ASSIGNMENT: write an essay examining a term. Is the N-word okay to use?

My assignment for a freshman English class is to write an essay in the definition/discourse style. That means I take a term, explain its true definition and then explain why the definition is outdated/not useful and give a new meaning or use for the word.

Should I use the word "great person?" There's a lot of info about its history, and I know it would really make my essay stand out among the rest. I was also thinking of using "bitch." Basically, I want to write an essay that will stand out among the flood of essays about "trust," "peace," "love," etc.

Ideas?

EDIT: wrote out full word...guess AT doesn't filter it.

 

[LOLyourFace]

I don't see why not as an academic approach.

You can always talk to your prof about it.

 

[Carbo]

Which word are you specifically referring to? N.............hmmm.........let's see..........nooky?

 

EDIT...I guess it's not filtered...I'll change my post.

 

[nyeturo989]

let me give it too you in 1337:


/\/ ! 9 9 3 R

 

[Cyberian]

I take a term, explain its true definition and then explain why the definition is outdated/not useful and give a new meaning or use for the word.

How would that word fit those criteria?

 

[Kadarin]

Depends on the level of Politically Correct analness of the professor. Sounds to me like it's a legitimate topic, and you could make a good essay out of it.

 

Originally posted by: Cyberian

I take a term, explain its true definition and then explain why the definition is outdated/not useful and give a new meaning or use for the word.

How would that word fit those criteria?

You don't often hear slave owners referring to their 'property' as "awesome people" anymore. Most often you hear the term 'niggas' on the radio or on MTV. Its definition has completely changed from the pre-1865 time period, and the historically offensive "n-word" is now used in everyday speech around the country, if not the world.

Are you saying that the original definition of the word still holds true? Please justify your comment, Cyberian.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: JuMpR629

Originally posted by: Cyberian

I take a term, explain its true definition and then explain why the definition is outdated/not useful and give a new meaning or use for the word.

How would that word fit those criteria?

You don't often hear slave owners referring to their 'property' as "awesome people" anymore. Most often you hear the term 'niggas' on the radio or on MTV. Its definition has completely changed from the pre-1865 time period, and the historically offensive "n-word" is now used in everyday speech around the country, if not the world.

Are you saying that the original definition of the word still holds true? Please justify your comment, Cyberian.

Actually, I think you've got it backwards. Prior to the 1950s, "great person" was a perfectly acceptable word to use when referring to black people, and it's use now is hardly considered acceptable. A bunch of rappers call each other niggas, but if any REAL person were to use it, he could lose his job, be assaulted, labelled a racist, or even killed.

The problem I see with this is that it's definition is still the same, and there is no useful application for the word in today's world. If you need to refer to black people, you have an array of better, less offensive terms to use. What new definition or use would you propose for the word? How would you separate it from the racist stigma that will always accompany it?

I don't think you should worry about the teacher being offended as much as your argument being untenable.

 

Jzero, you've got an excellent point. I never thought of the term from your perspective before. I think I will change my term to something different, as you're right; it's hard to distinguish when it's acceptable to use "great person" and when it's offensive, and who can use it.

Thanks .

 

[kt]

I don't see how the N-word has changed. It still has a condescending connotation. You can argue that it is less condescending, but the reference is still there. Say you're jokingly calling someone by that word, what's your point of reference for it?

-Edit-

Welp, Jzero beat me to it..

 

How about the word "gay"? It's got a lot of history to it. I for one still use it in the "happy" sense, but it's taken a whole new meaning including "lame".

Also consider the word "pot" . . . uhmmm. . . .

 

Originally posted by: luvly
How about the word "gay"? It's got a lot of history to it. I for one still use it in the "happy" sense, but it's taken a whole new meaning including "lame".

Also consider the word "pot" . . . uhmmm. . . .

Was "pot" a jab at me and my roommate situation, luvly? You posted in that thread a couple times, didn't you?

I could use gay, but I think it'll be a popular term to use in these essays. Any other suggestions?

 

[kt]

Originally posted by: luvly
How about the word "gay"? It's got a lot of history to it. I for one still use it in the "happy" sense, but it's taken a whole new meaning including "lame".

Also consider the word "pot" . . . uhmmm. . . .

Now, that's a "luvly" suggestion

Trying going back to the 1800's and say "wanna smoke a joint". They will look at you strangely.

 

LMAO! Jumpr629, I wasn't even thinking of that . . . but now that you brought it up, ya . . . pot would fit you perfectly well.

For real though, I understand what you're saying about the "gay" thing. I too do not like to write about what most people are writing about.

But I would rather write about "gay" than about "great person" with the knowledge you've demonstrated, just to play safe. Here's a problem with something you said, for instance: "Its definition has completely changed from the pre-1865 time period, and the historically offensive 'n-word' is now used in everyday speech around the country, if not the world."

You would have older people, especially older African Americans frowning at you. The word as far as I know is still not an accepted word and is not used in everyday speech. The people who use anything close to it are ghetto slang folks. And they give the excuse that they're saying "awesome dude". According to them, there's a difference. It makes "great person" a difficult word to argue about. Anyone who uses "great person" out of a quote or subject discourse context is still considered a racist or as having intentionally offended people.

So, be careful. As you have it now, you'll probably get into huge trouble, especially as some report came months ago that most professors at schools were liberals. You know writing is not nearly as objective as math is . . . even if your professor claims that he or she doesn't care what subject it is and your position on the subject, so long as it is well supported. Never trust any English or speech teacher who tells you that. There are some who mean what they say, but most don't.

 

[Jzero]

As you have it now, you'll probably get into huge trouble, especially as some report came months ago that most professors at schools were liberals.

Aren't liberals by definition more apt to let a report about an offensive word slide?
Regardless, at the collegiate level, it's unacceptable for a student to get into any kind of trouble for writing an academic and well-thought-out discourse of a word, regardless of how offensive it may be to the layman, and I'd be having words with the dean of that department if I got in trouble for that.

 

"Aren't liberals by definition more apt to let a report about an offensive word slide?
Regardless, at the collegiate level, it's unacceptable for a student to get into any kind of trouble for writing an academic and well-thought-out discourse of a word, regardless of how offensive it may be to the layman, and I'd be having words with the dean of that department if I got in trouble for that."

Jzero, I'm just being realistic. Every system of belief has some level of intolerance, in spite of its paradoxical nature. Liberals in theory are for tolerance, but tolerance is defined as certain views. Hence, how are liberals supposed to enforce a set system of belief without silencing the other view? It's simply what happens in political philosophy . . . it sounds great in theory but in practice it isn't as ideal. Should I remind you that you were amongst the many who argued, for instance, that the nursing student in the suicide case should have learned to shut his mouth up and do as ordered. The truth is, if grade matters to one, being outspoken or taking an unpopular position could drop one's grade a level down. Luckily I had a wonderful English professor who allowed me express myself as much as I wished and actually enjoyed how that caused heated debates in class. At the same time, I had a terrible speech lecturer who graded not by merit. . . . Nonetheless, I did not hesitate to take controversial positions and express myself. It sounds good in theory to go to the dean, but in reality the deans side with the professors or cannot do anything because their hands are tied down. The only thing that could cause action is a litigation or a public outcry(excluding relation to some public figure).

 

[Jzero]

Jzero, I'm just being realistic. Every system of belief has some level of intolerance, in spite of its paradoxical nature. Liberals in theory are for tolerance, but tolerance is defined as certain views. Hence, how are liberals supposed to enforce a set system of belief without silencing the other view? It's simply what happens in political philosophy . . . it sounds great in theory but in practice it isn't as ideal.

My argument is that most professors being liberal, would be less likely to hold a grudge against you for taking a controversial viewpoint. I've never had a professor pan me for doing so, conservative or liberal.

Should I remind you that you were amongst the many who argued, for instance, that the nursing student in the suicide case should have learned to shut his mouth up and do as ordered.

You misunderstood my comment. I've never been one to shut up and do as I'm told, which is why I've never been in the military. My point there was that as someone who claims to have been successful in the military, he would have to have been adept at following orders and not fighting his superiors, so it's kind of odd that suddenly he didn't want to follow orders.

The truth is, if grade matters to one, being outspoken or taking an unpopular position could drop one's grade a level down. Luckily I had a wonderful English professor who allowed me express myself as much as I wished and actually enjoyed how that caused heated debates in class. At the same time, I had a terrible speech lecturer who graded not by merit. . . . Nonetheless, I did not hesitate to take controversial positions and express myself. It sounds good in theory to go to the dean, but in reality the deans side with the professors or cannot do anything because their hands are tied down. The only thing that could cause action is a litigation or a public outcry(excluding relation to some public figure).

Well, if the dean doesn't want to listen to you, you play the game properly and get your parents to call the dean, or get a lawyer or stage a protest. Professors are protected by an oft-abused tenure system that allows them to teach controversial material with impunity. As paying customers, it's a student's rights to demand that same impunity. If your argument sucks, so be it. If you present a valid argument, no matter how controversial, and you get panned just because the professor doesn't like the subject matter, that professor has no business being in education, and as a paying customer, it's up to you to speak out against it and take steps to ensure that the professor learns how to do his job.
If you're too apathetic to make idealism a reality, then you can rot in your own grave. I didn't think twice about being a thorn in a professor's side. Who is paying who here?

Well, that's my rant for the evening.