Instagram/@andrewcuomo
Another controversy came about with the leaked voice recording wherein Cuomo used the N-word while talking. The tolling of bells resounded strongly: contextual, historical accuracy, and whether there lies ever a justifiable reason for a non-Black person to ever utter an N-word.
Advertisement
The TV personality and radio host Claudia Jordan took to Instagram with a post suggesting that she wanted to encourage her followers to state their views about the topic. Jordan posted a picture of herself with a mic outside, appearing to have an active discussion about the issue at hand, thereby bringing to bear how public this particular controversy really is. She also questioned how Cuomo could have managed to get so much Black voter support still over such offensive language, saying, “The streets are talking, and the reactions are heated.”
This audio from Cuomo is indeed about the discrimination against Italian immigrants in America in history. Cuomo was quoting a New York Times article that in using a racial slur was explaining how Italians were once looked at in the States. Once the matter concerned this very subject, it became the major point of contention in the discussion under Jordan’s post.
There were several who went to the defense of Cuomo, explaining that it was a moment to teach people. “He wasn’t using it against a person. He was quoting a NYT article,” one user commented. This statement had been reiterated by some others who said that historians and academics commonly quote the term in the same fashion in academic discourse without some backlash.
Almost thus immediately, the discussion reverted some of those broader issues into questions concerning language, power, and historical sensitivity. One quite cogent response was the following: “I feel this is a reach, because he was literally using it to repeat what was said, not using it on his own behalf. However, I feel that non-Black people should use it AND be expecting the consequences that comes along with it.” This viewpoint illuminated the arduous tension existing between historical authenticity and current social parameters.
Several voiced frustrations with the indignant reaction to the situation. One commenter asked: “Man, we got bigger fish to fry right today….why worry about a man using the N word, when we have a whole administration trying to erase Black History?” The intention of this statement insinuates the notion that focus on this controversy could be a distraction away from addressing more serious issues facing Black communities.
The talk also touched garnering double standards on the entertainment and pop-cultural scene. “He was quoting not calling someone the name or using it in conversation. Also people need to keep this energy for Fat Joe and all of the other non black people that love to use it as slang and song,” commented another person, igniting the sub-discussion on equal application of standards in all contexts and industries.
There were loads of responses from users condemning the very person who opened the discussion, one stating, “Sorry, she is the last person I want to listen to when it comes to race after we know very well who she voted for and endorsed hard on her channel.” This suggests that there were some reactions from her own following to the Cuomo issue might have been shaped or colored by Jordan herself through her past political affiliations.
Several commenters explained the historical notion Cuomo was trying to bring up—that Italian immigrants were dispossessed of their rights and big-time targets for discrimination and sometimes racialized as much as Black Americans. One commenter went into detail about the history: “I remember this interview! It’s actually a great history lesson about how Italians first came to this country they were called the N-word because of their dark olive skin and course black hair! They were not considered Caucasians!!”
But not everyone was for that contextual explanation. Others maintained that independent of fact, the word should never cross the lips of a non-Black person. One angry man said, “Idgaf if he was quoting someone else. He could’ve BLEEPED it out or said ninja or used a repellent work because they would’ve known what they meant. HE DID NOT NEED TO USE THE ACTUAL WORD.”
This exchange has further exposed the generational and philosophical divides that exist within the Black community concerning language, power, and historical accounting. Some stresses were laid on the context and intent, while others maintained that certain lines should never be crossed irrespective of circumstance.
The one really crystalized through hundreds of responses was the lack of consensus by the Black communities faced with such situations. This interview paints a larger picture of the national debate on free speech, historic educating, and changes in social norms about racial language in America.
As the offensive 2024 election process storms closer, questions mold almost instantaneously on whether and how this incident will affect Cuomo’s in-a-rush way toward the mayor’s office, and whether these Black voters who have stood firmly behind Cuomo through and through any previous scandals view this controversy any differently than they did his past political wrangles. The varied reactions are a depiction of a fact: Some see this as a non-issue; others perceive this as a toe-in-the-water conversation that deserves much serious scrutiny put towards political ones courting Black support through questionable behaviors.
Advertisement
The whole controversy is metaphorically acting as a case study for the bigger question germinating in America’s discourse on its highly complex racial history: Who is entitled to use which word in what context, or whether historical accuracy could ever override immediate pain caused by the usage of those words. None have been answered yet, and these are answered today in waves that keep erupting from social media downkeeping throughout the households where those words affect lives with incredible severity.
About the Author
