5 ms·

The Norwegian word for blacks used to be something that isn't allowed to be uttered anymore. It started becoming a problem only after we got a few black America

by kebman 6y ago

The Norwegian word for blacks used to be something that isn't allowed to be uttered anymore. It started becoming a problem only after we got a few black American migrants, and other migrants influenced by American culture to Norway. These people didn't understand the context of the word, and so they became violently offended when anyone used the word, even if the the word has always been a completely harmless description and not a slur within Norwegian culture. (Trust me, you'd know if a slur was used!) But because it offended so many newcommers, and since a synonym was readily available, Norwegians didn't think it was a hill worth dying on, and so they just cut it out of everday use. Today it is regarded as a big faux pas to use the word. Meanwhile some Norwegians still feel offended that foreigners who do not understand their culture, take to dictating how Norwegians should or should not speak. Personally I honestly don't know which is worse; offending someone because you said something with the best of intentions, or forcing someone to submit to arbitrary rules to avoid that they get offended, even if you utter such words with the best of intentions.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
> ... or forcing someone to submit to arbitrary rules to avoid that they get offended, even if you utter such words with the best of intentions. Spoiler alert: this one is worse.
Klinky 6y ago
Uttering a word someone finds offensive "with the best intentions" doesn't make it less offensive. If you continue to utter the word, then your intentions are probably not as pure as you think.
- phkahler 6y ago
  >> Uttering a word someone finds offensive "with the best intentions" doesn't make it less offensive. It was a Norwegian word probably new to those offended. Isnt the offense absurd? Nobody should bend for that.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    I am guessing the word here is "neger", and is more akin to the US use of the word "negro" than the slur "Nier"[looks like HN censors even my censored version of the slur to "Nier"]. Even in the US "negro" has mostly fallen out of general use, and is considered derogatory in most casual contexts.
    - marvin 6y ago
      As mentioned in sibling thread, unless GP is 80 years old and has had their head in the sand for the last 30 of them, the word in question is likely "svart" (black) rather than "neger" (negro).
      - Klinky 6y ago
        It would have been nice if GP had actually noted the word, and no they do not need to be 80 years old to have possibly meant "neger", it depends I guess on their intentions... Edit: Frankly I am not sure why they would have meant "svart" while blaming specifically "American migrants". It seems "neger" would be much more immediately offensive to someone coming from the US.
- least 6y ago
  Why is the onus on the speaker to change their behavior to accommodate a person who's taken offense to a a word that is completely innocuous?
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    If the speakers knows they are causing offense by using a word that was used to subjugate slaves, it starts to look like an extension of that racial subjugation. The word was used by speakers of a different language, and didn’t historically have the same meaning in Norway. But given the increased cultural and economic integration present in modern society, we all have to become a little bit aware of issues that are affecting people we interact with, in order to be decent citizens. At the same time, if somebody doesn’t know the pain they are causing, we should inform them with kindness and forgiveness. After the Holocaust, some terms historically used to describe Jewish people became verboten, essentially out of respect for the serious nature of the consequences of anti-Semitism. Do you think it’s unjust that this cultural prohibition extends to nations that didn’t participate in the Holocaust? Might it be appropriate to treat the international calamity that is slavery with the same seriousness? To answer your question more directly: The onus is mostly on the people who were subjugated to continue suffering the lasting effects of that. The burden on the people who find out that a word they use causes harm seems quite small in comparison (a good example of a “first world problem”). Whether that burden is too harsh to bear is up to each individual.
    - least 6y ago
      I think "cultural prohibition" of words is generally bad, extending to words that are forbidden in the US. The idea of "privileged words" that only a subset of people can utter is ridiculous to me. It's particularly egregious when it is essentially American imperialism on language used in other countries. > To answer your question more directly: The onus is mostly on the people who were subjugated to continue suffering the lasting effects of that. They are required to suffer the lasting effects of racist policies past or present. There is zero responsibility to be offended by homonyms of offensive terms. > The burden on the people who find out that a word they use causes harm seems quite small in comparison (a good example of a “first world problem”). Whether that burden is too harsh to bear is up to each individual. There shouldn't be a burden on them, period. A person being offended by homonyms is a result of their own stupidity. The only exception to that being someone saying said homonyms in bad faith... which clearly isn't the case here.
- marvin 6y ago
  That seems like an unreasonable statement when meeting a culture that's not your own. Let's say you're offended by the word "blank" because of cultural transgressions that have happened throughout the last 100 years of history in your country. You then emigrate to a different culture that hasn't experienced the context of these transgressions. The word "blank" is in their language used in a purely descriptive sense. You make it very clear to everyone you meet that you find their word for "blank" offensive, but the local alternatives are more clumsy and those who try to use them will likely confuse or be misunderstood. I don't consider it reasonable to expect others to conform to your offense in this case; it's a case of forcing a cultural context onto a culture where it doesn't apply. Americans have a bit of a reputation for this kind of thing, unfortunately. Probably due to the massive export of American culture that was alluded to elsewhere.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    There is obviously nuance, but if the word sounds like a slur, and is used generally to describe people of a certain race, then the offended can certainly express their offense, and the culture should consider the offended person's position. In this case I am pretty sure the word is "neger", and yeah, I don't think we should mourn or handwring over any sort of great loss of Norweigian culture/heritage that has occurred due to them being more sensitive to using that word to describe black people. Cultures evolve.
    - Pet_Ant 6y ago
      Why should Norway evolve based on American norms or history? This is a form of American cultural colonialism.
      - Klinky 6y ago
        Looking into it, it does not look like this is solely influenced by American "cultural colonialism". Objections to the use have also been from black people who are not from the US. There may be some level of cultural ignorance regarding the connotations of the term, and its place in history. It seems "Americanisation" is often blamed, and "best/good intentions" used as an excuse to continue to use a word that offends. There is an interesting paper by Marianne Gullestad that goes into some of the previous historical debate over the term, it is not newly controversial. Culture continues to evolve. https://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/pdf/Gullestad-Normalising.pdf https://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/pdf/Gullestad...
jeffrallen 6y ago
Could you send some Norwegians to Ticino? I need help convincing my mother in law to stop saying something just as bad. I swear, going through the tunnel to Ticino is like going through a time machine.
danmaz74 6y ago
The same happened in Italy, but I think that the change happened after dubbed American movies started using the Italian word to translate the n word. This associated the originally neutral word to offensive contexts, so the word meaning started changing for those who learned it in those contexts.

by kebman 6y ago

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

> ... or forcing someone to submit to arbitrary rules to avoid that they get offended, even if you utter such words with the best of intentions. Spoiler alert: this one is worse.

Klinky 6y ago

Uttering a word someone finds offensive "with the best intentions" doesn't make it less offensive. If you continue to utter the word, then your intentions are probably not as pure as you think.

phkahler 6y ago
>> Uttering a word someone finds offensive "with the best intentions" doesn't make it less offensive. It was a Norwegian word probably new to those offended. Isnt the offense absurd? Nobody should bend for that.
- Klinky 6y ago
  I am guessing the word here is "neger", and is more akin to the US use of the word "negro" than the slur "Nier"[looks like HN censors even my censored version of the slur to "Nier"]. Even in the US "negro" has mostly fallen out of general use, and is considered derogatory in most casual contexts.
  - marvin 6y ago
    As mentioned in sibling thread, unless GP is 80 years old and has had their head in the sand for the last 30 of them, the word in question is likely "svart" (black) rather than "neger" (negro).
    - Klinky 6y ago
      It would have been nice if GP had actually noted the word, and no they do not need to be 80 years old to have possibly meant "neger", it depends I guess on their intentions... Edit: Frankly I am not sure why they would have meant "svart" while blaming specifically "American migrants". It seems "neger" would be much more immediately offensive to someone coming from the US.
least 6y ago
Why is the onus on the speaker to change their behavior to accommodate a person who's taken offense to a a word that is completely innocuous?
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  If the speakers knows they are causing offense by using a word that was used to subjugate slaves, it starts to look like an extension of that racial subjugation. The word was used by speakers of a different language, and didn’t historically have the same meaning in Norway. But given the increased cultural and economic integration present in modern society, we all have to become a little bit aware of issues that are affecting people we interact with, in order to be decent citizens. At the same time, if somebody doesn’t know the pain they are causing, we should inform them with kindness and forgiveness. After the Holocaust, some terms historically used to describe Jewish people became verboten, essentially out of respect for the serious nature of the consequences of anti-Semitism. Do you think it’s unjust that this cultural prohibition extends to nations that didn’t participate in the Holocaust? Might it be appropriate to treat the international calamity that is slavery with the same seriousness? To answer your question more directly: The onus is mostly on the people who were subjugated to continue suffering the lasting effects of that. The burden on the people who find out that a word they use causes harm seems quite small in comparison (a good example of a “first world problem”). Whether that burden is too harsh to bear is up to each individual.
  - least 6y ago
    I think "cultural prohibition" of words is generally bad, extending to words that are forbidden in the US. The idea of "privileged words" that only a subset of people can utter is ridiculous to me. It's particularly egregious when it is essentially American imperialism on language used in other countries. > To answer your question more directly: The onus is mostly on the people who were subjugated to continue suffering the lasting effects of that. They are required to suffer the lasting effects of racist policies past or present. There is zero responsibility to be offended by homonyms of offensive terms. > The burden on the people who find out that a word they use causes harm seems quite small in comparison (a good example of a “first world problem”). Whether that burden is too harsh to bear is up to each individual. There shouldn't be a burden on them, period. A person being offended by homonyms is a result of their own stupidity. The only exception to that being someone saying said homonyms in bad faith... which clearly isn't the case here.
marvin 6y ago
That seems like an unreasonable statement when meeting a culture that's not your own. Let's say you're offended by the word "blank" because of cultural transgressions that have happened throughout the last 100 years of history in your country. You then emigrate to a different culture that hasn't experienced the context of these transgressions. The word "blank" is in their language used in a purely descriptive sense. You make it very clear to everyone you meet that you find their word for "blank" offensive, but the local alternatives are more clumsy and those who try to use them will likely confuse or be misunderstood. I don't consider it reasonable to expect others to conform to your offense in this case; it's a case of forcing a cultural context onto a culture where it doesn't apply. Americans have a bit of a reputation for this kind of thing, unfortunately. Probably due to the massive export of American culture that was alluded to elsewhere.
- Klinky 6y ago
  There is obviously nuance, but if the word sounds like a slur, and is used generally to describe people of a certain race, then the offended can certainly express their offense, and the culture should consider the offended person's position. In this case I am pretty sure the word is "neger", and yeah, I don't think we should mourn or handwring over any sort of great loss of Norweigian culture/heritage that has occurred due to them being more sensitive to using that word to describe black people. Cultures evolve.
  - Pet_Ant 6y ago
    Why should Norway evolve based on American norms or history? This is a form of American cultural colonialism.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      Looking into it, it does not look like this is solely influenced by American "cultural colonialism". Objections to the use have also been from black people who are not from the US. There may be some level of cultural ignorance regarding the connotations of the term, and its place in history. It seems "Americanisation" is often blamed, and "best/good intentions" used as an excuse to continue to use a word that offends. There is an interesting paper by Marianne Gullestad that goes into some of the previous historical debate over the term, it is not newly controversial. Culture continues to evolve. https://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/pdf/Gullestad-Normalising.pdf https://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/pdf/Gullestad...

jeffrallen 6y ago

Could you send some Norwegians to Ticino? I need help convincing my mother in law to stop saying something just as bad. I swear, going through the tunnel to Ticino is like going through a time machine.

danmaz74 6y ago

The same happened in Italy, but I think that the change happened after dubbed American movies started using the Italian word to translate the n word. This associated the originally neutral word to offensive contexts, so the word meaning started changing for those who learned it in those contexts.