Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9696850:

White on white hate crime 5 11, 12:06am


That's not how words work and your opinion on how they should work according to you doesn't matter - because you obviously don't decide that.

Words can carry both positive and negative connotation - and those meanings can shift and be completely different to different people. Just look at how the N-word means one thing when it's used by a racist like you here on this site, compared to when it's used between two African American friends chillin on the sofa, watching a movie together.

In the same way the word "Dog" that you use as an example is a very strong insult in parts of the world where dogs are viewed as especially unclean creatures and the word has thus taken on very negative connotations.
While for most of us in the western world, the word "Dog" has neutral or even positive connotations if we maybe grew up with dogs in the family when we where kids and love dogs.

But the word actually used to be one of the worst insults even to us, hundreds of years ago.
Back in the early 17th century, when Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was down warring in central Europe, there's historic records of him calling someone a "Hundsvott" - which was considered very insulting at the time.
That term has fallen out of use since, but you can still find it in some dictionary sources as a demeaning word and the first part of the word obviously refers to the Swedish word for "Dog" which is "Hund".

But since then the connotation of the word and creature has changed a lot - in our part of the world, that is.

So yes - if racists had used the word "Black" to label people of African decent since hundreds of years, that would have been the more derogatory term today - no matter that it started out as just being the word for a color.

"What kind of an idiot thinks he can use google translator and "other online translations" to debunk a native speaker's translation and explanation of the word 'neekeri' and it's meaning in Finnish? "

Yes - what kind of idiots would ever compile, print and use a dictionary when everyone of course know all about every word in their own language?
Answer: intelligent people since around 2300 BC, when the first known rudimentary dictionaries where compiled.
Only ignorant persons like you think they know everything and refuse to educate themselves, instead just spouting of their beliefs as if they where facts.

I'll take serious sources over your beliefs any day, thank you very much.

So let's continue looking at actual sources, shall we?

Like this source from the Wikipedia article, that shows that instead of a neutral word, the N-word was DELIBERATELY used by racists in the US - precisely because it was viewed as the most insulting and demeaning term available:

"In A Treatise on the Intellectual Character and Civil and Political Condition of the Colored People of the United States: and the Prejudice Exercised Towards Them (1837), Hosea Easton wrote that nigger "is an opprobrious term, employed to impose contempt upon [blacks] as an inferior race. . . . The term in itself would be perfectly harmless were it used only to distinguish one class of society from another; but it is not used with that intent. . . . [I]t flows from the fountain of purpose to injure."

And in the Swedish language version of the Wikipedia entry for the N-word, they use as a source the first printed version of the old Swedish classic encyclopedia "Nordisk familjebok" which states (my translation):

"Nigger, English word, In America used as a contemptuous common noun instead of Negro"

And this was printed in 1887, so the N-word has been known specifically as a derogatory racial slur for very long - while "Negro" or the Swedish "Neger" was considered the proper name.

So no - you're again proven completely wrong. The N-word has been known as a racial slur for a very long time indeed and anyone using it 80 years ago would have given themselves away as a racist - just like you do today, when you chose to use it.

"Negro" or the Swedish "Neger" on the other hand is a completely different thing as I've said all along. And as far as I've been able to find that is also the correct translation of the Finnish word "Nekkeri" - despite what you claim.
That was viewed as the proper term 80 years ago and even 40 years ago, and thus if you find older Scandinavians who use that term that doesn't necessary give them away as racists.

But the N-word has never been anything but a racial slur in Scandinavia. It's never been thought as the proper name for people of African decent in any national school curriculum and anyone choosing to use it have thus always betrayed their racist views.

Nowadays our language has evolved further, so now it's also considered inappropriate to use the old term "Negro" and the Swedish and Finnish versions for it - but as I said you can still find old people not intending any harm by using it, as it was the term they where taught as children.

But that still doesn't make "Negro" as bad as the N-word though - which you also know full well.
And young people like you, still using "Neger" or "Nekkeri" today, only betray racist views as you where never thought that term was the proper name to use - just like no one has ever been thought to use the N-word in Scandinavia.

I know you dislike that change in our languages - as a racist you of course would wish to continue insulting people, as that's what racists live for. But fortunately we've moved on from that and when you spot racist crap like that today you're going to get pushback. That's a good thing.

So just a tip: Don't waste your time worrying about what anyone else thinks about what I write. I'm not the one spewing racist crap around here.

America wearing England's shirt