OPINION
Stealing the sting from a six-letter slur
Creative, non-malevolent uses are, over
time, altering the word’s power to wound
BY CHARLTON McILWAIN
W
hether you’re talking
about Mark Twain,
former Philadelphia
television news anchorman
Tom Burlington or former radio
host Laura Schlesinger, the question of who can use the N-word
is eminently controversial.
I’m African-American. My codirector at the research and policy website The Project on
Race in Political Communication, Stephen Maynard Caliendo, is white. And when it
comes to the N-word, we fundamentally disagree. It’s a debate
we’re scheduled to air publicly
this afternoon as part of Hofstra University’s Black History
Month celebration.
Stephen chooses the safe position: White people should never
use the N-word. He doesn’t believe, necessarily, that the word
should never be used by anyone.
White people should just neither
use the term nor take part in any
debate among people of color
about its use. He asserts that
white people reinforce the historical dominance they have exercised over black people by using
the N-word.
I don’t disagree. Some people — folks like me, even — potentially lose when white folks
throw around the N-word. But
we should also ask ourselves a
slightly different question: Do
we have anything to lose by not
permitting people to use the
term?
I believe we do.
First, we lose one of our
most effective means for stimulating conversations about race
in a country that would still
rather ignore, rather than confront, yesterday’s and today’s
racial realities. Questioning, debating and learning are all necessary activities that civicminded and engaged citizens
participate in. Each of them is
enhanced by controversy.
Controversy arouses passions. It forces us to stake out,
define and defend our own positions and motivates us to, at
least, know others’. Controversy fuels engagement.
Race and racial issues are socially and politically relevant.
Given this, we cannot afford to
eliminate such a powerful topic
of conversation — one that continually pushes us to think about
and discuss critically relevant is-
sues about race, racism,
and power.
But we lose something
more significant if we banish the N-word to oblivion, whether through institutional policies or selfcensorship. We lose our
ability not only to change
the meaning of the term,
but to remove the powerful and painful sting associated with it.
I understand why folks
in my parents’ and grandparents’ generation bristle
when they hear the word. It
often preceded or affected an
act of violence in their day.
I understand why some of my
racial peers squint when they
read about someone like Burlington, who’s now engaged in a lawsuit over his firing after saying
the word in a staff meeting, or
Schlesinger, who gave up her
radio show after an on-air
N-word controversy. While
these folks profess to have used
the word with no intention to offend, it may be too difficult to accept that, because we’ve known
so many others whose motivation to use the term was the
same motivation that led them
to deny someone like me a deserved opportunity.
But I also realize that the
word’s meaning and its power to
wound is different — even di-
poem,
which
takes the word as
its title, and comedian Chris Rock’s
rant about “Black
people
vs.
———,” are two
examples of using
the term in ways
understood not to
offend, but to
question
the
word’s historic
meaning.
If we truly
want the N-word to become a
non-issue — whether to die out
or flourish without the ability to
offend — we must accept this position: There are legitimate social, professional and political
grounds for people — even
white people — to use the term.
Altering its meaning, combating
the chilling effects of racial censorship and promoting reasoned
dialogue on acceptably contested public issues — these are just
a few of them.
ILLUSTRATION BY JANET HAMLIN
OPINION
A32
minished — from my grandparents’ generation to mine, and to
the generation behind me. The
very fact that today’s teens toss
the term around in such a casual
and playful manner in evidence
enough. That some black youngsters take no offense when their
Latino, Asian or even white
friends use the word further underscores this point, as does the
fact that they embrace white hiphop artists who use it in their
music.
The reason the term doesn’t affect some younger black people
and others as it once did resulted
from people — blacks, other people of color and whites — engaging the term in different ways.
Yes, some deployed it with the
explicit intent to do harm. But
others have used it in creative
ways with helpful, not malevolent, intentions. Carl Sandburg’s
Charlton
McIlwain is an
associate
professor of
media, culture
and communication at New
York University and co-director
of The Project on Race in
Political Communication.
NEWSDAY, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011
www.newsday.com
Reagan helped America believe in itself
The 40th president was among the
best at inspiring the nation to succeed
Michael
Dawidziak
T
his Sunday America
marked the 100th anniversary of the birthday of
one of our most iconic presidents: Ronald Reagan. In keeping with our current argumentative climate, the date couldn’t
pass by with simple remembrances and celebrations of the
man’s many accomplishments.
No, for weeks we’ve been treated to a point-counterpoint debate about his core values, issues, career and the ultimate
impact of his legacy.
True, there’s much to con-
test in what has become the
myth of the man. The patron
saint of tax cutters raised taxes
when necessary. The champion of smaller government
failed to reduce — and in fact
increased — the federal bureaucracy. The hawkish leader of
the free world outspent the
“evil” Soviet empire into bankruptcy rather than using arms
against it.
Those examples show that
while Reagan was no doubt
an ideologue, he was first and
foremost a pragmatist. Today’s brand of my-way-or-thehighway politicians who claim
to admire the 40th president
have little in common with
his means of leadership.
Reagan was ready and will-
ing to reach across the aisle for
compromise solutions. Even
more than finding common
ground, he formed friendships
with people like Speaker of the
House Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.). It
was an approach to leadership
that is sorely lacking in elected
officials today.
But all these debates, as fun
and as interesting as they may
be, miss the true point of the Reagan legacy. The essence of his
greatness lay in his ability to get
America to believe in itself.
The ability to combine an
ideological message with the oratorical skill to inspire and the
sincerity to make people believe is a rare and powerful gift.
In the course of the 20th century, only three presidents had it:
Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin
D. Roosevelt and Reagan. All
three had the ability to make
the American people as a
whole believe in the goodness
of the country and that they
could do better and make the
world a better place.
All three had a world vision
that they were able to get the
people to support. As a progressive
Republican,
Teddy
Roosevelt made the country believe in itself as an industrial
power and a player on the
world
stage.
Franklin
Roosevelt, in the depth of the
Great Depression, was able to
convince the citizens of this
country that prosperity was
just around the corner. It
wasn’t, but the belief that it was
provided enough hope to get
through another day.
Similarly, Reagan told the
people that his fiscal policies
would lead to an economic recovery and that his defense policies would lead to a new
world order. You didn’t have to
agree with trickle-down economics to know that he be-
lieved it, and his sincerity
made you want to believe.
Belief is a forceful, overwhelming thing. Roosevelt,
Roosevelt and Reagan elevated
their doctrines into almost an
American religion. Indeed,
none of the three was above invoking the Almighty in their
speeches. During the conflict
of World War II, FDR even
called for national days of
prayer. Teddy famously said, “I
am charged with being a
preacher. Well, I suppose I am.
I have such a bully pulpit.”
In the end, Reagan’s genius
and legacy lie in that word: belief. He believed, and he got the
American people to believe.
And the economy did turn
around, and the wall did come
tumbling down.
Michael Dawidziak is a political consultant and pollster.