6/25/25 addendum: While I am not an eradicationist, I couldn't, in good conscience, let this review stand without some revision. So, I have gone through and changed the word (with the exception of the few mentions of the title itself) to an edited version. I couldn't even re-read my own review without feeling sick to my stomach at the sight of the word.
It is, inarguably, the most loathsome word in the English language. It has cost people jobs, sparked murders, and has been used to denigrate and oppress an entire race of people. Just seeing the word in print is enough to spark outrage in some people. Indeed, I am sure that some people will see the title of this book and refuse to even consider that it may contain anything of merit. How could it, after all, with a title like “Nigger”?
Randall Kennedy, a legal expert and a Harvard professor, wrote this book in 2002. He confronts the word, in all its permutations, head-on in a short (176 pages) but engaging book about the etymology, historical definitions, legal ramifications, and negative and positive uses of the word “n----r”. If one’s sensibilities can allow one to get the past the ugly little word in the title, “Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word” is actually a fascinating and educational read.
The word derives from the Latin word for “black”, niger. No one can adequately determine when or why Europeans started using it to designate dark-skinned Africans, but it became a popular and widespread term. Various spellings of the word (niggor, negar, neger) have been found in countless documents, but at some point the familiar spelling, n----r, became the acceptable spelling.
Historically, the word started out not as a derogatory term but simply a way to distinguish race, in the same way the words “Jew” or “Oriental” were used. Over time, the word gradually took on negative connotations, and by the 1800s, it was commonly used as an insult.
Here, in the United States, the word quickly established itself as a highly-charged derogatory term, tied inextricably with the institution of slavery. “N----r” was a word used by whites to keep blacks “in their place”, which was, more often than not, submissive, quiet, and completely obedient. Blacks who were not submissive, talked back, or disobeyed orders were labelled “uppity n----rs” and were severely punished.
Even after the Civil War and through the Civil Rights Movement---and even to the present-day---the word has been a tool by racists and white supremacists as a way to continue to denigrate and dismiss black people and their contributions to society.
Strangely enough, though, the word has also been re-purposed, according to Kennedy, within the black community---especially young men and women---to be a term of empowerment. “My n----r” is often used as an expression of inclusion and acceptance among young black men and women, usually but not necessarily always within the context of gang camaraderie.
Legal Issues
A majority of Kennedy’s book is devoted to the legal uses and ramifications of the word. He talks about four specific types of litigation in which the word “n----r” has played a role.
The first type involves cases “in which a party seeks relief after it is revealed that officials within the criminal justice system---jurors, lawyers, or judges---have referred to blacks as n----rs. (p.58)”
Kennedy admits that these cases are difficult to prosecute, primarily due to the federal protections given to jurors, judges, and lawyers, although there have been a few cases that it has been attempted. In one famous case, a district attorney was removed from his position by a judge after an altercation with a black man, who sued him for calling him a “n----r”. The DA appealed, but the Supreme Court upheld the decision, saying that his was a “classic” case of the fighting-words doctrine of the First Amendment, which allowed certain words, based on the context, to go unprotected, owing to the fact that the words were used to induce violence.
Interestingly, Kennedy agrees with the court’s ruling, but he criticizes the fighting words doctrine as sometimes enabling people to avoid showing self-restraint in situations in which people are confronted with violence-inducing insults. He writes, “[L]egal authority instructs everyone to exercise self-discipline even in the face of inflammatory taunts. The fighting words doctrine weakens that salutary message. (p.69)”
The second type “encompasses cases in which an individual who kills another seeks to have his culpability diminished on the grounds that he was provoked when the other party called him a nigger. (p. 58)”
It is, according to Kennedy, unlikely that a judge or jury would reduce a person’s punishment based on the provocation of the racially-charged word, but it is not impossible. He notes that some states allow juries to consider the provocation excuse as a basis for their judgment.
Again, Kennedy states that there are worthy arguments against this provocation excuse, chief among them is the fact that millions of black people have endured being called “n----r” without being induced or provoked to murder. To use the provocation excuse, some argue, would be an implicit acceptance of the racist notion that black people have no self-control and are easily induced to violence.
The third type “involves controversies surrounding targets of racial invective who sue for damages under tort law or antidiscrimination statutes. (p.58)”
Kennedy cites two well-known cases as examples of this. One case, Nims v. Harrison, involved a black schoolteacher who sued several graduating seniors for racist and hateful comments published in a newsletter about her. Some of the comments called her a “stupid bitch”, a “fucking whore”, and a “gigaboo [sic]”. Others included threats of rape and murder, and one simply said, “Die n----r”. She won the case in appellate court, only after her case was initially dismissed by a judge in trial court.
The fourth type “consists of situations in which a judge must decide whether or not to permit jurors to be told about the linguistic habits of witnesses or litigants. (p.58)”
The most famous example of this type was during the O.J. Simpson trial. L.A.P.D. homicide detective Mark Fuhrman had a reputation for loosely using the word “n----r” in casual references to black people. Prosecution asked Judge Lance Ito to prevent the defense from asking questions about Fuhrman’s history and past use of the word “n----r”, claiming that it would clearly hurt their case. Judge Ito allowed the defense to question Fuhrman. When asked if he ever used the word in his everyday speech, Fuhrman vehemently denied ever using the word. Months later, of course, audiotape was presented in which Fuhrman was caught repeatedly using the word. The prosecution was right: it hurt their case. Simpson was acquitted.
N----r v. Niggardly: Is it possible to be racially oversensitive?
Thankfully, the use of the word “n----r” as an insult is on the wane, but it has raised many new questions on how to best combat racism. Can people be too sensitive when it comes to hearing the word? Is a zero-tolerance policy acceptable? How do you explain predominantly black genres of music such as hip-hop, in which black rappers repeatedly use the word?
Kennedy touches on some of these issues at length. He writes that, with progress, problems have arisen in regards to how people overreact to the word. There are, according to him, four major ways that people can overreact and/or negatively capitalize on racial sensitivity.
One way is through unjustified deception. Kennedy cites several case examples in which people have falsely claimed to be the victims of racism in order to receive attention or some kind of gain, financial or otherwise. For example, in 1995, a black woman and her white boyfriend claimed to be the victims of racism. Someone had vandalized their apartment building by spraying hateful messages (“N----rs live here”) on their walls. It was later proven that they, themselves, had graffitied their own apartment building in order to escape lease payments.
A second way is through over-eagerness to detect insult. The more well-known example of this is David Howard, a Washington, D.C. city employee who was fired for using the word “niggardly”, a completely innocuous word meaning “miserly or frugal” and nothing whatsoever to do with the word “n----r”. Regardless of this fact, several black employees took offense to it. In the end, Howard was forced to resign.
A third way is an attempt to repress “good” uses of the word “n----r”; for example, the repeated attempts by parents across the country who, yearly, petition to have Mark Twain’s classic novel “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” removed from school reading lists and library book shelves. More often than not, these people have labelled the book “racist” without actually having read it. This is a sore subject for me, as “Huck Finn” is one of my favorite novels of all time. It is absolutely NOT racist, and it is, in fact, Twain’s excoriation of racism, especially in regards to Southern society.
The fourth way is overly harsh punishment of those who use the word indiscreetly. Kennedy looks at two types of this kind of overreaction: regulationist and eradicationists.
Regulationists are those who would institute policies and create more laws that would prevent a problem that isn’t really a problem. As an example, Kennedy cited a college that instituted a zero-tolerance policy of the use of the N-word after an isolated incident involving a stupid and misguided student prank. The policy has never been taken to task, namely because the problem of the overuse of the N-word on campus was never an issue before or after the incident.
Eradicationists are simply those who believe that all uses of the n-word are wrong and should be punished. These types of people would call for the publishers of Kennedy’s book to be fired and that the book should be immediately removed from shelves, regardless of the content. Thusly, my review would probably be attacked for its flagrant use of the word throughout, and they would probably attempt to petition Goodreads to have me removed from the site.
In the end, Kennedy admits that the word “n----r” is a conundrum, a word which no one can adequately tame or control. It is, he writes, “destined to remain with us for many years to come---a reminder of the ironies and dilemmas, the tragedies and glories, of the American experience. (p.176)”