words that have been successfully "reclaimed"

Rock 'n' roll originally referred to sexual intercourse as well.

Though it's only my post-pre-reclaimed punXor ethics that makes that an insult.

"white trash"
"loser" & "slacker" circa subpop's reign'o'terror.
"grrrl"
what about "chicks"? my mom's generation saw it as degrading, women I know use it laughingly. is that reclamation?

I have been told (by some not overwhelmingly feminist women) not to call women 'chicks'. so I have taken to asking others. no one ever seems to care. nb these have all been women around my age.

likewise, I can imagine a situation in which a reclaimed word is used derisively by someone in a position of power on someone in a lesser position of power; in such a case perhaps the reclamation would make it easier for the target of the word to shrug it off or something, but the power differential seems to always reinfuse the word with newfound power to hurt people. it seems to derive in part from the word's history, but I'm not sure whether to say it's just the history being recollected or revived, or whether the reclamation was not as successful as one might have hoped. perhaps just less stable. this makes me suspect that your definition above needs more.

but yeah, i think reclamation does include making the word inaccessible to people not part of the named group.

eg you don't get to say chicks, but chicks get to say chicks. that's part of the deal. I don't think the reclamation process meant to be 'ideal' for those outside the named group.

So I guess this doesn't rob you of the power of using "chicks" as a dismissive sexist term, but it does instantly situate you as a Neanderthal asshole if you do...

The point where the reclamation is complete is surely when the entire history of the word can be contained in it w/o detonating a toxic charge in the situation it's being used in (which I think is probably the case w.Tory, even despite the current v.dicy stage in the Irish Peace Process and also w.Enthusiast). But history continues to twist, so maybe there's never a "complete".

A couple of years later, by co-incidence, everyone was wearing the Pervert brand on T shirts, hats, etc.

Now I use the word kid and I never get any objections from children but I do feel a tad disrespectful for using it - but then child/ren has so many negative connotations that kid almost seems better.

I try very hard to refer to high school students as students rather than kids. Student is quite neutral whereas kid, teenager, children, adolescent, young person, young adult, young man, young lady all imply judgement or something.

Ah, virtue as the flight from judgement!

Yes; they pronounce it "gee-oh-pee." I don't believe it's ever been an insult among any mainstream groups.

"redneck" and "hillbilly" still count as insults around here though.

(Meant affectionately.)

(Meant that you are my illegitimate son.)

http://www.goodbastards.com/

*we are not making this up - wog really has been successfully rehabilitated (here. we're not saying it's ok to use it anywhere else but here nobody will bat an eylid.) there was a hit movie a year or two ago called 'the wog boy' which was spawned from a series of stage shows and musicals, the first one being 'wogs out of work' (which in turn was spawned from a sitcom called 'acropolis now').

*wog's definition has been expanded to include eastern europeans and maybe even some western europeans (my hungarian piano teacher called herself a wog, and it wouldn't be totally out of place to use the word for a french or german person).it is attached more to a set of cultural values and aesthetics than to nationality.

*i myself could be called a wog. having austrian-jewish grandparents, dark hair and eyes and an olive complexion, people often incorrectly guess my 'nationality' as greek or italian. i would find it bemusing if someone tried to use it as a slur as would most 'true' wogs.

*maybe the reclamation of the word was made possible because of the australian sense of humour. the word is intended as a gentle dig in the ribs, just like pom or yank. it is truly no longer offensive in this context when used with sensitivity.

Especially because the Viking thing is so much more Scandanavian. I used to draw a certain strength from that image! ;^}

Bo-Johns, though? I dunno. It sounds like the middle brother in a rural Southern family.

I tend to over react to this one, it's just that sometimes English people seem to treat Scotland as a region of England and it really gets up my nose. We are part of Britain(that's a whole different argument)but we are a country in our own right. So yes I would be offended, as I've said before it's like referring to a Canadian as American or a French preson as Belgian.

I know this is kinda petty considering what's going on upthread but hey, I'm selfish and self absorbed...

Obviously different words have different meanings and connotations in different countries. That's why I previously said "Yes, I agree, it is the way you use it and I would have to live over there to realise what Paki means over there. Any term can be used offensively - woman is a classic example of that."

Also I thought I made the situation fairly clear when I said:
"It's hard in Australia to understand the type of racial hatred that reportedly exists in the UK and the US. For example, to me nigger is no worse a word than negro, African-American, black or whatever and I'm still a bit confused about why it is to other people - but I gather it's something to do with the fact that when blacks were slaves in America they were referred to as niggers and so it's got bad reminders."
and
"Black, negro, nigger, African-American - they're descriptive so it's hard to see why one would be worse than another or why any of them would be worse than white, Anglo, caucasian - but that's where the history of the word comes in."

I haven't said nigger is not offensive, I've said it's hard to understand why it's so offensive without knowing the whole history of the word. I don't have much knowledge of American history and America seems to be the country where the word is most potent.

So yes, because I'm not black and because I'm not American the word nigger does not raise my hackles at all.

I'm still interested to know whether negro and black are considered to be equal or different. In explaining why nigger is offensive, Sterling said
"q: why would the spanish term rather than the anglo/saxon term for black come into use for black people?

a: because the slave traders were spanish."

which sort of answers the question except that it ignores the fact that there have been/were many Africans, including black ones, in Spain for a long time - which might be the reason why a Spanish word is used by other parts of Europe and in English.

The majority of people thinking a word is uncontroversial != the word is inoffensive of course. I imagine that lots of (white) people in the UK in (say) the 70s ignorantly used the "gentle dig in the ribs" argument when actually a good deal of hurt was being caused.

I'm sure that there are Anglo-Australians who still have a real "us" and "them" way of thinking but most of the racial problems (gang fights etc.) seem to be between different groups of immigrants (which means that smug Anglos can see it as only a "them" problem, of course). Over-policing of "ethnic" young people does occur. Actually, over-policing of young people in general occurs - depending on where you hang out and what you get up to.

We're not all one big, happy, multicultural family but it's rare to see acts of racism - or maybe due to being white I'm just blind to it? I dunno, I'll ask some of non-anglo friends what their experience is.

One good thing about unbridled, unashamed racism is that it's much easier to know where you stand with someone. This is the main complaint I've heard from Southerners of all races about moving to New England; the racists don't tell you who they are, so it's much easier to get blind-sided by them.

For example, if a gay teacher is ostracised in the staff room, is it because they are gay or because they aren't a nice person.

If the police pay a lot of attention to a group of "ethnic" youths because there has been lots of opportunistic crime committed by groups of youths in that suburb, are they being racist or are they doing their job?

If a man instead of a woman is promoted to a managerial position, is it because he's a man or is it because he's fits the position better?

If an Aboriginal community is labelled 'lazy Abo scum with chips on their shoulders' is it because they are Aborigninal or because they are lazy scum with chips on their shoulders?

Of course, if they are the question is: Are they only lazy scum with chips on their shoulders due to decades of racism? - just as the question is: Does he only fit the position better because of the advantages he's had in career, education and personal life due to being male? and: Are groups of "ethnic" youths only committing crimes due to the frustrations of racism? and lastly: Is the gay teacher only a not nice person due to the emotional & social struggle of being gay in a hetero world?

It is a classic example of where the history of the word changes its connotations and I guess that's why we use "guys and girls" instead of "boys and girls".

I use the word black when talking about, well, black Americans. I think I use it because it is a word that I am familiar with - it's easy for me to say, I don't have to think about it. All the African type black people I know are African so if it's necessary to talk about their background then I would say Sudanese, Ghanan, Nigerian, black South African or whatever.

I don't use the word black for Indian Sub Continent people. I couldn't quite work out from the conversation above whether they are called black in Britain or not. I'd call them Indian (which a good 90% of the ones I know are) - unless I was corrected and they were Sri Lankan, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or whatever.

I'll probably offend some more friends by calling them Anglo-Saxon when in fact they're Slavic - I've done this before! But it's so confusing because Indians are Caucasian too and so the only umbrella term is white - but then on an International level that's not because Latinos aren't considered white in America.

I haven't said nigger is not offensive, I've said it's hard to understand why it's so offensive without knowing the whole history of the word. I don't have much knowledge of American history and America seems to be the country where the word is most potent.

So yes, because I'm not black and because I'm not American the word nigger does not raise my hackles at all

I just can't comprehend this at all, I mean isn't "nigger" the most high profile offensive word on the planet? Well?

There is a UK list:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/table/0,7493,409833,00.html

Here's the top 10:
Cunt
Motherfucker
Fuck
Wanker
Nigger
Bastard
Prick
Bollocks
Arsehole
Paki

If an Aboriginal community is labelled 'lazy Abo scum with chips on their shoulders' is it because they are Aborigninal or because they are lazy scum with chips on their shoulders?

Err toraneko.. I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but in practical terms I find it hard to think of a community being labelled thus without extremely racist beliefs underpinning it.

If the police pay a lot of attention to a group of "ethnic" youths because there has been lots of opportunistic crime committed by groups of youths in that suburb, are they being racist or are they doing their job?

If you mean a specific gang that is known to be offending then they're doing their job. If by 'group' you mean any youths of that ethnicity then yes, they're being racist as hell.

I can't find any very good terminology to differentiate between Americans whose ancestors were brought from Africa as slaves and Americans whose more immediate ancestors came from Africa of their own accord.

So if we've said that a lot of the power of words-against-blacks comes from those words being linked with action -- slavery, Jim Crow, etc. -- we can assume that if Nazi Germany had used particular widespread terms for Jews beyond the regular "Juden," those words would top quite a few "offensive words" lists. (Or is my history off here -- were there such words? And while "Juden" is still standard German usage, I imagine it would have very bad mental associations for non-German European Jews of a certain generation.)

And the point against calling women "girls" (which I, personally, don't mind), no matter how *nicely* it's being done, is that calling women "girls" infantilizes them and strips them of respect and their adult status which is somewhat equivalent to what calling men boys does, but as I acknowledged above it's the history of the word changes its connotations.

It could get more interesting though - because if female slaves were called "girl" in the same way that male slaves were called "boy" then it introduces either a whole nother level of predjudice (i.e. infantilising women is okay because they're infantile whereas infantilising men is not okay because you're denying their manhood and that's so much more of a travesty than denying a woman her womanhood, because womanhood means nothing, after all) OR it could mean that female slaves just aren't as important as male slaves because they're just women and so the word means nothing OR it's a good example of a word that has been very well reclaimed.

Err.. yeah - because single motherhood nothing to do with race.

I dunno, are there many man who use "girl" for all or the majority of women? I always thought that was more selectively applied.

Fauvism
Impressionism

and at least one other art movement I can't think of right now. Orignally insults by unimpressed critics, I believe.

The Preraphaelites?

Now I remember -- the "ash can" school.