New sacres
In Quebecois French, there are a set of swear words termed the “sacres”. These curse words are more potent than any other one in English or French to the Quebecois, up to the point where they don’t even consider the word “fuck” a swear word. Because of Quebec’s unique history with the Roman Catholic Church and the power it used to hold there, these are simply French words that designate various paraphernalia associated with Roman Catholicism: “Christ”, “chalice”, and “tabernacle” are amongst the most popular three. What interests me however, is how these originally harmless words came to eventually supplant even the well-established French curse words. I see a similar evolution of certain words in the English language.
Of course, I am referring to the various racial and sexual slurs, as well as insults to intelligence that are completely verboten in English, or at least in liberal, college-educated circles in North America. Among these, there are some that are more taboo than others: chiefly the term starting with the letter “n”, referring to Black people, but any racialized slur is considered grossly inappropriate. The ones starting with the letters “r” and “f” used to refer to people with developmental delays and homosexual males are also increasingly considered very taboo. In the English language, neutral swear words such as “fuck”, “shit” “ass”, or any variation thereof, have become quite standard fare in most schools, offices, and households. “Fuck” still holds the crown of course, but as exemplified by my unwillingness to write out any of the other slurs, it is still much more palatable.
In 2019, Professor Laurie Sheck was removed from her post for using the n-word during a lecture on James Baldwin. She was quoting the author, but a student still managed to find offense and have her summarily fired. I don’t necessarily agree with the firing, nor do I fully agree with her decision to use the word: repeating a word is different from employing it in any context, and Sheck didn’t intend to cause harm by it, but given the sensitivities of the term, much conflict could have been avoided if she simply chose to refer to it by saying “n-word” as I have throughout this piece. Like previously discussed, the n-word is the most egregious of all the new sacres, stemming primarily from Amerca’s guilt about its treatment of Black people throughout history and into present day, but it is undeniable that these taboo words are given an increasing power in the English language.
Like the old sacres of Quebec, these new sacres now designate an extreme anger in the politically correct circles, that the user has truly lost control. Of course, what often happens is that others decide the user is a closeted bigot, and moves to dox and cancel them if it is in public. And I don’t doubt that someone who uses one of these slurs is at least a bit bigoted: they likely grew up with the term tossed around, certainly disagrees with historical treatments of certain groups, but doesn’t understand why they can’t pull themselves up by the bootstraps. When met with extreme emotion, they briefly rifle through their vocabulary for the most offensive term they can find to communicate their discontent. Similar to how referring to a task as a “bitch” is significantly less offensive than referring to a woman as one, referring to someone who is actually a member of the community targeted by the slur is much more offensive than using the word itself. Yes, it’s bigoted that they think it’s okay to use this new sacre. But in doing so, they usually aren’t using the term to insult a marginalized person, but rather applying it as a strong expletive.
In 2021, NBA player Meyers Leonard was caught saying a word starting with the letter “k” denoting Jewish people while playing a video game, though he had no way of knowing whether his opponents in this video game were Jewish or not. Although this isn’t a social justice issue that the basketball community has a particularly strong stance on, the NBA issued a statement, and eventually no team wanted to have him on their roster. This is an example of someone who didn’t understand the power of racial slurs, and used one without actually addressing someone they perceived to be a part of the group. Despite this, abuse language in such casual settings is unacceptable because of the harm that they still cause. As such, his usage of the slur was incongruent to what was perceived to be the situation, and he is still effectively blackballed from the league at the time of writing.
Compare this to the treatment of NBA player Kyrie Irving, who is currently under fire for quoting anti-Semitic documentaries and ideas. Despite his refusal to immediately back down and apologize, he was given significantly more leeway than Meyers Leonard, and is still being called on to apologize instead of being cut alright. Admittedly, Irving is a much more valuable player than Leonard, but it’s interesting to see how a pattern of antisemitism from one person is treated much more leniently than someone who used a slur in anger.
Many right-wing talking heads decry the elimination of these slurs from the vocabulary as a loss of freedom of speech. To be clear, I am doing no such thing. I understand the context in which these words have been historically used, and the damage that they cause to these communities. Furthermore, I have no desire to use such terms, even in bouts of extreme emotion: “fuck” suffices for me. But I can’t help seeing the similarities of how these slurs are now treated with the sacres in Quebec: the strength of the Roman Catholic Church at the time prevented them from uttering the “Lord’s name in vain”, as with the rest of the church-going paraphernalia. This taboo elevated these terms from aspects of the Church to expressions reserved for extreme emotion. Though there is a more legitimate reason that these words are taboo, perhaps to a commoner in nineteenth century Quebec, the feeling that it is a forbidden fruit is somewhat comparable.
I hope that eventually the fascination with these words diminishes as everyone learns of the historical context. Perhaps eventually these slurs will lose their power because the wounds cause by them have healed. But until then, there is a chance that they will become the new sacres, and see a surge in popularity amongst people who don’t truly understand the words, simply because they are shocking. This isn’t an inevitability, just a possibility. However, there is also no alternative because it’s important that they remain taboo because of the harm they cause. The only method of mitigation is to further educate people why they are more than offensive, because otherwise they will become words whose power and temptation only grows because they are taboo. When people reach for the vilest thing they can find, they will land on these slurs. We are then left with new sacres: words that will be arbitrarily used as potent curses only because they are verboten.
