St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1945-09-14

KNOW WndC Cnoy WdnC TO call US au
They see no reason why it should
be something else and take pride
in the employment of the term, pro-
nouncing it, in some cases, with
actual affection. The adept manner
which the southern white uses the
appellation is also shared with most
dominant white racial stocks, in
Guiding the British, German, Irish,
Italian and the Dutch. All seem to
relish the usage of the term,
"n-r."
on" is a nasty word. It is
the root of interracial friction be-
cause of the things it implies. The
white mans Interpretation runs the
gamut in his use of the abhorred
designation. Sometimes he wants
Negroes to feel the full impact of
what he means and uses the word
in such a manner as to convey the
idea that the object is low, dirty,
degraded, black, evil, etc. Some
times he wants it known that when
he says "n-" he means his
"dear old nanny" or "old Uncle
Tom" who bowed himself to death
waiting on his father and mother
back home on the old plantation.
Foreigners such as the British, Ger
man and Dutch call the brown and
darak racial stocks "n-r" con-
temptuously and with the idea of
conveying racial supremacy, as
does, incidentally, the American
white man. Singled out particular
ly for Identification with "n-r"
are all African stocks of whatever
shade recognizable.
The word "n-r" is also one
which Negroes use increasingly
among themselves. Highly edu-
Gated Negroes of culture, position
and money find the expression COM
monplace in polite conversation and
seem to get the satisfaction out of
using it among themselves or in
conversation with Negroes of a low
er level as a farmer gets out of
chew of Browns Mule or Old
Aunt Hannah got out of a good lip
full of CARROTS Snuff. Negro
school kids from the time they learn
to talk pick up the word 'tn-r"
and make it permanent part of
their vocabularies. In fact, "n-r''
has been put unconsciously into our
thinking and while most Negroes
who use the term do not mean to
convey the implications put into it
by the white man, nevertheless,
"n-r" is part and parcel of our
racial vocabulary, whether we like
it or not.
Although we use the word so ex-
tensively, we, individually and col
lectively will fight at the drop of
hat if we are called "n-r" by
a white man, or for that matter, by
a mulatto Negro fair enough to
pass (if he uses it in the manner
of the southern Whitley. .Unwit-
tingly the white man, in establish
ing the word "n-r" as an in
ternational standard of racial iden-
tity for a so-called inferior group,
has created a situation in which
careers in combating the word
have been launched. Yes, there are
hundreds of Negroes, who whether
they realize it or not, have dedi-
Gated their life work to eradicating
the word Or" from the vo-
cabularies of the nation.
Many of our top race rights or
CARNATIONS are in reality founded
on continual campaigning against
the causes of the term, "n-r,"
and its use by white people. We
have had and still have noted ora
tors, social workers, ministers and
others who are on the firing line,
battling daily against the use of the
word "n-r," yet, in private or
among themselves, one can hear the
term freely used. All this brings up
the question: what actual harm does
the word do? Does it black the
eye, kick the pants, shoot, burn,
main, or blind its objective? Are
we reduced in stature or changed
physically when called such a name
by a white man and remain as we
are when Negro calls US the same
thing? There's a lot Of head
scratching that can be done about
this matter. If we solve this prob
lem: what shall we be called, il