It would seem, on the whole, that the longer one allows words to retain negative power, the less progress society seemingly has made in overcoming its past…or, from another view, is not the continued giving to an opponent the absolute power of knowing precisely which words will reduce one to emotional ruin necessarily providing said rival unnecessary strength and credibility at each outcry of its usage? For imagine an instance in which an American at large might be considered to be so emotionally slain by use of some specific epithet (Yankee, or perhaps more considerately phrased as the “Y” word, for instance) that it assumes an overwhelming and unjustifiable weight: would such a society truly be ameliorated by encouraging each successive generation to yet quail at the very nearness of the word so that an opposing nation might use it with impunity and redundancy to detrimental effect? Or might it not be an improved situation to teach, instead of fear, horror, and outrage of the word, the patent absurdity of reacting in any given fashion to any mere arrangement of letters…? For most certainly a word may retain emotional weight, but how is it best to deprive it of same? Is it to encourage all to view it at its greatest weight…consistently and repeatedly underlining its ability to wound and cause irreparable harm…? Or is it perhaps an improvement to strive at all turns to instead merely trivialize those who might consider it to be yet potent in light of today’s more reasonable era?
I’d be interested in hearing you say this to the NAACP and the ensuing conversation.
If said organization is comprised of reasonable individuals with a true aim of overcoming perpetual victim-hood, then would not any such possible conversation be received in a generally positive light?
I don’t think it would be received in a positive light by the NAACP.
To clarify, if a word were to be used against my children that appeared to cause them abject misery due to its ability to recall to them their cultural suffering at the hands of some previous power, it would seem to me to be bad policy to encourage them to feel outrage and to stagger into the field of battle,
If you ask me, it is bad policy for someone to deliberately use a word with the intent of causing them abject misery due the word’s ability to recall cultural suffering.
Is it not equally bad policy for one to steal…?
yes.
And yet who among us would then consider the individual who has left his key in his front door on successive evenings in order to save time to be truly wise?
Somehow, I can’t equate leaving the key in the door with considering the n-word insulting.
Words hurt. We can pretend they don’t, sometimes that may be a good strategy(and some aren’t as good playing it as others), but words can still hurt.
For while it is fair to condemn the aggressor, do not forget that the one over whom one actually has reasonable control is oneself in a general sense. The advice is provided in order to alleviate the potential for shots fired to find their mark…for is not a soldier who is given armour in a better position to resist the piercing of an arrow than is one given only the advice to shout repeatedly at the enemy to cease firing…?
One can condemn the aggressor and give the advice you suggest.
One can give the soldier armor and give the soldier a gun to shoot the guy firing at him.
already so wounded, demanding an apology (thereby greatly exaggerating the hurt being afflicted and thereby delivering themselves directly into the power of the bully at hand)
I see nothing wrong with demanding an apology from someone that tries to insult you(to be clear, I am not saying that is was the guy from netflix did).
Which is the stronger position:
To demand an apology by admitting what was said was indeed hurtful, explaining both the depth of the wound and its long-lasting effect?
Or to look up in amusement/surprise/disappointment at the would-be assailant and shake one’s head at the futility of the attack?
I don’t know, maybe #2 but I still think the person is entitled to an apology.
In which instance has the assailant most properly landed his attack? In which instance does the victim remain so? In which instance has the assailant been affirmed in his/her position of strength? In which instance have all other would-be assailants learned any form of lesson?
Sometimes assailants can learn from being punished.
…it would seem instead a more plausible escape from the past to derail the significance of the word itself and to teach my children to laugh at each and every instance of same…stripping it of its power, removing any desire for an opponent to use it for fear that they will merely be laughed at and labeled a fool rather than being labeled a victor over another’s emotional stability…
I also think the bully/name caller should be taught a lesson too.
Agreed…yet what should that lesson properly contain? Is the bully to be affirmed in his position of dominance?
If I had had the ability, I would have kicked the bullies’ asses. If I had been able to do, I don’t think they would have been able to maintain a position of dominance afterwards.
Or is he to be instead ridiculed for his provable lack of power?
I sucked at trying the strategy you suggest.
For in an instance in which a bully might truly hate enough to call out a racial slur, expecting a given reaction and thereby reaffirming his sense of dominance, in which instance is his supposed superiority more clearly underlined? In a situation in which his words wound, or in one in which they fall flat?
What about a situation where the bully gets his teeth broken? What about a situation where those in the authority properly punish the bully?
I get kind of upset when we concentrate on how the bullied should react to the bully and as opposed to how the bully should have acted in the first place. To be clear I get upset, because I was once the bullied and instead of just simply stopping the bullies the punishing them, it seems like they wanted to concentrate more on how I reacted to them.
It is understood that those who have been bullied would have the experience and qualification to offer true empathy to any other perceived victims…yet if one knew that a bully thrived on achieving a given reaction from his victims, would one not at least caution them to avoid providing that off which their oppressor is logically feeding?
Sure one could caution the bullied, but one can all punish the bully(or kick his ass)
For even though a response from all by-standers to act in support of the victims by turning bully to the bully at each perceived instance is indeed one measure of a solution, is not an improved version one in which the victims themselves simply cease to be so permanently…?
Like I said, I sucked at ceasing on my own. And again words hurt.
For me the only way the bullying would have stopped if the adults around me had stopped the bullies.
For in which instance is the lie of the bully more glaring and obvious? The one in which the victims might yet act wounded and defeated, whilst outwardly protected by their allies…or the one in which they might find the bully to be merely an object of pity rather than that of oppression?
- I was never able to pity those that bullied me. I just couldn’t.
- I don’t know which would have made the lie of the bully more glaring and obvious. I just know the bully shouldn’t be bullying and when he does he should be punished(or have his ass kicked).