![\"N_word\"](\"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/files\/N_word-300x199.jpg\")
Language is a funny thing. Words that were once acceptable take on new shades of meaning and are replaced with new terms. These intended euphemisms may in turn acquire their own negative connotations and they will then be replaced with still newer terms.<\/p>\n
An inoffensive example: what was once called a boneyard became a graveyard. Graveyard gave way to cemetery, which they now try to repackage as a \u201cmemorial park.\u201d (It\u2019s not catching on outside of the funeral industry.) <\/p>\n
Most of us probably say cemetery. If you said graveyard, you\u2019d be understood but you\u2019d sound archaic. If you called it a boneyard, you\u2019d get some raised eyebrows.<\/p>\n
The same is true when it comes to developmental disabilities. Such terms as \u201cretarded,\u201d \u201cmongoloid\u201d and \u201ccretin\u201d were once upon a time used in a technical sense. (When I was in first grade, we had a girl with developmental disabilities in my class. \u201cRetarded\u201d was what the teacher told us was the polite term!) Now these words are considered so offensive that one wouldn\u2019t even expect to find them used in a clinical sense.<\/p>\n
Race is the big hot zone. \u201cLatino\u201d is preferable to \u201cHispanic.\u201d \u201cInuit\u201d is better than \u201cEskimo.\u201d \u201cAsian\u201d has long since superseded \u201cOriental.\u201d Nobody calls the Beta Israel \u201cFalashas\u201d any more. And terms like \u201ccolored\u201d and \u201cNegro\u201d are right out. <\/p>\n
Yes, as numerous comedians have observed, these latter terms are grandfathered into the names of such organizations as the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but that\u2019s not a reason for us to use them. My grandmother had black friends, whom she called \u201ccolored.\u201d There may not be malice behind the use of a given phrase but it does betray one as the product of a less enlightened era.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not personally a big fan of the term \u201cAfrican-American\u201d because not all black people come from Africa (for example, indigenous Australians) and they\u2019re not all American (Mel B, AKA \u201cScary Spice?\u201d She\u2019s British). I feel like a fool calling Star Wars character Lando Calrissian \u201cAfrican-American\u201d because he lived long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. But if a black friend prefers the term African-American, I\u2019ll use it.<\/p>\n
Please note that last sentiment: if a person to whom a term refers has a preference, I will use it. That\u2019s really the crux of the matter.<\/p>\n
Along these lines, we Jews have some terms that others may find offensive. Yes, the speaker may have no ill intent but the listener may take umbrage nevertheless.<\/p>\n
The first such word is \u201cgoy.\u201d \u201cGoy\u201d literally means a nation, which includes the Jews. For example, in Genesis 12:2, G-d tells Abraham that his descendants (i.e., the Jews) will be \u201cgoy gadol\u201d \u2013 \u201ca great nation. In Exodus 19:6, Israel is referred to as \u201cgoy kadosh\u201d \u2013 \u201ca holy nation.\u201d II Samuel 7:23 calls the Jews \u201cgoy echad ba\u2019aretz\u201d \u2013 \u201ca singular nation in the land.\u201d<\/p>\n
But \u201cgoyim,\u201d i.e., \u201cnations?\u201d That means \u201call the nations other than Israel.\u201d Members of those nations are called \u201cgoyim\u201d by extension, meaning \u201cmembers of the other nations.\u201d In the singular, \u201cgoy\u201d \u2013 the member of a nation other than Israel. It\u2019s not inherently offensive but guess what? Non-Jews find it disparaging. At the very least, they find it condescending. Therefore, we should not use it in conversation. (It\u2019s not offensive as used in scripture or liturgy.)<\/p>\n
The next word is \u201cschvartze.\u201d Again, \u201cschvartze\u201d is not inherently offensive; it just means \u201cblack.\u201d A \u201cschvartze\u201d is a black guy. But people find this word offensive \u2013 far more so than the word \u201cgoy!\u201d (On the scale of offensiveness, it actually approaches the N-word that shall not be written here.) The only time you can really justify using this word is if you are a native speaker of Yiddish and actually speaking in Yiddish. In that context, it is not offensive, much the way that the term \u201cNegro\u201d is not offensive in Spanish. Other than that, stay far away from it.<\/p>\n
\u201cShiksa\u201d is simply indefensible. That word is inherently condescending, racist and misogynistic. Lose it.<\/p>\n
When my kids were growing up, I taught them that these words were unacceptable. They knew that if I ever heard them use the word \u201cschvartze,\u201d my wrath would be fierce. They attended traditional yeshivos and I didn\u2019t know what language (or attitudes) their classmates would be bringing from home. Worse yet, I didn\u2019t know what choice of terminology their teachers might use. And that\u2019s where things get tricky. What do we do when people we\u2019re supposed to respect use language we are told is inappropriate? <\/p>\n
When this happens, it\u2019s time for us to be \u201cdan l\u2019kaf z\u2019chus\u201d \u2013 to judge others favorably. What are we to think when we attend a shiur and the rabbi talks about \u201cthe goyim?\u201d For one thing, like my grandmother who called her black friends \u201ccolored,\u201d he might be the product of a certain generation. Even if he\u2019s not all that old, because of his background, he might be behind the times as you or I may see them. Like the United Negro College Fund, that word may just be stuck in his lexicon. <\/p>\n
Another thing to consider is that he knows the technical meaning of these words and their lack of intrinsic malicious intent. Like a doctor who speaks of \u201cmental retardation,\u201d he may see no need to euphemize when the terms in question will be understood by his audience. (This is called being melamed z\u2019chus<\/em> \u2013 we\u2019re justifying why some people engage in a practice even as we decry the practice itself.) <\/p>\n So it\u2019s a tightrope. We should totally lose these (and similar) words from our vernaculars. They\u2019re offensive to those to whom they\u2019re meant to refer so if we are heard using them, it\u2019s a chillul Hashem<\/em> (a desecration of G-d\u2019s Name). But if we hear others using them, we should try not to judge them too harshly as these words are not innately disparaging and it\u2019s entirely possible that no ill will is intended.<\/p>\n Except for shiksa. There\u2019s just no other way to spin that one.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Language is a funny thing. Words that were once acceptable take on new shades of meaning and are replaced with new terms. These intended euphemisms may in turn acquire their own negative connotations and they will then be replaced with still newer terms. An inoffensive example: what was once called a boneyard became a graveyard.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":384,"featured_media":38606,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[85],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-inspiration"],"yoast_head":"\n