I’d like to bend your ear a moment on a matter which needs addressing something fierce: in recent years it has become a signal taboo in American society to speak many old and entirely wholesome Anglo-Saxon words on account of the fact that some aggrieved minority or another has declared one word or another offensive to them. And that, irrespective of definition or intent behind the words in question. This is so now even in the churches.
A prime example of this is the dread and now sacrosanct word nigger.
Now, as Christians we have no motive to offer undue insult to anyone, irrespective of their race. However, taboos such as this being forced upon our language are part of a much larger issue — a war on Truth. But we’ll get back to that in a bit.
To hear the oracles of modernity tell it, the word nigger is the zenith of all insult, a term of absolute odium and hatred. At least when passing the lips of White people. As we all know, contrariwise, Blacks and anyone darker than a paper bag are presumed to have no constraints on their language. To inhibit them in any way would be racial oppression, after all. And attributed to the old hobgoblin of White Supremacy, no doubt.
But this taboo imposed uniquely on White people begs the question — is it even true that nigger is a term of blind hatred?
To answer that question one need only consult the etymology: therein we find the word nigger cognate of neger, a word shared by the Dutch, Germans, Scots, and northern English of the 1500s, the French nègre, the Spanish negro, and the Latin root word nigrum, or niger (with one ‘g’). The Oxford English Dictionary traces the first occurrence of the English iteration to the 1577 translation of a Spanish manifesto that made mention of the “the Nigers of Aethiop.” And then we read in the same dictionary entry that the first definition of the word nigger is “used by people who are not black as a relatively neutral (or occasionally positive) term, with no specifically hostile intent.” Ultimately, all the related iterations of this word in the various European languages have the same benign meaning – “black.” Which is apparent in works like Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn wherein the protagonist refers to the supporting character affectionately as old Nigger Jim.
Which, then, is to answer the question: no, it does not ultimately mean what liberaldom tells us it means. It is not an inherent term of disdain. It is simply a direct translation for the word black. The politically correct conception taken for granted today, however, is couched foremost in the meanings that, not Whites, but Blacks have conferred to it. And for the most part, only in the context of a White person speaking it, as it is only regarded a taboo when uttered by Whites. This much is plain in that no one really blinks at Blacks’ usage of the same word as a term of endearment or an alternate term for “man.” Clearly, even if it is deemed illicit for Whites, the word itself carries no necessary insult in their minds.
So what is the issue with this word? Why has it been declared a high taboo, and for Whites singularly? More than social taboo, in fact, it has in effect been declared illegal, as any White who utters it often finds himself deprived of employment, publicly defamed as worse than a serial killer, and in some circumstances even arrested for thought crimes. Yes, if a Black merely alleges that he heard a White mutter this term, then the police, the courts, the press, and yes, even the churches, operate under the assumption that the Black is then entirely justified in assaulting (and perhaps even killing) said White! In such cases where the White victim of assault is accused of having spoken that juju word, he is no longer regarded the victim at all, but rather, the initiator of violence far worse than any the Black can inflict physically, and liable to prosecution for a so-called “hate crimes” that can carry a sentence of fifteen years to life in prison. I’ve seen this very scenario play out at least three times in my vicinity when a Black has attacked a White. In each case the Black justified the assault by alleging that he overheard the White let the Latin word for ‘black’ pass his lips, and voila, the White, in spite of being the victim of assault with murderous intent, is indicted for a ‘hate crime’ with the threat of fifteen years to life in prison; and the Black assailant not only goes uncharged, but is actually exalted in the press as some sort of hero. It’s like the craziest episode of the Twilight Zone playing out again and again all across the country. Come to grips with the fact that it is treated as legal and entirely moral for a Black to assault, if not kill, a White if the Black believes the White to have spoken this verboten word. And if the White recovers, he is the one subject to prosecution! Because, well, equality, you racist bastard.
This amounts to new sumptuary laws enforcing an inverted caste system, albeit under the auspices, we are told, of equality. As Mr. Orwell so poignantly put it, “some are more equal than others.” Now, it isn’t so much that Blacks have ascended to nobility in our society as much as Whites have been demoted to an ostensible pariah class. This is evident in that Whites are subject to like penalties for offending not just Blacks, but people of any and all other ethnic backgrounds, while none among those sundry peoples are penalized in any way for deprecating Whites. In fact, far from being penalized, purposeful and public deprecation of Whites is overtly celebrated in movies, in songs, in academia, and, more’s the pity, even in the churches.
Typically, when I speak of Africans I use the word Black. It’s descriptive, eminently historical, and carries no necessary implications of animus nor hatred. But none of this material is in the minds of Blacks themselves. If uttered by a White, they generally regard it a high insult. But there is literally no way to ameliorate that response in the minds of Blacks.
After all, the history of our interaction with Blacks is one long protracted series of concessions.
The word nigger was a perfectly innocent term, but they came to resent it and insisted on being called negro instead. Which both befuddled and amused us on account of it being merely an alternate iteration of the same word, and carrying the exact same definition. But we generally conceded to their wishes.
But they quickly grew averse to the term negro too. At which time they informed us that they now preferred colored. Again, we saw little change in concept but they insisted that it made all the difference. And again, we humored them.
But it wasn’t long before they determined that, too, was intolerable and demeaning somehow. They weren’t colored, they were proudly Black. Take that, White man! More confused, but now used to their regular changes of nomenclature, we accepted their new self-designation just as before.
By this point we weren’t surprised when they changed their collective mind again, informing us that they regarded the term Black to be a label of shame cunningly foisted on them by Whites. Now they were going back to their roots and demanded respect as Afro-Americans. And we no doubt had some laughs at the expense of this term. It sounded, after all, as if they resented all reference to their skin so much that they determined to be referenced by their hair — afros.
After which they probably saw the silliness in this term also, and clarifying it, declaring themselves African-Americans. This term, though still often heard today, has never really sat well with anyone, Black or White.
But Whites had no prerogative to change it. Blacks did. And change it they did, settling most recently upon the term people (or persons) of color. Which only strikes White folks’ collective funny bone so hard, because it’s basically the same thing as the previous term colored people, a term which they assure us is used only by the most vile White Supremacists. And the NAACP. But they get a pass. You understand.
We are even beginning to hear the term Moorish-American being thrown around a bit. Who knows, maybe they will soon resort to blackamoor. As their history on this subject testifies, nothing is beyond the realm of possibility. Whatever their next stop on their never-ending revolution of identity and nomenclature, the one thing they never waver on is that any White who deigns not to play their game of perpetual hopscotch is a hatemonger and honorarily guilty of all hurts suffered by Blacks throughout human history.
Beyond all the aforementioned monikers, they have along the way taken equal offense at every other term of reference, be it moor, blackamoor, or even terms of affection like darkie, they condemn them all.
Better yet, don’t even think of referring to a Black boy as you would a White boy, by calling him the neutral term boy! If you call a Black toddler as you would a precocious White baby, a little monkey, the Black community demands your very life be forfeited. And it is cliche that to speak of them casually as you would anyone else, by the phrase you people is treated at least as “racial intimidation,” if not often as pretext to justifiable homicide.
Enough is enough.
Do we presume to dictate to the Chinese what they call White people in their own mother tongue? We’ve never imagined such a thing. Do we have any moral latitude to censure the Spanish language when Mexicans call us whetos or gringos? It would be regarded a profound cultural arrogance on our part to suggest such a thing. Likewise, English is our language. And no one, save God Himself, has the moral latitude or authority to proscribe any Anglo-Saxonism against the will and conviction of our people.
To the extent that we bow to their constant anathemas and redactions of our mother tongue, as if the displeasure of Blacks defined the substance of some eleventh commandment promulgated from Mount Sinai, we have, in fact, conferred to their mercurial whim the status of divine law, and to them the status of little gods. Irrespective of race or color, acquiescence to the fiat commandments of men creating obviously unbiblical taboos is antithetical to theonomy and to vanilla Christianity.
Ultimately, the issue isn’t with the word nigger, or any other referent. The issue is that Blacks cannot long abide Whites referring to them under any terminology. The issue they have with all these terms is a matter of their own souls and their overriding resentment of Whites. That is the truth of it — the truth that none of their lilting White allies and advocates will dare tell them. But it must be said if Blacks are ever to grow in the Christian faith and civilization.
So, too, must their White enablers be confronted for their part in suppressing the truth of these matters in unrighteousness.
All said, I typically call them Blacks. Because it is descriptive, historical, and conceptually bookended against our being Whites. But I also speak of them in the biblical vernacular as Hamites. And neither do I blush at calling them coloreds, niggers, or what have you. Because to give reign of our hearts over to a foreign ethical system, with its ungodly fetishization of words and concession to these contemporary PC dogmas, is conscription to the banner of another king, a thing from which I pray Christ to deliver and preserve us.