We all know that history is not pretty and depending on what kind of history you study you are likely to come across certain words that are highly offensive in today's world. I was just wondering how historians who write academic papers or give lectures on their research handle the use of slurs in the medium they are presenting their data.
I am asking this because I've met some fellow history students, when I was an undergraduate, who felt that because of how offensive the word is it should not be used, even sparingly, when discussing a historical topic. For example, in a course history of lgbt activism in the united states there was an individual in my class that did not like my use of the word dyke, even though the activists herself used the word to describe herself, because of the animus often attached to the word. Of course the most obvious example would be a discussion of jim crow and saying n-word instead of the actual slur.
I personally think that we shouldn't try to hide the ugliness of the past and that if used in the historical context, and not just to create shock value, it is acceptable to use such words. I'll add that it's also obviously easier to use the words in a paper vs speaking them before others.
I do apologize if the question is too broad, but I just was curious what the historians here think.
I personally believe that using the racial slurs in question when discussing said racial slurs or the language at the time in general is completely appropriate - not only should it not make a difference that these terms are deemed offensive nowadays, I believe that that's even better, because then we can clearly point to why these terms are (often correctly) deemed offensive and thus avoided.
But when you just talk about, say, African Americans in the 1880s, there is no need to call them 'negroes' just because that's what some of their contemporaries would have done. But that should be obvious, really.
In my personal area of expertise, Europe in the early 20th Century, there were lots of colorful racial slurs for all kinds of people, but there is no need to use them as the historian in most historical contexts - in fact, it might make you look unprofessional or give off the impression that you are biased against the people you are using the racial slur about. I have never felt it necessary to call a member of the Roma people a 'gypsy' in my historical work, for example.
Your classmate that you describe has admirable activism to promote social inclusiveness, but allowing an in-depth discussion of the discrimination that the groups in question faced allows both the historian and the historical reader to reach newfound appreciation for the social progress we made in accepting historically discriminated groups of people into society. Avoiding the topic of racial slurs will fail to underline how far we progressed in cleaning up our language.
So, yeah, the both of us seem to be largely in agreement here.
I tend to be in agreement with you, and most historians that I read will keep the language when directly quoting a primary source. I have personally never presented (I completed both my undergrad and master’s online), but when writing, it is a bit uncomfortable to have to write it out, but it is important nonetheless.
Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob wrote in the intro of their book, Telling the Truth About History, “Even in countries...where the state reserves the right to publish school textbooks, historians have fought in the courts for the ruling that the books must strive for truth and not for what will make people feel good about themselves.” (Kindle edition, Loc. 101). Censorship that keeps the state and those involved in high opinion have been used, but historians have understood that this only portrays a false image and have fought to write it correctly. It’s crucial to tell the whole truth when writing about history, and even using the language helps with this. A white man using the n-word in his writings (I won’t say it here because there’s no need) will be better portrayed if we don’t censor his language. Likely, his quotes would only be used in regards to slavery or black movements following the Civil War, and the reader will be able to draw their own conclusions from this. A black man using it would be an example of either his environment and how those around him viewed African Americans or of appropriating the language to make a point against racism. It’s not an easy moment for the historian, but it is a necessary one nonetheless, and the audience is serviced much more when we keep it.
If you are presenting and understand there might be such a moment as the one you described, you can always issue a disclaimer before or make a note following regarding why you chose to keep the language. Outsiders of the study may not quite understand this practice, and explaining it might help them in general when studying history.
Source: Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, Telling the Truth About History, kindle edition (New York, W.M. Norton & Company, Inc, 1994).