Coffee Beabadoobee Lyrics Ukulele Chords
5 years ago
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Terms
In the Kevin Kumashiro article he talks about the terms that he uses on the second page. Honestly, his explanation for the use of the word "queer" in his article irked me. I guess that I don't find his reasoning to be valid. It seems to me he thinks that because the gay community has reclaimed this word as their own it would be a good word to use in an essay on changing oppression. I don't feel that his reasoning is good because I am pretty sure that there is not anyone out there that would use the word "nigger" in order to refer to the African American group, however, they also as a group reclaimed that term as their own. Because this issue came up in the beginning of the essay I had a hard time reading the rest not only because I dislike the tediousness of working your way through all the academic filler of these types of articles, but it just kind of made me dislike the author as well. I am sure that there are a lot of different opinions on the word "queer", but if you are not part of that group or using it with friends that are members of that group than I don't think that it is an appropriate word to use when talking about the LGBT group.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I have to say that I agree with you. I wasn't offended or anything- I just laughed a couple of times at Kumishara's reckless use of the word "queer". He did explain himself so it wasn't necessarilly as crass as it could have been, but I made the connection between "queer" and the "n" word myself. However, who's to say if Kumishara was using the term as an outsider of the "other" group or an insider. He never does say.
I think that the fact that he has to use a disclaimer at the beginning of his essay was what bothered me. I think that if it were used in an empowering manner, he would not have to have the disclaimer, but then I started to think of something similar (like the two of you) with the word “nigger.” There is a very good book by Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy which is actually titled _Nigger:The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word_ that I think can be compared to Kumashiro’s use of “queer.” While many agree that the word should not be censored from the English language, it certainly should not be used by all people because of the historical significance. And yet, the word “nigger” has been reclaimed particularly in the hip-hop culture. Youth in the hip-hop culture seem to be arguing that context determines the meaning of the word. Kennedy argues that everyone (including whites) can use “nigger,” as long as the context of its use is clear and appropriate. According to Kennedy’s argument, Kimashiro’s use of the word “queer” was not inappropriate since the context of its use was clear and appropriate. Though the word might make us feel a little uncomfortable, maybe that's the point. After all, that is how LGBTs are made to feel almost everyday.
The term queer is a bit edgy but it has nothing on the "n" word. Also, I don't believe the author ever says anything about being heterosexual. It is quite possible that he is queer himself. This is a really good example of the point he was trying to make. A lot of people get caught up in the language of it all but the fact that we assumed he was heterosexual is the real core of the issue. Queer is much more commonly used now a days. In fact several colleges across the US have Queers and Allies centers at their schools instead of an LGBT center like ours. The term queer just covers a lot more people than LGBT. A person who does not fall under Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender are not represented under LGBT where as he/she/ze are included under the term queer.
I completely agree with you, as well as the many other replies on your blog. When Kumahsiro used the word "queer" and then went on to explain why he's using that particular word..I wasn't really sure how to react. The whole disclaimer thing wasn't working for me. At the same time however, the word "queer" can be considered controversial and everyone is going to have their own opinion for that matter. While I still found the article to be interesting and full of information, I admit that I probably didn't get as much as I probably could have because his terminology at times was more of a distraction than anything.
These are all very interesting points. Sensitivity to this issue is integral. We would like to avoid labeling. It is difficult when groups use words to identify themselves. Often times, these words are safe to use only for those members of the group. To accommodate 'the other' consideration, I feel that it would be important to respect the language of the group identifying itself as such and not use those words to describe them. We should try to find words that feel safe and that promote acceptance. Technical terms (such as homosexual) are often less offensive but tend to be cumbersome.
Post a Comment