I think Kim's got the right of it.

Your totally-innocent archaism has been thoroughly tainted. Pulling out your etymology textbook and trying to jump back 500 years just makes you look introverted and asinine.

I'm not sure why he's defending the use of the word with the reasoning that it's old and has a meaning not related to the negative connotation. Lame.
That's like using faggot to describe a bundle of sticks. It's modern meaning is going to overshadow whatever it "used to" mean.


But then again, no matter what you say/write, somebody somewhere will take offense.

Kim's right. Words cannot stand apart from history or the images we get in our minds when people say them, rightly so or not.

Does anybody really say this word in conversation? DamosA, your thoughts, please.

Ignorance is no defense from the law. It's coincidentally not an excuse in itself.

An aside, you know what is racist? assuming everyone of a particular race *doesn't* know that niggardly has no root in the slur nigger.

Yes, let's all dumb down our language and make sure that we only use words that might not offend anyone even if there is zero grounds for offense unless based in ignorance. Niggardly is not a horribly outdated word; I can count on seeing or hearing it multiple times during the year. Common? No, but the anti-intellectual track that this country is on is infuriating at times.

I think your resident food critic could have come up with a better word choice...

After reflexively thinking less of the people in that original thread who didn't know the origins of the word, I'll agree with Reymont that Kim probably has the best of this. "Niggardly" is too inextricably bound up with the baggage around the n word, and there are plenty of other, more cromulent words to choose from that mean the exact same thing.

If the point of writing is communicating precisely, using this word that inevitably sparks this discussion does nothing to make a point more clear and immediately turns the discussion into one of word choice, when we could all otherwise be profitably discussing "skid marks" of pate.

"Maybe the word should also not be used around ignorant white people as myself."

We'll try to work up a form of Simplified English for you. Gotta come up with a catchy name for it, though. Newspeak?

Kim is way off basse and should keep her white guilt to herself. Maybe if we spent more time doing actual good deeds rather than this fake bourgeoisie pc intellectual policing b.s. then we wouldn't be in as deep as the collective shit we are in right now.

Ok, typos aside, I stand by my comment!

Carrie and Fred . . . behold pBonics

I've read Onstad for a long time and it's clear the dude has a huge vocabulary and an equally large love for words, sometimes archaic and silly ones even. Food writing isn't politics but at least two people have lost their jobs over this particular word before. It doesn't offend me but an editor probably should have suggested an alternative.

In england we would use niggardly, or fag ("light a fag," "I need a fag"), but this isn't england, so I don't say niggardly, or fag. Those words have weight in america. Even though niggardly has nothing to do with race, it can still be mis-interpreted that way, and then you've offended someone without even meaning to. And what's the point in that, if you know better and it can be avoided?

WHITE PRIVELEGE IS AWESEOME AND I REFUSE TO GIVE IT UP, NO MATTER HOW INADVERTANTLY HOSTILE AND OFFENSIVE I MIGHT BE.

BUT REALLY, THIS IS JUST AS MUCH THE FAULT OF WHOEVER EDITS ONSTAD'S WRITING AS ONSTAD HIMSELF, THEY SHOULD'VE CAUGHT THIS AND CHANGED THE WORDING TO SOMETHING LESS CONTROVERSIAL; LEST IT DETRACT FROM THE MAJOR PREMISE OF THE ARTICLE (THAT SANDWICHES ARE AWESOME).

ALSO, THERE IS A RISING TIDE OF ACTUAL REAL RACISTS WHO USE THE WORD AS A BACKDOOR ATTEMPT AT INJECTING RACIAL EPITHETS IN TO THE CONVERSATION.

Maybe what Kim is trying to say is that our perceptions of words are colored by...crap, sorry, didn't mean to use the word "colored."

@Graham & Cat and Beard

Hi! I edited Chris' review, and yup, I raised an eyebrow over that word, even though I knew what it meant. Did I suggest to him that he should choose another word? Nope. It's not my style to inform Chris of what he clearly already knows, or to tell you guys how you should feel about it.

FOOD COMES FROM PORTLAND! !!1!

When I read it, I knew what it meant but I thought "Who uses that word anymore in 21st century America?" That and "I really wish he would get to the sandwiches!" And then I thought exactly what Graham said...

"THERE IS A RISING TIDE OF ACTUAL REAL RACISTS WHO USE THE WORD AS A BACKDOOR ATTEMPT AT INJECTING RACIAL EPITHETS IN TO THE CONVERSATION. - Well put, Graham.

Evidence of this "rising tide"?

Hey Kim, Oregon is almost 18% non-white, the 1 in 5 people who you apparently don't even see might be more offended that you don't think they exist than by the use of a word that almost rhymes with jigger... I'd suggest looking in the mirror before you throw stones. (btw that last statement was not meant as some sort of hidden meaning Palestinian kids throwing stones reference, although I am sure you were probably already reading something into it...)

I would like to submit that Spanish speakers stop using the word "negro" around black people because, I mean, there has to be a better term for that.

I think it's a bummer to suggest that we can't use words with negative connotations that happen to sound like ethnic slurs because the uninformed might conflate the two.

I'm really bummed because this whole thread has way too many thoughtful comments. Total bullshit man. The only thing I'd like to posit is good writing is EXACTLY the format to use such a word. Words, especially in written form, exude and can even resuscitate meanings, memories and relevance. I'm currently reading Wuthering Heights and the way in which sudden bursts of speech are described as "ejaculations" is fascinating. I completely didn't think to use that word that way. And it's a great descriptive! I'm almost ready to drop it into my repertoire...but admittedly, I'm still a bit nervous. "What will they thing of my use of ejaculations?!"

"I think it's a bummer to suggest that we can't use words with negative connotations that happen to sound like ethnic slurs because the uninformed might conflate the two. "

YES! thank you.

Come on, people. Who educated you to be ashamed or afraid of words, based on how they sound? Try to be more substantial.

Also Dear Kim: "I think all black people appreciate his consideration, educated or not." That's a totally inappropriate generalization. Your entire argument is so clearly exposed by this massive flaw that you should probably retract the whole thing, think it out a bit, and join us when you're done.

YAY! MORE PEOPLE WITH MORE WHITE PRIVELEGE!!! HOW DARE THESE PEOPLE TRY AND MAKE THE WORLD BETTER!!! THEY'RE LITERALLY WORSE THAN HITLER!!!

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm really curious what Chris Onstad's warehouse employee thinks about this.

@STEVE: IT'S MY OPINION THAT YOU AS THE EDITOR HAVE A DUTY TO THOSE YOU'RE EDITING TO INFORM THEM OF WHEN THEY MIGHT BE TREADING DANGEROUS GROUND. YOU SHOULD PERFORM YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND ADDRESS THE TOPIC WITH YOUR WRITERS WHEN YOU THINK THEIR WORD CHOICES ARE QUESTIONABLE. IF AFTER YOU'VE BROUGHT IT UP, THE WRITER STANDS BY THEIR DECISION; WELL, THEN YOU CAN WASH YOUR HANDS OF THE WHOLE THING.

@Graham
Thank you for your opinion! And if I happen to be editing a piece written by a total dummy who obviously has no idea what what words mean, I will certainly take your advice.

godwin's law

that didn't take long

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?…

This conversation is gay (by which I mean "merry" or "lively").

@STEVE: THANK YOU FOR WILLFULLY MISCONSTRUING WHAT I SAID. LIKE THAT PART WHERE I CALLED ONSTAD A "TOTAL DUMMY" OR DOUBTED HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'NIGGARDLY'. THE FACT THAT YOU POSTED THIS BLOGPOST AND THE NUMBER OF REPLIES GIVES STRENGTH TO THE ARGUMENT THAT USING THE WORD 'NIGGARDLY' DISTRACTED FROM HIS OVERALL WRITING. IF HE FELT THE NEED TO SHOW OFF HIS IMMENSE VOCABULARY, HE COULD HAVE USED THE WORD 'PARSIMONIOUS' INSTEAD.

SINCE YOU CLAIM THAT ONSTAD HAS A FULL AND ROBUST UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD 'NIGGARDLY' THEN YOU MUST ALSO CLAIM THAT HE IS FULLY AWARE OF THE CONTEMPORARY CONTROVERSIES AROUND THE WORD. SO THEREFOR, HE MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO USE THAT WORD DESPITE THE FACT IT WOULD (AND DID) CREATE CONFUSION AND DISTRACT FROM HIS WRITING. SO WHAT CAN WE DEDUCE FROM ONSTAD'S DECISION TO DISTRACT FROM THE IMPORTANT PART OF HIS WRITING (NAMELY THAT SANDWICHES ARE AWESOME)? FIRST, WE COULD DEDUCE THAT HE IS NOT CONFIDENT IN HIS WRITING AND WANTED TO OBFUSCATE IT. SECONDLY, THAT HE SIMPLY WANTED TO STIR THE SHIT. TERTIARY, ONSTAD IS A CLOSET RACIST AND WANTED TO USE THE WORD 'NIGGER' BUT NEEDED SOME SUGAR TO MAKE THE MEDICINE GO DOWN. ARE THERE MORE THINGS WE COULD DEDUCE FROM HIS WRITING?

@SCRUMYUMMY: IT'S A TRIPLE-WORD-SCORE GODWIN SINCE IT'S IN ALL CAPS AND HAS EXCESSIVE EXCLAMATION POINTS.

Whenever I read the word "niggardly," this is what I think: "This writer is really proud of the fact that they know what this word *really* means, and they're waiting for someone stupid to get upset so they can show off that knowledge." I'm not saying that's the case here (hi Chris!), but when I read the word, those are the connotations it comes with.

Does it suck that those of us who know what the word actually means can't use it because stupid people get upset? Sure. But then, it's not like we're using the word all that much anyway. The stupids won this one; maybe it's time to pick a better battle and move on.

Am I the only one that read that word and didn't think anything of it? Component question: does that make me a horrible person?

@FC: NO AND THEN YES.

Who was the politician who sunk his career using the term? I believe that this term is "it's own word", and used properly it would be appropriate. By that I mean, put in the mouth of a character from the middle ages in a movie, OK. Written by the hand of an British writer, OK. But it does draw attention to itself (LIKE GRAHAM'S CAPITAL LETTERS...dude, it's OK, a small penis is nothing to try to overcompensate for, it ain't the meat it's the motion). I don't stand by Kim in her analysis, but I agree with those who say that it draws unnecessary attention to the writer. But if you can't use ejaculatory words in the Merc, then why have one?

Kincardine,

Please go strain until you have completely shat your godawful message board drivel into the proper receptacle, so that we don't have to read it. Bingo!

Spoolo

Piss off. I know what the word means and you don't.
The Masked Pedant strikes again!

That word is gay.

Would you be comfortable going into a predominantly black bar in north portland and using that word? Would you be confused as to why you were picking up all your teeth off the ground as a result of it? Common sense is all we ask.

If many of you with objections to use of this word in Portland are trying to prove that touchy, suspicious people with limited vocabularies rule the world, like to fight in bars, or often feel trivialized by language-- you are right, and you can stop making that point now.

But by complaining about a writer's diction, you aren't protecting or saving anyone, making the world a better place, helping evolve the English language, or solving any social problem or anything at all. You are being sanctimonious, solidly predicting and judging the writer's intentions (are you really able to read his mind?). You sound obnoxious and self-righteous.

This attitude is the bane of portland, useful only as a rich source of satire.

And this is all such a fucking non-issue. There are real controversies out there, aren't there?