Once, long ago, I used that word as a perjorative, not because I was an immoral racist, but because I was an amoral and angry young fool who reached for and grabbed the bluntest tool in my desire to hurt someone else. I knew that word would upset the young man to whom I was talking, and it did. I very quickly felt a great deal of shame. It was a formative moment for me, and one I've dwelt upon over the years.

Your piece reminded me of this long ago failing on my part. It also put me in mind of the larger discussion: Who gets to set the terms? Not just for what is unacceptable but also for what is proper and defining?

For example, it's now seen as--in the very least--condescending and insensitive to use the once widespread terms 'Negro' and 'Colored.' When I was in college the terms were being negotiated and it was either 'African-American' or 'Afro-American' (Which I still consider the coolest, but I'm not cool at all, so whatever...) And the term 'Black' was not countenanced. Now it's sometimes just 'Black' or 'African-American.' I know Kamala Harris prefers 'Black' specifically because she's Jamaican-Indian, so not directly descendant from Africa.

The point is that, I think, the attempts at negotiations have stopped (which I think is a good thing since the other side wasn't negotiating in good faith) and Black people are attempting to define the terms of the debate (also a good thing.) This is why a lot of white people are upset at the supposed newness of 'identity politics.'

I've written about some of the dynamics of Identity Politics that might have bearing on this, here:

https://medium.com/an-injustice/identity-politics-backdraft-e8a911bb83ce

I'd be interested in your take on that, if you care to.