Banning Offensive Language

I was reading on BBC not too long ago that New York has decided to continue it's legislative activism. Apparently attempts to mold New York into a well-behaved American Singapore does not stop with the outlawing of smoking or of consuming trans-fats, but will now include a legal ban on the use of a certain perjorative term for African Americans.

While I agree that the use of such terms in youth culture is ironic, to say the least, as well as unfortunate from an historical perspective, I see what little good unenforceable city council resolutions do. I would be better if the New York City Council worried about fixing potholes and promoting racial harmony in schools than passing headline-grabbing motions such as this.

But my real indignation lies with an editorial that the BBC website published on the subject, written by BBC correspondent Kari Browne. I urge you to read this editorial, or at least the "Different Perceptions" conclusion at the bottom. I agree with her general thesis, but the fact that she tries to butcher etymology of the word "cracker" in order to claim that the persistence of this word - and the fact that many Southern whites willfully identify with this term - literally originates with the cracks of whips on the backs of slaves is quite frankly grotesque. It is exactly this twisting of history that gives otherwise worthy politically liberal viewpoints a bad name.

I wrote the following as a response to the BBC:

"Regarding Kari Browne's "Should Racist Word be Rehabilitated?", while I do agree with her main argument that words such as the "n-word" have a hurtful past that younger generations do not understand, I am not convinced by her etymology for the word "cracker". I am not one to question her great-grandmother, but as I understand it the term comes from an Elizabethan word "to crack", meaning to boast or brag - much as we "crack" jokes today. The term was applied in the 1700s to the Scots-Irish settlers of the upland South, who lived beyond the law and were considered "rascals" and "boasters" by the colonial governments and gentry. The term has also been explained as deriving from these settlers' habits of cracking corn and pecans, as well as whips when herding cattle. While these Southern whites did own some slaves, they were not the plantation slaveowning class of the South, and I think it is a bit of a stretch to connect the name "cracker" with lowland Southern slaveowners, or insinuate that the term implies dominance over another race."

I am sure that this response will never be read, let alone published or responded to. I am sure that in such circles I would be denounced for taking such a stand (how can I question her relative, the eyewitness to oppression, because this type of pseudohistory relies heavily on the personal and the anecdotal). But I feel that for all the blood and tears spilt over race relations in American history, the goal of coming to true harmony and equality between all the peoples and individuals of this country will not be helped but will be hindered by the invention of false oppressions, which will only serve to obfuscate and discredit the true injustices. Think "herstory" and "womyn" and you see where I am going with this.

I urge everyone to write a little note to the BBC to set them straight on their word history.