A Chink in the Armor?

Recently an ESPN headline writer was fired for running a story titled “A Chink in the Armor” which was considered a racial slur against a Chinese player.    Given how often that term is used in sports, I would err to the side of believing it an unintended pun rather than a racially inspired remark, but ESPN didn’t want to risk a PR debacle.  Fair enough.

However, this may go to far: a call to retire  the phrase ‘chink in the armor.’

The phrase itself is old, from middle English.  It refers to a fissure or break in the armor worn by knights.   As a metaphor, it rather effectively connotes a very powerful team or player who has a small weakness that potentially could lead to defeat.

Retiring or ‘banning’ phrases within the media is common.   Rare is the word “nigger” heard, usually either from blacks themselves or in a dramatic context — like when an angry and distraught Col. Oliver (a character based on Canadian Gen. Romeo Dallaire) tells Paul Rusesabagina “you’re not even a nigger, you’re an African” in Hotel Rwanda.   That usage dramatizes the apparent racism of the world in refusing to help Rwanda, it isn’t meant to denigrate blacks – it was Oliver’s angry way for characterizing the orders he was receiving.  Otherwise, the once common slur is virtually gone – banned in schools, the media, and public places.

Nick Nolte's use of the word "nigger" served to dramatize how little concern the West has for Africa

Not all groups get equal treatment.   If I were to say “He wants $5000 for the car, but I’m going to jew him down to under $4000,” that would be out of bounds.   It’s a stereotype of Jews being cheap and always going for a better deal.   However, if I say “Hey, I paid too much for this, I got gypped” few people would blink.   Gypsies don’t have many defenders, and most people don’t even know that “gypped” comes from how gypsies (or to be politically correct, the Roma) cheat people.

What if the caption was "How to Jew Down the Price of a Used Car?"

But those words are directly related to the racial group in play.    Chink is not.   Chink is used as a slur against Chinese folk, but it also has a different meaning going back a millennium, and is used as a common phrase.    One might compare it to the use of the word niggardly, which has a whole different heritage and meaning (nothing to do with race).     People have lost their jobs for using that term, especially when people with a poor vocabulary falsely believe it to be uttered as an allusion to race.

Yet unlike “chink in the armor” the word niggardly isn’t common.    Moreover, there is a long history of oppression of blacks – slavery, ghettoization, etc.  While bigotry against Chinese has been common in the US, especially on the West coast where they originally settled, it’s not as horrid a history.

Of course the groups that have suffered the most in US history are the American Indians.   I’ve heard it argued that “Indians” or “Braves” should not be used for team names.      That seems to go too far – after all, you don’t see Norwegians complaining about the use of Viking – and that team is named after a group known for being rapists, murderers and thieves!   (Full disclosure: as I type this I’m wearing a Viking sweatshirt and I’m a Minnesota Vikings fan).

But what about the Redskins?  You know, the team representing our nation’s capital.    It’s one thing to have a name that is respectful – the “Fighting Sioux” from North Dakota actually uses the tribal name rather than the broad term “Indian.”  But “redskins” has always been a racial epithet.     So the worst part of this sentence “The break down in the defense shows a chink in the armor of the Redskins…” is the metaphor “chink in the armor?”   Really?

If "chink in the armor" is bad, what is this?

Like the gypsies, the American Indian nations don’t get much respect or attention, so it’s OK to continue with terms that denigrate them.

Then you get into other terms.    Some want to banish the “R” word – retard.   Long ago mentally retarded children started to be referred to as “special” – education for people with handicaps is now called “special education.”   The result – “special” has become an insult that works exactly as “retard” used to.   Trying to micromanage language usage is ultimately an impossible task.

At base I think people need perspective.  I try to teach my children something that will make life much easier for them: “Do not give other people power over your emotions through their words.”    If someone calls you a name, getting mad at them and being bothered and offended is a self-inflicted wound.   You have chosen to give that other person power over your emotions, you could have decided to ignore them – people call names to arouse a reaction, when you comply, you hand them a victory.

Not that I think terms like “nigger” or “jew him down” or even “gyp” should be used.  In fact, I’m all for changing the name of the Redskins and other obviously derogatory team names.    But we shouldn’t go overboard.  The goal is not to have a language whitewashed of any possibly offensive term, especially not if the term’s meaning and usage is not derived from slurs.  “A chink in their armor” is fine.

Most importantly we have to focus a bit less on the words and language and more on real conditions.    The only reason a slur can sting is because it evokes status differentials in society.    Calling a white anglo saxon a “WASP” isn’t very offensive because it does not harken to some kind of lower status for those people.   Calling an Italian a “dago” or a Japanese a “nip” does.   Some of it may be historical, and if so the longer removed the history the less offensive the term.    The more different groups have equal status the less you’ll see offensive terms used — society will naturally move away from such usage.

Ultimately it’s not the words that sting, it’s the way we take them.  That’s something we can learn from George Carlin.

 

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Titfortat on February 23, 2012 - 23:41

    Great post Scott, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Like Momma used say, “Son, nobody can walk on you unless you lie down”.
    The Carlin piece is priceless. 🙂

  2. #2 by Rob F on February 24, 2012 - 00:18

    Regarding offensive terminology, one thing that Scott didn’t really touch on was how a term that is offensive might still currency in certain contexts. Examples would be the terms “Eskimo” and “Samoyed” and their derived terms. When used to refer to people, they are considered pejorative due to purported etymologies (“eaters of raw flesh” and “self-eating”, respective [these etymologies are false, BTW, but that fact is irrelevant as to whether they are pejorative or not]). Yet these terms are still used in specialized contexts (like the Eskimo-Aleut languages, the nearly-extinct bird the Eskimo Curlew, the Samoyedic languages and the breed of dog).

    AFAIK there has been no serious call for changing such terminology. Scott, what do you think of such terms, namely those which are pejorative in general but which retain currency in specialized contexts?

    • #3 by Scott Erb on February 24, 2012 - 02:43

      Yeah, keep using the terms…I actually didn’t know Eskimo was considered pejorative.

      • #4 by Rob F on February 24, 2012 - 02:56

        In Greenland and here in Canada it is. Don’t know about Alaska.

  3. #5 by Alan Scott on February 24, 2012 - 00:38

    Scott,

    I find it amazing that I agree with you on most of this post . I will disagree on the Washington Redskins even though they are a rival to my Philadelphia Eagles . I say that when you pick a name for a team you are not showing disrespect . Redskins was a derogatory term in the 1800s and perhaps the Kansas City Chiefs is a better option . But when you choose a name you are honoring the courage and strength of whatever you have chosen . Which is why we have sports teams named after animals like Lions and Tigers and Bears, while names like the mice, the mighty earthworms, and slugs have yet to become popular .

    I cannot believe that anyone who has played for Washington would want to be called a Redskin if they remotely thought of it as a slur .

    • #6 by Scott Erb on February 24, 2012 - 01:24

      Fair point on the Redskins. I still think it’s worse than “chink in the armor,” and American Indians tend to be the minority group no one cares about, but I see your point.

  4. #7 by lbwoodgate on February 24, 2012 - 00:51

    Great post Scott. You hit all the points succinctly. Couldn’t haven’t said it better if I tried. Going to face book this one.

  5. #8 by Alan Scott on February 24, 2012 - 02:15

    Scott,

    I don’t know any Native Americans, so you may have a fair point. But as far as a public historical image I think the American Indian has a positive one. The tragic noble warrior and hunter fighting against newer technology, overwhelming enemy numbers, and dishonest government officials . There is a Libertarian rebel hero quality that I see as being reflected in the name Washington Redskins . Nothing comes to mind, but I think there are other examples of a slur being turned around to a positive .

    • #9 by Scott Erb on February 24, 2012 - 02:48

      I’m very sensitive on how Americans indians are treated (even though I do not use the term ‘native American,’ having been told by an Indian activist that he thought it silly and wrong headed). He preferred the true names (Oglala Sioux, Lakota, etc.) I grew up in South Dakota, and have often driven through the reservations and talked to Sioux and for awhile when I worked in DC worked on “Indian Affairs” for Senator Pressler. What happened to them was a low tech holocaust, but “we” won and they lost. I’m not one to dwell on the past or think the children are guilty of the crimes of their fathers — and in that era the Europeans were conquering the world and engaged in just as heinous destructions of cultures. It just seems that groups like the Sioux are especially neglected living in poverty, alcoholism and unemployment. I understand why they don’t want to give up the reservations, but unfortunately many are caught in a spiral of dependency.

  6. #10 by modestypress on February 24, 2012 - 04:43

    I don’t know if it will happen in my lifetime, but eventually we will discover some form of sapient life on another planet. At that point, the word human may become quite offensive. In fact, even without the discovery of alien life forms, artificial intelligence program will be muttering insults about “wetwares”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: