Lewd Clergy, Kill the Boer and Other Sensitivities

As languages develop the meaning of words can change over time. After all, it was within the life-time of my parent’s generation that the word ‘gay’ come to be predominantly used to describe homosexual people rather than happy people.

Words are dynamic, and languages stay alive by adapting and growing according to the context around them. Another example would be the word ‘nice’ which in the 13th century was an insult meaning foolish or stupid. It went through changes in the 18th century with various meanings like wanton, extravagant, elegant, modest, shy or coy. Now of course, it means good, pleasing, thoughtful or kind.

‘Silly’ meant blessed or happy in the 11th century and went through pious, innocent, harmless, and pitiable before ending up as foolish or stupid. My all-time favourite is the word ‘lewd,’ which once meant ignorant and was used to describe anyone who was not a member of the clergy. Personally, I think we should bring back its original meaning sooner rather than later.

A far uglier example would be the South African racial insult ‘k-----‘, a word so effectively used to belittle others that to even write it out in full as an example is considered unacceptable. Use of this word has been actionable in South African courts since Apartheid days in 1976 under the offense of crimen injuria, which is "the unlawful, intentional and serious violation of the dignity of another".

You may not know that this word originally was an Arabic term used to describe white people, or simply anyone who was not of the Abrahamic faith. It was picked up by Europeans and widely used between the 16th and 19th centuries and generally never as an offensive term. In fact, its early South African usage was a neutral term for black southern African people. However, over the 20th century it became commonly used to denigrate black people and now is so loaded with bile and hatred that it is virtually untouchable. With good reason it can be hoped this word will eventually fall out of practice all together.

The point I am trying to make is that words have tremendous history. In other times and rooted in different historical and cultural contexts a word can mean something completely different to what it does now. If you make a living at communicating (like a politician does for example), then it is vital to understand the dynamic nature of words. If you want to have clarity in your message then you need to understand how people generally understand words and phrases.

So why did it take so long for our leaders to understand how a struggle song which includes words like “shoot the boer” might cause offense to others? The argument that the song has a long history associated with the struggle should by no means lend it complete immunity to challenge. As I have pointed out the ‘k-----‘ word itself has a history of neutrality but since it began to be used hurtfully it has rightfully been sidelined. In the same way, if the words of a song, no matter how steeped in struggle history, causes fear and confusion amongst certain South Africans, then surely a government of racial unity should be far more open to ending its use?

Why did it take the unfortunate murder of one of our more infamous ‘boers’ and the ensuing racial hoo-ha for the government to actually consider opening the discussion table around the continued viability of this song? Surely, those in government, many of whom might have been on the receiving end of racial misunderstandings themselves would better understand such potential sensitivities? Rather than blaming the media for misunderstanding its cultural context and accusing them of fear mongering, perhaps our leaders should seek to better understand just how dynamic and powerful words and language are. All South Africans would ultimately benefit from that kind of sensitive and unselfish leadership.

Words change. And so should we.