Terms of abuse

JS the Language Plod takes Scary to task for using the word 'spackers', and Blue Witch agrees.

I've thought about it and realised that they may have a point. Scary used it and it didn't even cross my mind to question it. I hold my hands up. My Bad. I can't speak for Scary, who can of course, speak for himself, should he wish, but shouldn't feel obliged.

I have to say it's not a word I use, for no other reason than the fact that I don't use it. I am fully aware of its entomology, and the reasons why people find it offensive. And I think it is quite a delicate area.

When I was a kid - at the same time that Scary and BW were also kids - there was a collecting box outside the newsagent on Eastway with a two foot high statue of a child, with legs in callipers with a sign saying "Help Spastics". When I was very small I sniggered, because in my Infant School 'spastic' was a term of abuse. I got a good sound telling off from my mother for sniggering, followed by an explanation for the telling-off.

It is only fairly recently that Scope became Scope, having been the Spastics Society for years. I can't quite recall when, but I do recall someone telling me; she worked for them, and I would place it as mid to late Nineties, at the earliest.

Since Infant School days, I have never used 'Spastic' as a term of abuse. On the other hand, I have also never used it as factual descriptive term, choosing instead to say 'has cerebral palsy', or, depending on the context, 'is a wheelchair user'.

A couple of years back a small child caused inappropriate adult hilarity by exclaiming that another small child 'has special needs'. Just the other day I passed a premises where someone had graffitied 'Special Needs' on the window, as, I think, a term of abuse.

There comes a point with language where previous terms of abuse get recaptured - the most obvious one being the use of the term 'queer' in the gay community, and, to a lesser extent 'nigger' in the Black Community, although read what Ashley Walters from So Solid Crew has to say 'I was promoting racism by making the N-word cool'. As a straight white person, I would never use the word 'nigger' except in this post, and only in quotes, and I would be hesitant to use the word 'queer' except in very specific circumstances with very specific people. And I don't think I have the right, either, to recapture and subvert the language of disablement discrimination.

That having been said, I sometimes think that in some contexts offence can be found by twisting the intention. A prime example of this is in Wagner's Ring, especially in Das Rheingold, where some commentators claim that Wagner's anti-semitism is proven by his negative depiction of the "Jew-like Nibelungs". It had never crossed my mind until it was pointed out, and I would argue that this is because I don't carry some stereotyped prejudice of 'typical Jews' and therefore it makes no sense to me. (And yes, I am fully aware of Wagner's anti-Semitism, but I fail to see how it's proved by the Nibelungs).

I don't think this is an exact parallel with the 'spacker' situation, but I will argue, in my defence, and thus, by association, in Scary's defence, that use of the word 'spacker' as a derogatory term to describe people who choose to behave in a moronic way is so far removed from the practice of deriding people with a congenital disability that it did not even cross my mind to make the association. But I also know that people who do make the association don't necessarily do so out of malice.

BW also takes exception to 'chav'. I don't have a problem with this, but a few months ago I linked to an article where someone said it's just middle-class sneeriness at poor people. I rebutted that, including the comment

The derision of chavs is based on derision of a lifestyle choice not on a life situation. When I first started blogging I came across the term 'council' or, in Scotland, 'schemey', which is far more offensive, implying a wholescale sneer of the millions of people who live in social housing.

In order to find the post, I did a search on this blog, and found, just in the excerpts, two references to 'Beckham', who I don't think anyone could describe as poor.

I know there are issues about the origin of 'chav' from Romany, the implication being that it's a put-down of Romanies. But I honestly think that the usage of the word has evolved so radically that it simply no longer encompasses anti-Romany sentiment at all.

It is quite a difficult subject, and I'm not sure that there are definite right or wrong answers, and, no doubt some idiot will try and comment on 'Political Correctness Gone Mad'. I was chatting with someone whose husband has been subject to some low-level, but persistent, anti-Greek comments from his manager, and we agreed that a great deal of so-called 'political correctness' is no different from how we were brought up not to make rude remarks to people's faces. We did also ponder the extent to which it is acceptable to make rude remarks behind people's backs. Half an hour earlier she had told me that someone we know has actually got a girlfriend, and I sniggered and asked whether she was a mail-order bride. We referred back to this conversation, and I agreed that what I said was really not very nice, and we both agreed it would be horrible if he knew people were saying that. I would be mortified; partly because I wouldn't want him to think I was a nasty person, but also partly because I would feel hurt if something like that was said about me, so I take no pleasure in the hurt to his feelings.

As I say, this is quite a delicate subject, and not one, I think, where the debate is advanced by bombast and ad hominems.

Update:

Whilst the blog was dysfunctional Scary Duck and Blue Witch emailed me with comments they were unable to add in the usual way..they're in the extended entry

Mr Duck:

Ah! Political correctness, gone mad, on acid.

I'm with Gert on the definition - the word "spacker" in my context is
used for [usually juvenile] people who behave like morons, and is not
aimed at the disabled. I'm sorry if other readers find this offensive,
but it's the way your mind decodes my words, which is somewhat different
to mine.

There is a distinction, however, between employing this commonly-used
term of abuse and I've agonised over it before making one of several
blog posts on the same subject. The lad next door has Cerebral Palsy.
He's not a "spacker", he's Tom, and he never was, never will be anything
else. "Spackers" are the people who run up and down my road, drunkenly
vandalising cars at one in the morning, when I've got to be up for work
in four hours.

The definition, you see, has been turned. While it was created, aged
eleven, with only the foulest intent, the use, like many words has been
changed into a whole new set of meanings. Can I just say "Foucaultian
discourses and power relationships" at this point, just to ram it home?

It's only people who are offended by mere words, or whose minds try too
hard to be offended that will, in the end, find offence. You should see
the list of words you're not allowed to use on TV these days, it's
pathetic, and then, someone will still find something to complain about.

I'm reminded of a bit of trouble I was involved in about fifteen years
ago. I used to write (still do, in fact) for an Arsenal football fanzine
called The Gooner. In its early editions, just before I wrote for them,
they used to refer to Spurs and Spurs fans as "Yids". Everybody did.
Even the Spurs fans. Unfortunately, you can't, because it's
anti-Semitic, and that's fair enough. This came as news to those of us
of the Jewish persuasion, but there you go. You can't call Spurs fans
"Yids", even if you are Jewish, and they actually call themselves
"Yids", and are actually waving an Israeli flag at you with "Lewisham
Yids" scrawled on it. Funny, that. Ah, Mr Foucault, you again? Yes, it's
who owns the word, its definition, and how it is used in society at
large - and it's not always the same for everybody.

It's all about the use of language, and, yes, maybe I should temper my
language when I visit other people's blogs, but on my own site, people
should know what to expect. However, as I am already morally corrupted,
I don't need some sort of self-appointed guardian telling me what
language I can and cannot use.

Language Police, then, I am guilty as charged by your rulebook, which I
have never read. I ask for 67,980 other offences to be taken into
consideration.

Apologies for length, Mrs.

Ms Witch

I know that I'm not always as good at this as I should be, but I do tend to try not to use generalistic (populist) terms that could be taken by someone I don't know as derogatory, in public, where they may be taken out of the context in which I intended they should be seen. (Blimey, what a dreadful sentence!!!)

I also wonder how Little Britain gts away with what it does.