How will you spend your Thanksgiving break?
On Feb. 26, the New York City Council passed Resolution 693-a, which declares that there will be a "symbolic moratorium" on the use of the word "nigger" in New York City during February, which is Black History Month. A chief sponsor of the bill, Councilman Leroy Comrie (D-Queens), told AM New York he's "hoping [that] this is the beginning of a move forward to a place where the use of the N-word is simply unacceptable" after the Feb. 26 hearing on the bill. I agree with Comrie's sentiments: I've long held that the word is unacceptable no matter who uses it.
But for the City Council to legislate on this, and to do so in the way they did, is strange and raises a host of questions.
I understand the "semantic inversion" phenomenon whereby hip-hop culture has made it OK for blacks to use the word, but I have a hard time accepting the idea that certain groups can colonize parts of language. I recognize that this isn't a simple issue. For instance, I find Chris Rock funny, even insightful, though he uses reprehensible language, particularly the word at issue in 693-a. Richard Pryor, the godfather of Rock's genre of stand-up, was the pioneer in using such language for comedic effect. Does the fact that I think Chris Rock's routines are excellent mean that I can imitate him, even when he uses what the City Council terms "the N-word's derivative" (for example, "nigga")? Probably not.
The Chris Rock example is illustrative of how tense the grapple with this issue is: The word is reprehensible, yet at times, still acceptable. City groups like "Ban the N-word" and "Abolish the N-Word," which testified at the hearing in favor of the resolution, are trying to remove this tension by getting rid of those "acceptable instances." I support what those groups are doing, even as I find Chris Rock humorous.
But those two groups are part of civil society. They can encourage us stand up for what we know is the right thing, but they don't hold the reins of power. The City Council is clearly different, and while 693-a is a "symbolic moratorium" that doesn't carry the weight of law, the resolution does suggest language control.
What is really bizarre, however, is that the resolution asks New Yorkers to observe a moratorium on the use of the word only during February. Does that mean it's OK to use the word now?
For this reason, Resolution 693-a smacks of cultural colonization. Just as I think it's strange that there is a particular month devoted to studying black history (why not do it for the entire year?), I think it's strange that the council seeks to have New Yorkers not use the word during a particular month. Why don't they just ask New Yorkers not to use it anymore, period?
My conjecture is that the Council realized that having the moratorium extend from now until "henceforth" would mean that people would forget they ever established it in the first place. Now, February in New York City will be "don't say 'nigger' month," and it will serve to create controversy on a cyclical basis - controversy the Council probably thinks will help people think about how wrong using the word is. But I would rather there be a continuous effort at thoughtfully educating people about how wrong the word is, rather than a yearly controversy that will turn people off to the entire discussion before a discussion is even had.
I think a better way to get rid of that ugly word would be to not have the Council get involved at all and let civil society groups like "Ban" and "Abolish" do their work. Those groups can advocate on a constant year-round basis for the word to be extricated from the English language. For the City Council to do this would take away precious time and resources it could be using for more constructive things, like dictating your body mass index.
Eric Moskowitz peppers his writing with funny Yiddish phrases each Thursday. Wish him mazel tov at emoskowitz@nyunews.com
