Since we like talking about language here at Shameless, let me share something that bothered me today:
Bizarre assaults hit quiet town
(from the Toronto Star)
“Asian-Canadians report being shoved into water while fishing near Sutton; police deny racial link
…
Since April there have been three cases of assault, mischief and theft against the mostly Asian-Canadian fishermen in the area.
…
Local youth call it “nippertipping.”
…
“Nip” is a derogatory word for Japanese, apparently used in this context for anyone of Asian descent. “Tipping” refers to a rural prank known as cow tipping. Some townspeople say it’s been happening for decades, occasionally triggering gossip but nothing more…”
I don’t think I need to comment on how horrifying the content of this newspiece is - what aggravated me about it was the use of the word “nippertipping.” I have to say I was a little shocked to see that phrase reprinted, and I wonder what value there is to be had in repeating it.
I feel that simply stating “Local youth use racial slurs to cheerfully describe the assaults” would be enough to convey the going-ons. After all, you’d never see the N-word reprinted in a mainstream North American newspaper, even if the word was central to a newspiece. [And yes, I recognise I just re-reprinted the term, and perhaps that’s problematic…]
It reminds me very distantly of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, when newspapers across the world escalated an already sticky situation to the max by reprinting racist cartoon representations of the Prophet Mohammed.
Tell me, am I being too politically correct in objecting to this? You wouldn’t be the first to say it…
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
four comments
I say.... when you see this kind of igdignation...blog about it. Blog Against Racism
I am sending this link onto the women and men at Racialiciious.
http://www.racialicious.com/
Posted by Bellafica
October 18, 2007, 10:58 PM
Yeah, sorry Thea, but I gotta say, you are being too politically correct in objecting to this.
Printing the word isn't the same as condoning it's use.
“Local youth use racial slurs to cheerfully describe the assaults” doesn't elicit the same reaction as "Local youth call it 'nipper tipping'" - the former just doesn't sound as bad. If you want people to get angry about this, telling them the exact, awful phrase that people are using is the way to do it. And if you want to deal with society's evils, in my opinion, you stare them right in the face and attack them head on - you don't tip toe around them or gloss over them, which is what the Toronto Star would have been doing had they not printed the actual slur.
And you actually will see the word "nigger" printed all the time in the mainstream press, here's a New York Times article with the word in the headline and in the first sentence:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...
Posted by Zoe
October 19, 2007, 7:31 AM
I'm with Thea on this one - the media's reproduction of the racial slur doesn't deepen our understanding of the crime, nor does it fuel our indignation at the injustice and random cruelty of it. It does, however, maybe give us a bit of a giggle, or make us (and/or the editors) feel a a kind of naughty thrill at using/hearing bad words that hurt people.
It's a bit like - and I know the medium is pretty different, but I think the effect is similar - shows like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, which are supposedly there to 1) reflect the reality of crimes against women and 2) show us how repugnant such crimes are; still, what these TV shows actually do is 1) perpetuate the idea the violence against women is normal and 2) entertain us with it while they're at it.
I do think, though, that this is totally different from the Danish cartoons thread - but I'll save that for another time.
Posted by Anna
October 20, 2007, 8:36 AM
I remember seeing Rosie O'Donnell comment on Law & Order SVU, saying that she felt it was degrading to women, or something like that, and I was so suprised by her comments. Because I love that show, and when it first came on, it was like therapy.
The truth is, is that the stuff they portray on this show happens all the time, but we are shielded from it, except by a media that discusses it in a very emotionally-distant way, or in a sensationalized way, but ultimately in a way that doesn't let you feel what's really happening...and here came this show which not only addressed the reality of the pervasiveness of sexual violence, but contextualized it in a deeply perceptive way.
Who are these people that commit these acts? Why do they do it? who are the survivors of these acts? What do they go through, why don't they report it, if they do report it, what situation are they faced with? What is society's reaction to it? How does society contribute to this? What is taken-for-granted in our society that actually supports these crimes?
I feel like the quality of the show has gone down in the last couple of years, it's lost its edge, its ability to get the actual reality of what goes on in these situations and why it happens. Possibly in reaction to people complaining about the show. I know it's not for everyone, but personally, I like it that SVU reflects what really happens in the world. Because we all know it goes on, but there's such a dissonance on television/media, because it's talked about, but they don't really get to the heart of how sick and difficult it really is...and when I watch the show, it connects to the part of me that knows this stuff happens all the time, but I'm distanced from it and from the reality of it by all the sugar-coating from every medium around me.
I found that other shows that followed in its footsteps, do sensationalize it for entertainment’s sake…they try to contextualize it with psychological theory, but ultimately, fall far short…it is a very delicate balance, and SVU had that balance, and yes it was very disturbing, but it connected with me because I felt it contextualized it in a very real and honest way, and it helped me put a continuous face to what millions of women go through all over the world.
Posted by Jaye
October 22, 2007, 2:04 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.