the bible to refer to Africa. I guess in English there are also such words that originally had no use as a slur but later "denominated" to racial slurs. The reference to Kushi->Kof (monkey) is totally off. Doesn't sound similar at all for my native Hebrew ears.

legerdemain 6y ago
Look, this is just childish equivocation. A lot of words that are considered offensive also have (or used to have) other, innocuous meanings. What you're doing is like a child saying "Nah-uh, this word just means happy!" A word is offensive in polite society because a population of people finds it hurtful, or because another population of people uses it in an intentionally hurtful way. Usually it's both. Innocent words can become slurs, and other slurs, over time, can become obscure and lose their power. For example, the "n-word" in English obviously comes from the Spanish or Portuguese for the color black. Despite that, it's an offensive slur. The older colloquial term in the English language for Romani people apparently comes from the word "Egyptian." There is no problem with being Egyptian. But many people find this particular word hurtful, and polite society is actively trying to retire it. Maybe you have personal ideas about what "should" or "shouldn't" be hurtful, but I'm surprised that we don't seem to agree on how people actually use these words in reality. "Kushi" can be a slur even if your grandma's pet name for you was "my little Kushi" and you love that word to death.
- Natsu 6y ago
  This is just the euphamism treadmill in action. The name for an outgroup becomes a slur over time because it refers to an outgroup.
  - earthboundkid 6y ago
    The treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes. African American/Black have been the main terms in American language for 50 years now, with some back and forth between the two, but no further replacement.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      It doesn't stop, it just shifts to a different outgroup. I'm not aware of any societies without outgroups, are you?
    - michannne 6y ago
      What makes you think that won't change? As a Jamaican American, I look forward to the day when people stop referring to me as "black"
      - earthboundkid 6y ago
        Because you prefer “Jamaican”? Or “African American”? Or nothing? I can’t tell what you mean from context. I don’t think “black” “white” and “brown” can go away as descriptors like “blond” and “redhead”, but maybe someday they will stop being identity categories. America already has large non-native black populations in certain areas (West Africans, Somalis, West Indies, etc.), but I think the country still thinks of Black = African American = descendent of U.S. slaves for now, because the non-native blacks are still mostly focused regionally, like Somalis in Minnesota. I guess this is another reason for the treadmill: distinctions that were implicit before maybe need to be made explicit as different things become salient.
        michannne 6y ago