Odds and Ends
White on white hate crime
4 11, 12:03pm
It's the correct translation, which was the point I was making. But yes, it also sounds slightly better.
Now I know you don't know or care about any of this, as you delight in spewing racist remarks around you on this site, but the history of the word is important.
"Negro" was not only considered the scientifically correct term in Scandinavia back then - it was also a term used by African Americans themselves as late as during the civil rights era of the 1960's.
This was of course because the N-word was only used by racists at that time - and had so been for hundreds of years.
If you bothered to read the actual sources the Wikipedia-link bases it text on, you'd know that:
The second line in the Wikipedia-link is:
"The word originated as a neutral term referring to people with black skin"
Which is in fact completely wrong, as the actual source for that statement in part reads:
"From the earliest usage it was "the term that carries with it all the obloquy and contempt and rejection which whites have inflicted on blacks" [cited in Gowers, 1965, probably Harold R. Isaacs]. But as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in English-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without deliberate insult."
In other words - hundreds of years ago the N-word could "in some cases" be used without DELIBERATELY seeking to insult - but it was still always insulting. So no - it's never ever been a "neutral term".
And this is of course because the N-word is a word that's ONLY EVER referred to people of African decent and it's ALWAYS been a derogatory term.
As shown the text of the Wikipedia article is misleading (which is disappointing but not wholly surprising - you often find people trying to defend the N-word by misstating it's history), and you make the same mistake in trying to conflate the N-word with the Spanish word for the color black - "Negro".
But no - the N-word has never ever been a "translation" like you call it from Spanish - a translations would obviously have been the word "Black".
Calling someone with darker skin - especially someone who might actually have such dark skin tone that he's virtually black, "Black", isn't an insult - it's a description.
Just like calling paler people "White" (even if we're not literally white).
So the Spanish term "Negro" - which just means black - has never been as derogatory, and that term or simply "Black" has therefore been the preferred term used by decent people.
While the N-word has always been a term used by people who deliberately want to insult - I.E racists.
Regarding your claim that the Finnish word "Neekeri" translates "precisely" to the N-word I very much think that's bullshit.
But it's quite interesting bullshit as it seems to say a lot about you.
Because Google translates Neekeri "precisely" to Negro - as does other online translations I found.
And I know the Swedish word "Neger" on the same box in the same picture definitely doesn't mean the N-word, but "Negro".
But I did manage to find ONE online translation site which gave more options. It's first recommendation was still "Negro" - but then, with the description "offensive: relating to the black ethnicity" it gave the N-word.
Meaning that it seems possible that the word "Neekari" - while not usually - might be interpreted as the N-word by some people as well - but not like you claim that it's the only and precise translation.
But it says a lot about you that you apparantly really, really, really want to interpret the word as derogatory and offensive as possible - even if that's not how most Finnish speakers interpret it.
So no, my comment was not irrelevant and it wasn't incorrect.
And I didn't tag you because I wasn't directing my post to you, as my text clearly states.
I was only thinking of all the people here who can't read either Finnish or Swedish and wanted to spare them from being misinformed by you.
If you'd been smart you would just have ignored it, and spared yourself this embarrassment.