Talk:Murzyn

Polish Language Council POV bias

"this feature, like hair color, height, and type of figure, does not have to be important in describing a person " - that's a complete nonsense uttered by a venerable linguist: any traits are important in describing a man otherwise unfamiliar to listeners. Also, per "sto lat za Murzynami ["100 years behind the Murzyns"] - do they really think that "100 years behind the Africans" will be less insulting? In Ukraine, because of their racist fight with Russian language, the lovely term "Sprechenführer" ("Speech Führer") arose. I bet there are reputable people who oppose Polish sprechenfuehrers, but I have no time to search for sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to add that I can't find this word, "Sprechenführer", anywhere else, besides on the page you posted, especially not together with the woman mentioned in the article. I think it's a fantasy word designed to shock people with the "-führer" part. In German, a "Sprachführer" would actually be a phrase book, so maybe someone took their inspiration from there. You would use it together with a "Reiseführer", a guidebook, on a trip to a foreign country. Liekveel (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That's because In Ukraine people speak and write Ukrainian or Russian. Try шпрехенфюрер. The fuhrer part is not for shock, it is for irony. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• You're missing the point. Skin colour doesn't have to be mentioned. You can say to somebody at a party: "Do you see that girl by the hi-fi?" instead of "Do you see that black girl?" That's the point. Too many people are lazy and mention skin colour first as if it's the most obvious thing, whereas the person's location/size/clothes may be just as helpful in identifying the person. Malick78 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  by the hi-fi??? where the heck is that? And even if I knew, why would I ignore the most prominent identification in the predominantly white Poland? This has nothing to do with laziness, which, by the way, is the driving force of civilization. :-) By the way, Try explain to the Jews that "goy" is an insult for the ear of a non-Jew. But we are not running around and forcing the Jews to change their ancient language, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Do you realize that you are trying to convince me that skin color is something shameful not to be mentioned in public, akin to "Do you see that fat retard by the hi-fi?" Staszek Lem (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Trying talking to a non-white person and ask them how they'd prefer to be described. That's what the UW professor did. You may become enlightened. Malick78 (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  I do not question this part. I agree that language barrier makes them feel insulted. Do you know that in the United States some chinese people say that they feel insulted when they are described as "chinaman"? Do you know that in the United states Ukrainians, Armeninans, Jews, etc. who came from former USSR and speak Russian hate that they are described as "Russians"? Especially today, when "Russian" has become kinda insult. Do you nkow that "Russian Mafia" in Brooklin is 80% Jews? I have no problem when some person objects calling xem Russian, and from that moment I do not call xem Russian. But still, if you speak Russian, you are Russian to me. Logical blunder? Laziness? Yes, but that's how brain works, and to seek here some evilness is stupidity. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  What 'language barrier'? There are black Poles whose native tongue is Polish. It seems you don't realise this. Malick78 (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  YEs there are. And I do not see statistics, who are insulted, and who are not. The article says some are OK, some are not. There are much more black persons in Poland which are not native speakers. You can always find a couple very vocal ones who are unhappy with anything. Unless there are stats, this is an idle bickering. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  By the way, please do not put false description into the lede. Stick to summary of the correct article text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Concur with @Staszek Lem that UNDUE. Let us change the lead.

See also euphemism treadmill and this related joke from here: http://seczytam.blogspot.com/2020/08/musimy-wymyslic-jezyk-polski-od-nowa.html

"Ci Cyganie to są całkiem fajni, bo mają te swoje zespoły, grają śpiewają. Ale Romowie! To coś okropnego. Czyta się i słyszy przecież, że Romowie znów coś przeskrobali" - mówi Paweł Lechowski z Romskiego Stowarzyszenia Oświatowego".

Will smb translate, please? Zezen (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"These Gypsies are pretty cool because they have their own bands, they play and sing. But the Roma! This is something terrible. One reads and hears that the Roma have done something wrong again" - says Paweł Lechowski from the Roma Educational Association.

Term perceived as neutral

I think that a lot of the disagreement about the modern usage and the view, that it has historically been a neutral term, might stem from the fact that most people in Europe had no contact with black people whatsoever. Why should a term be seen as pejorative if you can hardly even use it that way? But nevertheless, when it was used, it was probably used in a context somehow related to European colonialism, since the contact between Africa and Europe was dominated by colonialism. So the negative connotations probably hid right there, in the context, with nobody really noticing or caring at the time. If you only use the word in the context of slavery, the colonies and later the lives of African Americans, it's no wonder the word will later be used pejoratively. The modern contact with Africans and the black diaspora, via mass media and migration, only just created this possibility. I don't want to make an argument about whether this word should be used or not. I don't even really speak Polish. But since this phenomenon isn't unique to the Polish language at all (as stated in the article, a lot of other words have developed into pejoratives like this one, only a bit earlier) there are probably sources for this meta argument that can abbreviate a lot of the discussion about whether or not it's "neutral" here. I'll look for some later, but let me know what you think about this. Liekveel (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that wikipedia is not a discussion board. We do not discuss personal knowledge or opinions, we discuss the ways how to improve the article using information published in reliable sources. See WP:CITE, WP:RS. That said, here is the question: In which publications we can find the opinions you expressed? Lembit Staan (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm sorry that I did not do my research immediately, I know that I should have done so. Since this is such a basic concept, I was pretty sure that I would find evidence for this kind of process. The first peer-reviewed source I would like to add to my argument is this. It's pretty clear from the article, that assigning a property to a certain entity under a label makes people associate this property with any entity under this label. So, if the discourse about black people in Europe was and is dominated by colonial and racist ideas, slavery and the other negative views people have about Africa, this will stick for the word. But this will not be noticeable to users if the word is only used very seldom. Besides that, the severity of the word is more noticeable for people directly affected by it, not by the non-black users of it. What do you think about this? Do you think I should add some sources about African-European relations and racism? Or about how there were very few black people in Poland and Polish media until recently? Liekveel (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Besides that, I would like to give back this advice in regards to the discussion above. Nevertheless, thanks for the tip with the шпрехенфюрер. Liekveel (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't find the time to do further research yet, but just put the word in Google images and evaluate how many racially loaded or simply racist images come up, when compared to real racial slurs in different languages. It's at least further indication of my point of view. New reliable sources about this issue will probably be published soon and the direction of this discussion seems pretty clear, as Poland is not the first country in which this happened.

As another example, the word Polack is just a German spelling of the Polish word Polak and was used neutrally at some point as well. After a long time of ethnic tension and derogatory usage of the term, it is today clearly identified as a slur in many languages. Articles about this exist on both the English and the Polish wikipedia. As soon as a word is widely used as a slur against actual people, the neutral meaning often disappears, even without external pressure. Liekveel (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Put in Google images a phrase "typowy Amerykanin" (typical American) and evaluate how many offensive images come up. Does it mean, that word "Amerykanin" in Polish language is offensive, and we need a replacement? Freja Draco (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The argument was polemical, I'll have to admit, and obviously not a surefire way to find out whether a word is offensive. Nevertheless, if the term were neutral by itself, the fair comparison would be to put only "Amerykanin" into google images, without "typowy". With "typowy" you are actively asking for stereotypes. Without this addition, the results for "Amerykanin" are not really all that offensive, while the results for "murzyn" remain offensive. The neutral term "żyd" does not even come close to the rate of offensive images found via the term "murzyn", even though antisemitism is still relatively common in Poland compared to most of Europe. Lets just say, to disprove this method here, you must do it on a more abstract level - using it will just strengthen it, as long as the results for "murzyn" are THAT telling.Liekveel (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Negress which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Black people vs indigenous sub-Saharan people

In Polish, the word "murzyn" means a sub-Saharan indigenous person.

Whereas "czarny" - black, or "czarny człowiek" - black person does not mean only a sub-Saharan but a representative of any ethnic group with a black skin color. Since Poland has no colonial history, and so Poles did not have direct contact with many non-white people, it happened that anyone with darker skin was called black.

The use of calques from English, a language particularly marked by the heritage of racism and colonialism, is unacceptable here.

The automatic adoption of an Anglocentric point of view paradoxically shows cultural ignorance, or worse, arrogance resulting from cultural imperialism. Piotr Moskal (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

How this is related to article content and what are your suggestions to improve it, basing on references to reliable sources? - Altenmann >talk 15:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)