As a black person, I honestly could care less if you wrote it, as long as it has a reason (that isn't racist ofc). Also in some comedy where white people use the n word, it be funny asf, and I'm mostly fine with that as long as they aren't an actual racist, or are using it to truly support racism.
absolutely love yt recommending 1k view stuff on my homepage as of late I’ve been finding so many great creators instead of some bunk ass mrbeast shit on the homepage :) banger vid. subbed
im black and i think yes, you are allowed. however i dont speak for the entire community and am half white myself. just dont do it in the « if i need to get it out ill write it down » way. if you are using it for a story, to translate or to set a rule, it should be allowed logically. writing is art and art doesnt adhere to normal standards. my main concern is why youre writing a book about a black character if youre white. not that you cant write outside of your own experiences. its concerning because its extremely difficult to write about the ins of a culture you’re not a part of. in general it doesnt really matter if you’re « allowed » because its not illegal and people do what they want anyway. TLDR: I’d say yeah but only for art or aide like translations
It’s kind of late but short answer: YES Long answer: you can write it down for your story but as you should know things like this are taboo it all depends on context, since your character is black you may or may not write your black character experiencing racism, which is fine I’m just using this as an example, it may come off bad or wrong TO AN EXTENT if your writing it to bully or degrade your black character from the pov of the person being racist to your character.
I work at a film company with a bunch of black people and a bunch of white people and I almost want to show them this, but you'll get made fun of from both sides and I like your channel.
Interesting video. I've read Huck Finn many times- and I think the argument still falls short, mainly because of the characterization of Jim. Most of the time, people want to simply complain about the usage of the N word, but I think Twain did something much more egregious- in a book meant to talk about the principles of racism and it's effects, the most important black character had no agency. Jim is not only just a slave, he's superstitious, has a total lack of education, and effectively is used by Twain as a way to make minstrel show style jokes- always a tired trope. Tom Sawyer literally plays with the man's freedom as a game, for crying out loud- he literally knew that Jim was a freed slave before Jim did- and decided to make an adventure about his freedom. Even white KIDS had more control over Jim's life than he did. If one wants to write literature about/with black people and wish to use that word, it would make more sense to do so with black characters who control their own destinies and lives. That's the point of reclaiming the word, after all.
I'm glad you took the time to write this. The characterization of Jim was something that I thought about when making this video, but I ended up leaving it on the table. This is because I didn't believe it helped with the premise of the video, but you do bring a new perspective on it that I hadn't thought of. First, i 100% agree with your last paragraph, but when talking about Huckleberry Finn, one must take into account the real life circumstances of African Americans in the south during the 1800's. I don't believe Twain used Jim for, "Minstrel show style jokes" rather that was just how black men were treated during the 1800's. Also education for southern African Americans was practically nonexistent during this time, so portraying Jim as a well spoken man in control of his life would be false. Now is it right for white people to be writing about that in the first place? That's the question that I don't have the answer to.
@@Void_Eyez Now- while I understand what you've said, I think there is a problem with your characterization of Southern Blacks- especially during Reconstruction, which was when this book was published (about 1885-1887, I believe). There's a serious misinformation campaign when it comes to the nature of post Reconstruction African Americans, especially when it comes to the nature of education of children and adults. Let's look at my home state, South Carolina, as an example: 1. Under the leadership of Robert Smalls (who became the first Black person to represent the state of SC in Congress), the state became the first to mandate public education and enshrine it into the state Constitution. 2. While South Carolina was "held under Radical control"(as neo-Confederates like to call it), the state legislature was not only majority black- many wished to set an example by going to the University of South Carolina- making it the first majority black state college in U.S. history (Also, the first black graduate from Harvard taught and served as their resident librarian, fun tidbit). 3. Not only that, but the Freedmen's Bureau was critical in establishing Freedom Schools during this time period- which led to a significant rise in the education of African American kids throughout the South. Many of these gains, of course, would be reversed with the election of Benjamin "Pitchfork" Tillman- but to pretend that Twain didn't have examples of African Americans that weren't stereotypes, that had education- that had agency, really- is a fallacy and plays right into the nature of the Lost Cause narrative of Reconstruction, essentially that African Americans, when left to their own devices, just fail at being able to establish and maintain governmental, educational, and economic systems that can flourish. Whether or not Twain added to this narrative through Huck Finn is an argument that probably requires more than a B.A. in Political Science and History, but as a person who loved the book as a kid, and reread it many years later after thoroughly studying Reconstruction, it has always made me think.
Personally I think anyone can say or write any word, as long as you mean no actual offence behind it... As people of colour get away with being racist towards white people all the time, meaning offence behind their words. I'm not saying just because black people get away with racism, white people should be allowed to do it back: two wrongs don't make a right. A joke or a story should NOT be constricted by "Oh a white person can't say or write that" that's called a double standard (Obviously again the intent behind the words is the key element" Like you say "fuck you" to someone in a laughing and joking way, compared to in an aggressive and violent way... that other person will obviously see the two ways of saying "fuck you" in completely different ways because of contextual clues.
I'd say it's ok to say or write the n word in instances like that and to talk about oppression even if you're white. personally, I believe as long as you're not saying it with any ill-intent, it's fine
Not really, it will have power until racism is gone, black people get assaulted and killed while being called that word, that word has power, even if we don’t like to admit it.
I mean kinda wrong if we're speaking biolocally because there are differences between the races, which is very good for the genepool btw. But most people also confuse ethnicity and race so yeah.
there is no difference in biology. 99.99% genetically the same@@sterlingarcher5339"Definition. The scientific consensus about “race” today is that it is a fundamentally social rather than biological construct."-
I say it I write it I sing it I refuse to let one crappy word kowtow me. I don't call people BY it but it's absolutely stupid that people have let this one word hold them hostage.
I respect you opinion but saying it’s stupid that we shouldn’t care about a term that’s used to dehumanize us by racists is “absolutely stupid” say what you want but don’t deny the facts that are in front of your face unless you’re just ignorant
@@Mari_thealien I never said it was stupid not to care. I said it was stupid to let a single fucking word hold someone hostage regardless of context. What're you going to do next? Ban "that one" (Nii Ghe) in Chinese because it sounds the same?
I feel you... I am writing a story based in Georgia pre-civil war... I am stuck on this character that would use a language that is not OK... As a white guy I can't get past this issue...
This is the exact reason why I made this video. I find it hard to know the right answer, but purely from a writers perspective, I would say stay true to the character you wrote. Otherwise, you're doing a disservice to your story. If you handle the situation with delicacy, then the majority of people will understand. (I'm testing this theory right now with this video lol)
"Are we allowed?" The most pathetic question. If you have to ask the answer will always be no. Don't ask if you're allowed. Do whatever you want to do and stand by it. Stop letting others decide what you can and can't do
"not really our place". What?? Racism happens to basically everyone?? Especially certain groups of white people, i.e, Azerbaijani, Polish, etc. They have faced a lot of oppression throughout history, lost me at the last part of your video, and completely lost me.
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you understood what I was saying. It isn't really our place to talk about oppression for black people, because we were the ones that caused the oppression.
@@Void_Eyez who is we? I think it's somewhat ignorant to say "we", given that not even all "white Americans" have ancestors who participated in that sort of activity. I am not American, either. I kind of see your logic, partially, but the people living today didn't participate in what their ancestors did, because they were dead. Dead stays dead, and yes, there is a history there. But, it is weird to hold people who are not their ancestors, accountable for actions they didn't do. I'll use an example of why I don't agree. It is like saying someone from Pakistan can't say anything about India or its people.
@DamnedBotted okk, but enough white Americans had ancestors who did participate in the oppression. Otherwise, it wouldn't nearly be as much of a controversy as it is now. I understand and agree with you that white Americans now are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors, but it is still difficult for white people to talk about issues regarding race without facing criticism due to how badly America has treated black people post slavery. You might say that is America's fault not white people, but America was predominantly ran by white after the abolition of slavery and during the jim crow laws, and some of those laws stayed up for as long as 1965.
@@Void_Eyez Still, they are not their ancestors. It is like how the North Korean government can punish generations of families because of one person committing a crime. "Three-generation punishment. If anyone in North Korea commits a crime, not only he/she will be punished but also his/her parents, grandparents and children will be penalised too." Also, during that Jim Crow law you discussed, groups of people we generally now consider to be white, were also considered to be "colored" at the time. I.e, Irish, Polish, etc. "enough white Americans had ancestors who did participate in the oppression." is a generalization, based in some logic, sure. But, it still is a generalization, no one can tell that "enough white Americans" had those ancestors.
the fact that he wrote it down for the thumbnail 💀
Technically it doesn't show the i
That's a crazy thumbnail
It is indeed 💀
As a black person, I honestly could care less if you wrote it, as long as it has a reason (that isn't racist ofc).
Also in some comedy where white people use the n word, it be funny asf, and I'm mostly fine with that as long as they aren't an actual racist, or are using it to truly support racism.
"What I do is if I really need to get it out I just write it down..."
I'm giving you my n word pass I don't use it
💀💀💀
absolutely love yt recommending 1k view stuff on my homepage as of late I’ve been finding so many great creators instead of some bunk ass mrbeast shit on the homepage :) banger vid. subbed
*You're an artist. The ONLY sin is being boring.*
Hmmm
im black and i think yes, you are allowed. however i dont speak for the entire community and am half white myself. just dont do it in the « if i need to get it out ill write it down » way. if you are using it for a story, to translate or to set a rule, it should be allowed logically. writing is art and art doesnt adhere to normal standards. my main concern is why youre writing a book about a black character if youre white. not that you cant write outside of your own experiences. its concerning because its extremely difficult to write about the ins of a culture you’re not a part of. in general it doesnt really matter if you’re « allowed » because its not illegal and people do what they want anyway.
TLDR: I’d say yeah but only for art or aide like translations
sorry for the essay bro
Nahh dw about the length I appreciate the comment, we kinda think the same way on this and I'm glad u took the time to write it
It’s kind of late but
short answer: YES
Long answer: you can write it down for your story but as you should know things like this are taboo it all depends on context, since your character is black you may or may not write your black character experiencing racism, which is fine I’m just using this as an example, it may come off bad or wrong TO AN EXTENT if your writing it to bully or degrade your black character from the pov of the person being racist to your character.
I work at a film company with a bunch of black people and a bunch of white people and I almost want to show them this, but you'll get made fun of from both sides and I like your channel.
let them make fun of me idc, im just glad u like my channel lol
Interesting video. I've read Huck Finn many times- and I think the argument still falls short, mainly because of the characterization of Jim. Most of the time, people want to simply complain about the usage of the N word, but I think Twain did something much more egregious- in a book meant to talk about the principles of racism and it's effects, the most important black character had no agency.
Jim is not only just a slave, he's superstitious, has a total lack of education, and effectively is used by Twain as a way to make minstrel show style jokes- always a tired trope. Tom Sawyer literally plays with the man's freedom as a game, for crying out loud- he literally knew that Jim was a freed slave before Jim did- and decided to make an adventure about his freedom. Even white KIDS had more control over Jim's life than he did.
If one wants to write literature about/with black people and wish to use that word, it would make more sense to do so with black characters who control their own destinies and lives. That's the point of reclaiming the word, after all.
I'm glad you took the time to write this. The characterization of Jim was something that I thought about when making this video, but I ended up leaving it on the table. This is because I didn't believe it helped with the premise of the video, but you do bring a new perspective on it that I hadn't thought of.
First, i 100% agree with your last paragraph, but when talking about Huckleberry Finn, one must take into account the real life circumstances of African Americans in the south during the 1800's. I don't believe Twain used Jim for, "Minstrel show style jokes" rather that was just how black men were treated during the 1800's. Also education for southern African Americans was practically nonexistent during this time, so portraying Jim as a well spoken man in control of his life would be false. Now is it right for white people to be writing about that in the first place? That's the question that I don't have the answer to.
@@Void_Eyez Now- while I understand what you've said, I think there is a problem with your characterization of Southern Blacks- especially during Reconstruction, which was when this book was published (about 1885-1887, I believe). There's a serious misinformation campaign when it comes to the nature of post Reconstruction African Americans, especially when it comes to the nature of education of children and adults. Let's look at my home state, South Carolina, as an example:
1. Under the leadership of Robert Smalls (who became the first Black person to represent the state of SC in Congress), the state became the first to mandate public education and enshrine it into the state Constitution.
2. While South Carolina was "held under Radical control"(as neo-Confederates like to call it), the state legislature was not only majority black- many wished to set an example by going to the University of South Carolina- making it the first majority black state college in U.S. history (Also, the first black graduate from Harvard taught and served as their resident librarian, fun tidbit).
3. Not only that, but the Freedmen's Bureau was critical in establishing Freedom Schools during this time period- which led to a significant rise in the education of African American kids throughout the South.
Many of these gains, of course, would be reversed with the election of Benjamin "Pitchfork" Tillman- but to pretend that Twain didn't have examples of African Americans that weren't stereotypes, that had education- that had agency, really- is a fallacy and plays right into the nature of the Lost Cause narrative of Reconstruction, essentially that African Americans, when left to their own devices, just fail at being able to establish and maintain governmental, educational, and economic systems that can flourish. Whether or not Twain added to this narrative through Huck Finn is an argument that probably requires more than a B.A. in Political Science and History, but as a person who loved the book as a kid, and reread it many years later after thoroughly studying Reconstruction, it has always made me think.
Good video Austin. I don’t know. I’m white
Im glad I was reccommended this video
as a white person who has received the pass may times im still to scared to say it or even write it
Well done bro rly interesting video keep cooking 🔥🔥🔥
Thanks bro, I appreciate the comment
Personally I think anyone can say or write any word, as long as you mean no actual offence behind it... As people of colour get away with being racist towards white people all the time, meaning offence behind their words.
I'm not saying just because black people get away with racism, white people should be allowed to do it back: two wrongs don't make a right.
A joke or a story should NOT be constricted by "Oh a white person can't say or write that" that's called a double standard (Obviously again the intent behind the words is the key element" Like you say "fuck you" to someone in a laughing and joking way, compared to in an aggressive and violent way... that other person will obviously see the two ways of saying "fuck you" in completely different ways because of contextual clues.
as a mixed individual, i dont care.
I'd say it's ok to say or write the n word in instances like that and to talk about oppression even if you're white. personally, I believe as long as you're not saying it with any ill-intent, it's fine
Nice video deserves more attention
W mans
Yes you can! You can write down. It's just a world the power it has over you is your decision
Not really, it will have power until racism is gone, black people get assaulted and killed while being called that word, that word has power, even if we don’t like to admit it.
Race is a social construct
I mean kinda wrong if we're speaking biolocally because there are differences between the races, which is very good for the genepool btw. But most people also confuse ethnicity and race so yeah.
there is no difference in biology. 99.99% genetically the same@@sterlingarcher5339"Definition. The scientific consensus about “race” today is that it is a fundamentally social rather than biological construct."-
so are words
@@AugustRx ????
@@sterlingarcher5339 race has no grounds in biology, but sure
Nrs call themselves Nrs so that we (non Nrs) don't have to.
Let's rewrite history... Wait that's what Tarantino does in his films; 🤦 guess another serpent eating its tail case
yabba dabba doo!
im being 1000% genuine when i say this. is this a joke?
Theodore Roosevelt, what makes you think this is a joke...
Who cares as long as it is fiction and not hurting people
I say it
I write it
I sing it
I refuse to let one crappy word kowtow me. I don't call people BY it but it's absolutely stupid that people have let this one word hold them hostage.
I respect you opinion but saying it’s stupid that we shouldn’t care about a term that’s used to dehumanize us by racists is “absolutely stupid” say what you want but don’t deny the facts that are in front of your face unless you’re just ignorant
@@Mari_thealien I never said it was stupid not to care. I said it was stupid to let a single fucking word hold someone hostage regardless of context. What're you going to do next? Ban "that one" (Nii Ghe) in Chinese because it sounds the same?
Yes you can write it down, that simple.
Oh.. yikes 😬
I feel you... I am writing a story based in Georgia pre-civil war... I am stuck on this character that would use a language that is not OK... As a white guy I can't get past this issue...
This is the exact reason why I made this video. I find it hard to know the right answer, but purely from a writers perspective, I would say stay true to the character you wrote. Otherwise, you're doing a disservice to your story. If you handle the situation with delicacy, then the majority of people will understand. (I'm testing this theory right now with this video lol)
Thats crazy asf
nothing wrong with saying it or writing it down, unless certain context.
get the genocide flag out of your pfp
@PeakApex "/hj", get a job, anti-jewish
@@the_ratl0rd get the hate out of your heart, anti-jewish
"Are we allowed?"
The most pathetic question. If you have to ask the answer will always be no.
Don't ask if you're allowed. Do whatever you want to do and stand by it. Stop letting others decide what you can and can't do
Hop off lil bro ☠️
"not really our place". What?? Racism happens to basically everyone?? Especially certain groups of white people, i.e, Azerbaijani, Polish, etc. They have faced a lot of oppression throughout history, lost me at the last part of your video, and completely lost me.
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you understood what I was saying. It isn't really our place to talk about oppression for black people, because we were the ones that caused the oppression.
@@Void_Eyez who is we? I think it's somewhat ignorant to say "we", given that not even all "white Americans" have ancestors who participated in that sort of activity. I am not American, either. I kind of see your logic, partially, but the people living today didn't participate in what their ancestors did, because they were dead. Dead stays dead, and yes, there is a history there. But, it is weird to hold people who are not their ancestors, accountable for actions they didn't do. I'll use an example of why I don't agree. It is like saying someone from Pakistan can't say anything about India or its people.
@DamnedBotted okk, but enough white Americans had ancestors who did participate in the oppression. Otherwise, it wouldn't nearly be as much of a controversy as it is now. I understand and agree with you that white Americans now are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors, but it is still difficult for white people to talk about issues regarding race without facing criticism due to how badly America has treated black people post slavery. You might say that is America's fault not white people, but America was predominantly ran by white after the abolition of slavery and during the jim crow laws, and some of those laws stayed up for as long as 1965.
@@Void_Eyez Still, they are not their ancestors. It is like how the North Korean government can punish generations of families because of one person committing a crime. "Three-generation punishment. If anyone in North Korea commits a crime, not only he/she will be punished but also his/her parents, grandparents and children will be penalised too."
Also, during that Jim Crow law you discussed, groups of people we generally now consider to be white, were also considered to be "colored" at the time. I.e, Irish, Polish, etc. "enough white Americans had ancestors who did participate in the oppression." is a generalization, based in some logic, sure. But, it still is a generalization, no one can tell that "enough white Americans" had those ancestors.
@DamnedBotted Dude just take the L and leave
real