Thread: bad, bad words

Originally Posted by basurero

What? Is негр offensive? What's the non-offensive way to say black person?

In Russian or English?
English: "black" or politically correct "african-american"
Russian: чернокожий maybe? I don't think негр carries a negative undercurrent in Russian, but the close-sounding "n*gger" in English definitely does. It's a big no-no; there was a controversy a few years ago about the use of the word "n*ggardly" which has nothing to do with "n*igger" simply because it SOUNDED similar. Ridiculous? Yes, but it just shows what a touchy subject it is in the US. linkified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly

Originally Posted by Barmaley

I could probably count on my fingers the number of blacks I saw in 4 months in a Russian city of 4.5 million.

I think we were in the same city, and we saw the same people

Originally Posted by Barmaley

I would say though, that "serfdom" doesn't necessarily equate with "slavery." That's not to say that being a serf was a great gig, but I think I'd still place it on a rung above being a slave. However poor a life they may have led, serfs still had certain rights at various points in Russian history -- St. George's Day leaps to mind, for instance. A slave, at least in the US, had precisely *0* rights -- he was property, pure and simple, no different than being a wagon or a horse.

I agree, that is why I put the "slaves" in quotation marks, because that is the closest we can compare with USA. USA had slaves, Russia had serfs. Also, a little correction, the serfs were also property of their masters. Actually, before the 1600s (I think) the serfs were really not serfs but peasants that had the liberty to move about when they felt like it... it was only later that they became the property of their masters.

Originally Posted by Barmaley

It's an interesting point about the Russians not incorporating non-Slavs into the serf-system, though one that I'm not thoroughly familiar with. If it is as you say, then it makes you wonder if perhaps the fact that Russians themselves were frequently subjected to Turkic/Tatar enslaving raids may have had some impact on this. I would assume though, that the greatest reason was that they simply lacked the manpower to enforce a fundamental alteration of the tribal systems -- it wasn't really until the mid-19th century that much was done with Siberia/Far East, beyond trading posts and forts. It was much more sensible to simply collect tribute and trade for fur, and leave the tribal societies entact. The US, I would suspect, was initially, underpopulated and the labor was needed from somewhere -- importing slaves fulfilled this need (and also to some extent, European indentured servants), and once it was in place it was really difficult to get rid of, due to social and economic considerations.

Good points. Well, from what I have read it wasn't just that they lacked the manpower to subjugate the people, but that they were relatively tolerant to the other lifestyles and religions (despite the Orthodox world dominance plans). They would send their gentry to the newly acquired terratories in order to russify it (no gentry is of native origin). There were actual laws written saying that one was not to use the natives as slaves. I think there is a difference when there was a law written vs. just not doing it because of lack of resources... this is all very interesting.

I agree, that is why I put the "slaves" in quotation marks, because that is the closest we can compare with USA. USA had slaves, Russia had serfs. Also, a little correction, the serfs were also property of their masters. Actually, before the 1600s (I think) the serfs were really not serfs but peasants that had the liberty to move about when they felt like it... it was only later that they became the property of their masters.

OK, you may be right, legally speaking, about "property" -- I'm not sure, but I'll take your word for it. Still, I would say that they were much less property in the sense that they still had *rights* of some sort -- inanimate objects typically don't have rights and neither did animals really, prior to the last century or so.

Good points. Well, from what I have read it wasn't just that they lacked the manpower to subjugate the people, but that they were relatively tolerant to the other lifestyles and religions (despite the Orthodox world dominance plans). They would send their gentry to the newly acquired terratories in order to russify it (no gentry is of native origin). There were actual laws written saying that one was not to use the natives as slaves. I think there is a difference when there was a law written vs. just not doing it because of lack of resources... this is all very interesting.

Once again, I'll take a bit of issue with you -- you have the law on your side again, and I have, uhm, baseless conjecture (hey, it's the internet so it's ok!). The law may very well have prohibited the incorporation of natives into the serf-system, but the real question is WHY. As much as bureaucracies have a penchant for making laws just because they can, I'm willing to bet there is some actual BASIS for the law's creation. Was it because it was morally reprehensible on some level? Were native laborers considered to be inferior? Were they simply thought to be more efficent on their own? Was it because of the manpower issue, as I guessed? Was it because they feared greater resistance or outright revolt? Any number of these, along with who knows how many other things I didn't list/think of, could be valid explanations; I just think that by saying it was "because the law said so" is to focus on the EFFECT rather than the CAUSE.

Really, a fascinating issue, and I look forward to what others have to say about it -- especially since we've essentially hijacked this posting and taken it off-topic! I'm headed downstairs to do a bit of research...

We don't have a special word for a black people.
Sometimes we use "nigger" but it has a humorous offence.

We have an offensive word for our southern people like muslims: "blackasses" - "chernojop,ie".

Using this we have in mind their untrustworthy behaviour - they can deceive you in money matters or they can spoil girls.

A few more thoughts on the serf/native issue:

1. I think we've overlooked something very important, Kalinka: the need for native serfs in the first place. How much use would native serfs really have been, anyway -- they live in far-flung areas that aren't conducive to agriculture -- the real function of serfs. Likewise, consider why slaves were predominantly located in the American south -- agriculture, not available/necessary in the more industrialized and cold north. So what's the point -- these guys are trapping furs and giving them to you for nothing, so why screw up a good thing, right? Which leads me to...

2. I flipped through a book titled "Russia's Orient," which sadly/surprisingly didn't have any detailed examination of serfdom. What I did find, though, besides a passing reference to native, non-Christian serfs (which I don't think disproves your ealier assertion that it was rare), was that at least in the early period of the eastward expansion, the Russian foothold was "tenuous" and required both the stick and carrot policies -- it wasn't a good idea, then to turn upside down the local cultures. It was interesting to read about the differing perceptions of the Russian domination as well -- it makes clear just how fragile the occupation was. To sum it up, the Russians signed шерти (either a treaty of accepting Tsarist authority or an act of mutual recognition, depending on whether you were Russian or a native, respectively) that stipulated the native payment of ясак (again, depending on who you were -- either tribute or part of a bilateral trade exchange). The ясак was complicated, by the fact that the Russians would some times reward it with "gifts" from the Tsar -- which was a quid pro quo, whether real or imagined. All this would suggest to me that the Russians were still hesitant/unable to truly rule these lands in the early years. Admittedly, this says nothing of the next 300 years until Alexander II's abolition of serfdom, but I still would submit that it established precedent.

Originally Posted by Barmaley

A few more thoughts on the serf/native issue:

1. I think we've overlooked something very important, Kalinka: the need for native serfs in the first place. How much use would native serfs really have been, anyway -- they live in far-flung areas that aren't conducive to agriculture -- the real function of serfs. Likewise, consider why slaves were predominantly located in the American south -- agriculture, not available/necessary in the more industrialized and cold north. So what's the point -- these guys are trapping furs and giving them to you for nothing, so why screw up a good thing, right? Which leads me to...

2. I flipped through a book titled "Russia's Orient," which sadly/surprisingly didn't have any detailed examination of serfdom. What I did find, though, besides a passing reference to native, non-Christian serfs (which I don't think disproves your ealier assertion that it was rare), was that at least in the early period of the eastward expansion, the Russian foothold was "tenuous" and required both the stick and carrot policies -- it wasn't a good idea, then to turn upside down the local cultures. It was interesting to read about the differing perceptions of the Russian domination as well -- it makes clear just how fragile the occupation was. To sum it up, the Russians signed шерти (either a treaty of accepting Tsarist authority or an act of mutual recognition, depending on whether you were Russian or a native, respectively) that stipulated the native payment of ясак (again, depending on who you were -- either tribute or part of a bilateral trade exchange). The ясак was complicated, by the fact that the Russians would some times reward it with "gifts" from the Tsar -- which was a quid pro quo, whether real or imagined. All this would suggest to me that the Russians were still hesitant/unable to truly rule these lands in the early years. Admittedly, this says nothing of the next 300 years until Alexander II's abolition of serfdom, but I still would submit that it established precedent.

Well, I think that slavs are less predisposed to rule somebody. We prefer to be brothers and sisters and think of our society as of a big family.

Tsar, landlords were often of other nationalities - german, tartar etc.

But after some historical teaching we developed, I think, a sort of agressive nature that sometimes helps us.

Originally Posted by garans

Well, I think that slavs are less predisposed to rule somebody. We prefer to be brothers and sisters and think of our society as of a big family.

Uhm, just a hunch, but I think there are probably alot of Finns, Balts, Germans, Caucausians, Central Asians, Afghans, and Balkan groups that might just disagree with that a bit. I'm not trying to play the holier-than-thou-art card, but I think it's a pretty silly thing for you to try the same thing -- essentially "we're better than other humans" so it never occurred to us to rule people. If you have some sort of argument for this, I'd love to hear it.

Tsar, landlords were often of other nationalities - german, tartar etc.

This is true, and very interesting -- if I remember correctly, Ivan IV was pretty close to one of Tatar "tsars" in Kazan after it fell.

But after some historical teaching we developed, I think, a sort of agressive nature that sometimes helps us.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here -- can you expand a bit?

I'm not trying to trash you or insult you, I just don't agree with what you said above.

[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here -- can you expand a bit?

I'm not trying to trash you or insult you, I just don't agree with what you said above.[/quote]

I cannot expand - this is my opinion.
Most of my relatives are from the country where serves lived.
There are different people there, but on the whole I think that a community spirit was essential in ancient times. Tsar and landlords began wars and they are to blame. They were mostly foreigners.

Originally Posted by Barmaley

A few more thoughts on the serf/native issue:

1. I think we've overlooked something very important, Kalinka: the need for native serfs in the first place. How much use would native serfs really have been, anyway -- they live in far-flung areas that aren't conducive to agriculture -- the real function of serfs. Likewise, consider why slaves were predominantly located in the American south -- agriculture, not available/necessary in the more industrialized and cold north. So what's the point -- these guys are trapping furs and giving them to you for nothing, so why screw up a good thing, right? Which leads me to...

Hmm... good points. The need for a native serf would be labor, just like in the states. They didn't care whether the Africans would enjoy the climate, they wanted free labor. So if you can teach a native how to pick potatoes, then you have a free slave. As you brushed on above, serfs and slaves were used for agriculture, so if I conquer your territory, why not take some of the natives as slaves? That is the question. I believe the need was there, but as you said below, there was more of a benefit of leaving the society mostly intact so they can provide you the goodies.

Originally Posted by Barmaley

2. I flipped through a book titled "Russia's Orient," which sadly/surprisingly didn't have any detailed examination of serfdom. What I did find, though, besides a passing reference to native, non-Christian serfs (which I don't think disproves your ealier assertion that it was rare), was that at least in the early period of the eastward expansion, the Russian foothold was "tenuous" and required both the stick and carrot policies -- it wasn't a good idea, then to turn upside down the local cultures. It was interesting to read about the differing perceptions of the Russian domination as well -- it makes clear just how fragile the occupation was. To sum it up, the Russians signed шерти (either a treaty of accepting Tsarist authority or an act of mutual recognition, depending on whether you were Russian or a native, respectively) that stipulated the native payment of ясак (again, depending on who you were -- either tribute or part of a bilateral trade exchange). The ясак was complicated, by the fact that the Russians would some times reward it with "gifts" from the Tsar -- which was a quid pro quo, whether real or imagined. All this would suggest to me that the Russians were still hesitant/unable to truly rule these lands in the early years. Admittedly, this says nothing of the next 300 years until Alexander II's abolition of serfdom, but I still would submit that it established precedent.

When the goldon horde fell and it was split up into khanates, conquering these lands were more of making them vassals, instead of real occupation, where, as you say, they pay tribute to the tsar and Russia provides them with security. It is really shady when you try to define borders and such, when there are really completely different people and provide their own internal government, they just are vassals...

I think it is interseting what garans says. That the landlords and tsars were mostly foreigners. Well, ok, Rurik, but the Boyars and most of the ruling family dynasties were Russian, or am I mistaken?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Hmm... good points. The need for a native serf would be labor, just like in the states. They didn't care whether the Africans would enjoy the climate, they wanted free labor. So if you can teach a native how to pick potatoes, then you have a free slave. As you brushed on above, serfs and slaves were used for agriculture, so if I conquer your terratory, why not take some of the natives as slaves? That is the question. I believe the need was there, but as you said below, there was more of a benefit of leaving the society mostly intact so they can provide you the goodies.

You're right -- teaching someone to grow potatoes is nothing, so that possiblity may have been there. But again, why? If you're Joe Cossack, who cares about overlording some Yakuts in a piddley little village -- you're interest isn't in agriculture, in asserting Russian authority, or development; in all likelyhood you're there to collect some information, pay some lip service on behalf of the Tsar, gather up your booty and get out. On the outside chance that someone WOULD want to stick around and carve out a position of power, maybe you have your explanation for the outlawing of the keeping of natives as serfs -- cossacks have been historically notorious for two things: their skills and their ability to change loyalties on a whim. They formed a significant part of the push east -- why allow them the possiblity of carving out their own little fiefdoms (ie see today's Far East -- Primorskii Krai was infamous for this in the post- Sovet period).

When the goldon horde fell and it was split up into khanates, conquering these lands were more of making them vassals, instead of real occupation, where, as you say, they pay tribute to the tsar and Russia provides them with security. It is really shady when you try to define borders and such, when there are really completely different people and provide their own internal government, they just are vassals...

Well put; it's all a gray area that can be exploited to the advantage to all parties involved.

I think it is interseting what garans says. That the landlords and tsars were mostly foreigners. Well, ok, Rurik, but the Boyars and most of the ruling family dynasties were Russian, or am I mistaken?

I can't speak for garans, but I don't think he was necessarily saying that "foreigners" constituted a majority of the elite, but simply more often than we would think. With Rurik, you're talking about someone who may even have his existance questioned, but at the very most was an ancient case. In the later centuries though (16th and on?) I think it was fairly common to a)expand, through war if necessary and then b) incorporate the locals into the regime in some capacity -- you thus had plenty of Tatars and easterners along with the other Slavic nationalities, like Poles. It's also worth noting that nobles could very much be "free-agents" switching sides when it suited them -- I remember reading about this in Madariaga's biography of Ivan IV -- the most famous case being Andrey KurbskyThus you could have Lithuanians, Poles, and Russians all fighting on behalf of the "enemy" of their people.

Originally Posted by Barmaley

You're right -- teaching someone to grow potatoes is nothing, so that possiblity may have been there. But again, why? If you're Joe Cossack, who cares about overlording some Yakuts in a piddley little village -- you're interest isn't in agriculture, in asserting Russian authority, or development; in all likelyhood you're there to collect some information, pay some lip service on behalf of the Tsar, gather up your booty and get out. On the outside chance that someone WOULD want to stick around and carve out a position of power, maybe you have your explanation for the outlawing of the keeping of natives as serfs -- cossacks have been historically notorious for two things: their skills and their ability to change loyalties on a whim. They formed a significant part of the push east -- why allow them the possiblity of carving out their own little fiefdoms (ie see today's Far East -- Primorskii Krai was infamous for this in the post- Sovet period).

Yes, you are right. The cossacks (essentially escaped serfs and outlaws) were predominantly in the south (Dnieper and Don Cossacks) and switched sides more often than some people underwear. I am not sure about the eastward expansion, yes Erkel (spelling?) lead the expedition in to Siberia, but I never heard of Siberian cossacks...

Originally Posted by Barmaley

I can't speak for garans, but I don't think he was necessarily saying that "foreigners" constituted a majority of the elite, but simply more often than we would think. With Rurik, you're talking about someone who may even have his existance questioned, but at the very most was an ancient case. In the later centuries though (16th and on?) I think it was fairly common to a)expand, through war if necessary and then b) incorporate the locals into the regime in some capacity -- you thus had plenty of Tatars and easterners along with the other Slavic nationalities, like Poles. It's also worth noting that nobles could very much be "free-agents" switching sides when it suited them -- I remember reading about this in Madariaga's biography of Ivan IV -- the most famous case being Andrey KurbskyThus you could have Lithuanians, Poles, and Russians all fighting on behalf of the "enemy" of their people.

Well, I haven't heard any credible evidence that Rurik didn't exist, especially when Ivan the IV said that he was a Rurik himself. I mean, the летописи told the story... do you know something I don't? I know that certain Russian families would conspire with foreign governments to try to take over power in Russia (just glance at смутное время), but I think you find very very few Russian noble families that aren't Russian.

Anyway, the point is, Russia isn't the best place to be if you're non white. Firstly there is a general anti-Semitic feeling. When I was in Russia I accidently bumped into an old woman in a stair-well (it was so her fault) and she called me a "жид", and I'm not even Jewish. There wasn't a mass exodus of Jews to Israel after the collapse of the Soviet Union for nothing. I saw a quite offensive article about Russian Muslims in K.Pravda recently, that would never be allowed in a comparative trash tabloid here.

Anyway.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

I am not sure about the eastward expansion, yes Erkel (spelling?) lead the expedition in to Siberia, but I never heard of Siberian cossacks...

LOL, ok I know who you are talking about, but his name ain't Erkel. May I present:

Exhibit A, Urkel


and Exhibit B, Yermak


The cossacks I'm referring to are indeed, the ones from Western Russia -- the point being that they led the Tsarist push east.

Well, I haven't heard any credible evidence that Rurik didn't exist, especially when Ivan the IV said that he was a Rurik himself. I mean, the летописи told the story... do you know something I don't? I know that certain Russian families would conspire with foreign governments to try to take over power in Russia (just glance at смутное время), but I think you find very very few Russian noble families that aren't Russian.

a) I don't know that he didn't exist -- I seem to remember hearing that he may have been pure myth and wikipedia seemed to confirm that there were some who doubted his existance. I'm not saying for a fact that he didn't, I just was trying to point out that his isn't the most relavent case here.
b) And just as a rebuttal, because I'm argumentative, just because Ivan and the chronicles said so doesn't make it fact. And again, I don't think you are going to find TONS of non-slavic (a bit different than Russian and an easy cop-out since it would include Poles, Lithuanians, etc.), but it was hardly rare either.

yeah, the guy in the glasses. that's him!!!

Yermak

OK, at the risk of getting tossed from the forums for week.... here goes.
ALOT depends where you are from and who you are with. Richard Pryor is funny amongst your friends, and maybe your father if you are of age. Never around proper mother. My aunt would say "sh*t", my mother is horrified by the word; Has to do with the 'ANT'/'AWNT' pronunciation, same word, different area, farm/city. F*ck is a no-no to any older women of respect, like MOM, aunt or grandmother. It can be used during sex. "Mother(mutha)f*cker" is never good. See the Richard Pryor rule. P*ssy can be used during sex, C*nt cannot, you WILL LOSE p*ssy privelages if you use that word. (OK, maybe not a slutty chick). It's the same thing, but women hold the key. Call a man a P*ssy, and he is emasculated.. Call a woman a dumb c*nt, she is a estrogen-hyper unit. You lose privilages for another week, if not life.
Son of a B*tch isn't that bad, has to do with a biblical thing against Christ, or a stupid person with questionable parentage. Bastard works better. I like the Southern slang,"sumbiatch".
I learned a few in Russian for baseball games. Use at your own risk. Your mialage may vary. I substitute B8atch with "pliesh" not "s*kr". A sports referee/umpire is always a stupid SOB, a dumb____ but never a stupid C*nt, unless it's a woman you can outrun.

I don't get why writing sh*t is OK, but without the * is not. It is obvious what it means. And it is just a word written down.

Originally Posted by capecoddah

OK, at the risk of getting tossed from the forums for week.... here goes.

What your entire paragraph boils down to is very simple: it's all about the context and the crowd you're with. Period. There may be some very foul words, but their very existance is evidence that SOMEBODY uses them, somewhere and with someone. Call your buddy a SoB and it's no more offensive than calling him by his name. Try calling someone else that and get ready to be punched in the face.

Son of a B*tch isn't that bad, has to do with a biblical thing against Christ, or a stupid person with questionable parentage. Bastard works better. I like the Southern slang,"sumbiatch".

a) If you're hurling SoB as an insult, then I'd say that's pretty bad; you're telling that person that not only are they a @%(#% but their MOTHER is -- that's pretty harsh.
b) I've never heard that regarding Christ -- do you have any info on this?
c) Bastard seems to me to be quite a bit less harsh than SoB. The original connotation was that they were of ignoble parentage, but I'd say that it's really taken on a different meaning when directed at someone -- more of like calling some one a jerk or an a$$.

Originally Posted by TATY

I don't get why writing sh*t is OK, but without the * is not. It is obvious what it means. And it is just a word written down.

Yeah, good luck with that one. I'm still just trying to get the MODS to get rid of censoring "C R A P." My mother uses "c r a p."Little old ladies use "c r a p." The Pope himself probably would use "c r a p." People in Vegas shoot "c r a p s" (ok this was random). Crap crap crap! See what I mean?

Listen you stubborn Western fucks, the Russian word негр is not offensive in Russian. We use other words if we want to offend a black person. When speaking Russian, I don't give a shit if it sounds offensive to you - I'm not tailoring my language to suit your fucked-up linguistic needs. Would you ban some of your common everyday words just because they sound downright rude to my Russian ear? Do you know that some of your words and word combinations sound like мат to a Russian person?

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Do you know that some of your words and word combinations sound like мат to a Russian person?

You forgot one of my favorites -- the renaming of the Disney duck characters Huey, Dewey, and Louie! Huey sounded a bit too much like х**. I forget what they are called in Russian, though.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Listen you stubborn Western @@@@, the Russian word негр is not offensive in Russian. We use other words if we want to offend a black person. When speaking Russian, I don't give a @@@@ if it sounds offensive to you - I'm not tailoring my language to suit your @@@@-up linguistic needs. Would you ban some of your common everyday words just because they sound downright rude to my Russian ear? Do you know that some of your words and word combinations sound like мат to a Russian person?

This reminds me of the word жид which is offensive in Russian and Ukrainian, but a not offensive word for jew in Belarussian. It depends on the context of the language.