4 ms·
The word in question is not "neger", it's "svart". Translating to "negro" and "black", respectively. The former has been considered old-fashioned or pejorative
by marvin 6y ago
The word in question is not "neger", it's "svart". Translating to "negro" and "black", respectively. The former has been considered old-fashioned or pejorative for a couple of decades, the latter has only recently become disputed.
The politically correct version for "svart", would be "med mørk hudfarge" ("with dark skin color") or, if you want to push the edge of propritey, "mørkhudet" ("dark-skinned").
And sure. If someone takes offense or are clearly hurt by it, it's not like I'll go out of my way to insult them. But it's five syllables where one would convey the same meaning, without any intention of offense. It's not a hill I'd choose to die on, but as a matter of principle... I'd very much prefer if we wouldn't adopt an excessive fear of insult here.
I'm pretty sure that most people who take offense at this, are taking offense on behalf of others. Which is in itself a somewhat superior or paternalistic attitude that I'm not sure that all minorities appreciate.
- Klinky 6y agoIt seems "neger" was still debatable according to this reddit thread from 2012 https://www.reddit.com/r/Norway/comments/ylcpw/what_do_i_call_black_people_in_norwegian/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Norway/comments/ylcpw/what_do_i_cal... and Marrianne Gullstead paper seemed to indicate it was still being hotly debated in the early 2000s, not that it had fallen completely out of fashion by then. It sounds like the situation is still evolving. Is there anything that highlights the controversy around "svart"? The main point was that if you continue to use a word that someone described as offensive to them then it's hard to argue "best intentions", and it comes off as either laziness or disdain for that person. You can take those offended by proxy with a grain of salt, but in some cases there is truth behind what they are saying, and it should still be considered.