If I were to write an article about the history of Norwegian dance, I would need to do two things: first, research my subject, and then translate that research into writing that shows I have a clear understanding of what it is I'm talking about.
Enye Langree's article regarding language censorship seemed to have skipped those steps and gone straight to the drafting. Granted, it is an opinion piece, yet even opinions should be informed by some sort of researched fact. To hide behind the veil of opinion and use ignorance of the subject matter as an excuse is a gross violation of journalistic responsibility.
I agree that censoring the use of a word (used enough times in the aforementioned article to suffice for its absence here) does not eradicate racism. Abuse of the word to satisfy a deep-seated fascination does not eradicate it either.
To claim that a white person using such language ""[demonstrates] both an awareness of and some measure of respect for contemporary black culture"" displays true misunderstanding of American history. When the oppressor uses the language of the oppressor, it amounts to oppression, period.
Even worse than misconstruing the potential for danger in tossing around charged words like a bean-bag are the naA_ve solutions proposed for solving societal ills.
Cracking down on racist cops and changing prison inmate distribution requires a thorough understanding of the interlocking oppressions of race, gender, class and so forth, and that certainly won't be attained by green-lighting the use of the ""n-word.""
Cory Sims
UW-Madison senior
African-American/
Women's Studies
