The trouble with 'acceptable' language

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33286949

Version 0 of 1.

Is it justified to ever use an offensive racist term - even if you're trying to have a conversation about racism, as President Obama was when he used the "N-word" on a US radio programme? And who decides what is offensive?

The president's choice of word immediately made headline news, reopening a familiar argument about whether it was fine for black people to reclaim and use the term but white people shouldn't, because it is nearly always a term of abuse - and of course, still is to many, as confirmed by a quick glance at Twitter after Mr Obama spoke.

The point the president was trying to make was that, in his opinion, racism still exists in many aspects of US life and confronting it must go way beyond a philosophical discussion on whether certain words can or can't be uttered in polite company.

Of course, reclaiming formerly offensive words isn't confined to racial minorities.

Across western Europe, some gay men for example, have taken an offensive slur, "queer", and turned it into a badge of identity.

Similarly, campaigners for women's rights in North America have been trying to reclaim the term "slut", transforming it into a mark of female sexual freedom. "SlutWalks" have now also taken place in Europe, Latin America and Asia.

Yet there are problems.

Reclaiming a word isn't necessarily the same thing as rehabilitating it.

Take that word "queer" for example. It's used by a minority of gay men to describe their partial rejection of conventional society - for example, many self-defined "queers" reject marriage as an oppressive institution.

They would be less happy about heterosexuals using that same word. And many heterosexuals in turn would be wary as well. That's partly from confusion - because "queer" is still deployed as a term of abuse.

But there's also an issue of authenticity.

Simply put, can those who live outside a minority group ever truly know what it's like to be a member of that community, especially if it's being oppressed, or has been in the past?

Maybe not - so perhaps there should be caution about using language that implies that anybody can experience life - warts and all - on the same terms that minorities do.

It's why Jewish comedians can get plenty of laughs as they poke fun at those much-maligned Jewish mothers - but why those same jokes might be construed as anti-Semitic if told by a non-Jew.

More seriously, it also explains the derision that fans of rap music used to direct at white hip hop artists - because hip hop music grew out of, and spoke about, the unique experiences of young, black urban Americans.

And rap in particular highlights some of the difficulties behind this whole issue.

Many rap lyrics are liberally sprinkled with words which others find highly offensive - including the one which Mr Obama used.

But many rappers feel their language is a realistic expression of how many young, black urban Americans live. They've walked the walk so have permission, they feel, to talk the talk.

However it's the kind of talk that just can't appear in a piece of this kind - a perfect illustration of how hard it is to navigate a clear path around such sensitive issues.

The authenticity factor also lies behind the criticism directed at Rachel Dolezal, the American civil rights activist who said she spoke from the personal perspective of being an African-American, but in fact was described by her parents as a white woman, with a trace of Native American ancestry.

The debate about Barack Obama's choice of words reveals just how important context and authenticity are.

And if you don't believe me, just try to envisage a white US president - perhaps Bill Clinton or one of the two Bushes - trying to sympathetically use the same racial term Mr Obama used. Or, Mr Obama cracking a joke about interfering Jewish mothers.

I think you may feel a little bit uncomfortable.