Re: Unfortunately, I see your point.
Not discussing 'niggard'. Lakey introduced that word as a red herring. It is not germane to the issue of racist invective.
For the record 'niggard' has absolutely
NOTHING to do with race and never did. Not historically, not linguistically, not culturally. Nada. Nothing. Zip.
Mark A. Baker
To the contrary, niggardly HAD absolutely NOTHING to do with race and never did. Not historically, not linguistically (which is my point), not culturally, Nada. Nothing. Zip
UP UNTIL JANUARY 28, 2009 WHEN A MAYOR'S ASSISTANT IN WASHINGTON D. C. GOT FIRED FOR USING THE WORD. THOUGH THE MAYOR'S EMPLOYEE SHOWED THAT THE WORD WAS NOT RACIST AND THAT HIS USAGE OF IT WAS NOT RACIST, THE MAN WAS FIRED ANYWAY FOR BEING RACIALLY INSENSITIVE!!! I find this absolutely remarkable and it shows to what extant some people will go to insist that a word or term is racist when it is not!!!
MAB loves to cite history in defining words but apparently only older history qualifies to be included. Isn't the period from 1/28/09 to the present also history? There is now a historical connection between the word "niggardly" and racism and that connection took place on 1/28/09!
MAB's premise is absurd to my way of thinking. He is stressing that if a person is sufficiently well educated and knows the origins of a word going back to Portugal in the 1600's, for example, then the person will clearly see that a word or term is a racist invective. Clearly over 99% of the populace are not familiar with the particular fine nuance of the word as he is, therefore they are too stupid to react "properly" to the word and recognize racist invectives when they see or hear them.
When you have to have a "Classical" and proper education to be educated enough to realize something is racist, then you are on a slippery slope. Education should free one's mind to think critically, not give one license to pedantically explain to the less educated crowd that they would know racism had taken place if only they were better educated.

Lakey