Love 1

Not Quite Human: Language, Dehumanization, and Violence

Taylor Love

Pasadena City College

Love 2
Taylor Love
Ogden
ENG 1A
Spring 16
Not Quite Human: Language, Dehumanization, and Violence
There is a quote in Mary Piphers book Writing to Change the World that addresses a very
insidious problem that lies deeply within America. As a contrast to her concept of writing to
connect, Pipher elaborates on the idea of weaponized language, a language used to
dehumanize and depersonalize people in a way that they become an other. A category that lies
separate from ones own self. There is no denying the power of language. Language as a learned
ability, completely changes the way we fundamentally think. This power in our language affects
the way we speak to others and what we think and feel about them. Language can be used create
empathy and understanding, but it can also be used to destroy and dehumanize. Stigmatized
language effectively alters the entire experience of the inflicted target and the world around
them. As such, to be a black person in a seemingly post-racial America, where overt racism has
mostly been shunned and disapproved as a thing of the past; The undercurrent of subtle racism
continues to rage heavily through in the language and expressions used in everyday American
culture. As a result, the implications of language carry long, deep and far. Language has been
historically a key component used in the acceptance and encouragement of systemic violence
against Black Americans, and has served as major foundation of the tumultuous and rocky
atmosphere in which black people exist in our society today. Without doubt this is a tricky issue
to tackle, as well as a massive undertaking, as it is so long-lived and pervasive that it continues to
remain visible and invisible to us all at once. But it is not without change, no matter how slow or

Love 3
slight. If the American public can be aware of the mindset and manner of our language, be
conscious of the words we choose to convey our meanings and thoughts, we can begin to work
away at the harmful effects and beliefs in our language.
To elaborate on the impact language has on the mind and consciousness, several studies
have been conducted on what the presence of thought exactly is without language. A prevalent
one, conducted by British psychologist Charles Fernyhough and Harvard psychologist Elizabeth
Spelke, placed both human babies and rats in a room that had four white walls and a hidden
piece of food or toy. The subjects had seen the item be hidden, and then were spun around. Both
rats and babies were only able to find the item half of the time. When the same experiment was
conducted with a blue wall differentiating from the other three, the results still were only half
successful. By this study, they deduced that the rats and babies were not able to find the item
even with a blue wall as a visual marker because they lacked the language; the ability to place
the direction of the item relative to the wall. (Krulwich, Radiolab). Without language, there was
nothing to tie the concepts together. So while it is without question that humans can think
without language, in the sense of collected images and sensations, without language, our ability
to apply ideas and reasoning, is limited. With language, we are able to connect the images we see
in our minds to a larger concept. Understanding this aspect of language used is crucial because it
effectively demonstrates how language codes our thoughts into ideas and beliefs. How it can
color the perception we hold against the intended subject. This applies in regards to people as
well. For example, a study done by John Darley revealed that when observing a child who was to
answer a set of questions, who was described from either an upper-class or middle class,
background, the subjects would rate the childs performance and intelligence based on the social
class given regardless of the fact that the child answered the questions roughly the same. (Darley,

Love 4
33). In short, a person described with any marker that denotes intelligence to us may appear
smarter than they actually may be, and even their actions will reflect this, because they are being
connected to this idea.
Consequently, it is easy and even natural for the human mind to conjure up an image of a
person with the attachment of specific keywords and what these words imply. Some words have
such profound effects that when a person fits this word, the perceptions of this person alters
based on the assumptions associated with the word. Their behavior, their actions, their life and
worth, all changes based on this assumption. There are words that have been created to
specifically invoke this kind of thinking, and some that have grown to do so as well. In America,
there has been a historical trend of racially charged slurs used in the past, but this trend has
become more difficult and vague in modern times as the usage of racial slurs have been widely
dismissed as publicly unacceptable. But in the wake of these words falling from common
acceptance, other words arise, words that intend the same effect as the disowned slurs, but these
new words lack the historical context and therefore can be used without fear or backlash.
Because of this, a lot of these words remain difficult to pin down as harmful because they usually
only pick up as harmful by the target. This is a concept known as a dog-whistle, which is using
coded language that can be interpreted as harmless to the general audience but will carry an
additional meaning to a targeted sub-group. Dog whistles have effectively become the face or
racially coded language today.
In order to illustrate this problem, the Michael Brown shooting can be examined to
showcase how dog whistle language can harmfully affect others. During the weeks of the
Ferguson unrest, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee claimed during an Americas Forum
segment on Newsmax TV, that [Brown] could have [avoided death] if he had behaved like

Love 5
something other than a thug. He later criticized Obama for allowing the protesters who he
referred to as thugs and mob members, an invitation to the White House. A British columnist
even said that Brown was shot for being a thief and a thug, (Clyne, Newsmax, 2014). Obama
himself was even referred to as a Chicago thug, by popular radio host Rush Limbaugh.
(Limbaugh, 2008). Its clear that during the times of these protests and the several that followed,
this word was thrown around quite abundantly on news sites. Hearing this at surface level can
seem relatively harmless to the average viewer. The word thug can be used to describe anybody.
But the word thug in current time is used to overwhelmingly describe black and Latino men. By
its popular usage, the image of these men become attached to the word thug, and as such the
generalization will carry on to the many men who resemble this image. Regardless of the
intention, when words like thug are used to racially codify, group and stigmatize people, it allows
the speaker to depersonalize from the targets which then makes it easier to than demonize. In
these discussions that followed the shootings, many commentators debated on whether the
deceased actually deserved to be killed rather than the questioning of the ethics involved. (I
could use some examples here) It doesnt just stop there, as a study conducted by the scientific
journal website, Plose One shows that on average, people, including medical personnel, perceive
that black people feel less pain than white counterparts. (Trawalte, PloseOne, 2102). This has
even lead to cases where patients suffer from a lack of timely health care and the consequences
that follow such. A study conducted by CNN shows that children empathize with white people
more than they do black people, and are more likely to believe that black children are the
initiators or aggressors when it comes to conflicts associated with children of other race (CNN,
2010). These ideas just do not come to people naturally, they are learned through behavior and
observation. This shows through in language, which affects perception and expression. Like

Love 6
Pipher claims, once we have a label that doesnt fit us, we can ignore the humanity of the
labeled. (Pipher, 6).
Nevertheless, to begin to work a way to a solution to a complex generational problem
will undoubtedly be a slow, arduous process but it can be possible. In the weeks following
Michael Browns death, people took to social media to confront the coded language and mindset
surrounding the case. Twitter users shared photos of themselves along with a caption, What
picture would they use? in the event that they were to be shot and killed, that portrayed
conflicting images; a relative safe photo, and a photo that was meant to be demeaning. The
intention in this was to shed light on the bias of media reporting and the frequent demonization
of these young men killed by using photos that further strengthen the racially-coded ties to the
word thug and all negative implications along with it. Examine your words. This is causing
America to slowly examine the language we use to describe others and the implications that lie
underneath. Everyone is liable to speak harmful things however, if the pitfalls and reality of bias
thinking is acknowledged, then the toxic ideals that lead to language used ca begin to be worked
away. This is a solution beneficial to everyone regardless of race.
Language is powerful. It paints our thinking, and it shapes our concepts and ideas. It can
be used to separate people, and make them less than ourselves. There are a lot of ways words can
be used to demonize people, especially within racial contexts, and not everyone is completely
aware of these words. These words are dangerous and lead to mindsets that encourage violence
and abuse towards others people cannot personally identify with. If a conscious effort is made to
stay mindful of the language used to describe and categorize people, The gap of differences can
begin to close and the harmful effects these words have can be limited.

Love 7
However, how can language become such a powerful weapon in the overall scheme of
violence? How can words that have become unanimously shunned in modern society still
continue to shape the nature of human interaction and language today? What effect does this
have on our society? Are humans naturally violent? Possibly. It can be argued that it is not within
human nature for humans to be needlessly atrocious or violent to one another. Unlike what is
seen in film and television, it can be very difficult to find the nerve to abuse, harm, and even kill
another person without a very tangible feeling of being threatened. But if we consider this true,
then why are there so many instances in human history where people committed extreme acts of
violence towards other people? Human history is littered with many mass killings, genocides,
discrimination and other similar tragedies. While it may seem moot to debate on particularly
why these events happen, it can be helpful to consider what makes people viable to commit
them. Language should be considered as an important factor. During the Holocaust, Nazis
referred to the Jewish, Romani, and other various ethnic groups as untermensch, which
roughly translates to sub-human, a word strictly used to strip the humanity of its victims away.
It is language like this that justifies the treatment we bestow onto others, and absolves us people
of any guilt from the violent acts they commit on others. Dehumanizing language is still a very
polarizing behavior in the world, and with ongoing gun and police violence disproportionately
affecting Black people in America, violent language plays a role on how we have normalized and
become desensitized to the deaths of these people.
The history of stripping humanity away from Black people has been a long and strenuous
one. For instance, imagery likening black people to that of apes has floated around American
consciousness since the nineteenth century, with early scientists George Gliddon and Josiah Nott
proposing the idea that Black people were a creational rank between Greeks and chimpanzees,

Love 8
demonstrating the tier below a full human. Early scholars and thinkers also campaigned for the
idea of races coming from separate origins, with French enlightenment thinker Voltaire referring
to Africans as animals, with little or hardly any intelligence. Voltaire also compared Africans to
monkeys, proposing that it was unclear of which was the other descended from. Thomas
Jefferson in his book, Notes on the State of Virgina, claimed that black people lacked imagination
and creativity, and referred to them as dull and lifeless. He even went on to claim that the
physiology between black people and white people differed, stating that They have less hair on
the face and body. They secrete less by the kidneys, and more by the glands of the skin, which
gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour (Jefferson, 229) These assumptions and
statements, some even backed by the proof and standards of the science of the time during
which these thinkers were alive, all reinforced the belief of the black sub-human, and these
differences they theorized and perpetuated ranged from differences in intelligence,
consciousness, emotions, sensitivity to pain and more. A mindset where the very basis of
humanity differed between race allowed for the ideology of a super-inferior dichotomy to exist,
which gave foundation for subjugation and violence with systems like slavery to continue, as
Black people were not seen as human to feel guilty over how they were being treated. Even
though the landscape of our collective consciousness has considerably shifted over the last few
centuries, these beliefs still permeate through both our unconscious and conscious minds today
and is still continuing to have effects on our society as whole.
Dehumanizing language has taken on many forms throughout the years, all with the same
basic implications. Former Ferguson cop Darren Wilson referred to Michael Brown, the nineteen
year old he shot in self-proclaimed, self-defense during a confrontation with Brown described the
teenager during his testimony as an [aggressive]superhuman demon, he even claimed that

Love 9
Brown bulked up to run through [his] shots, and described Brown as being so angry that he
saw right through Wilson, that there was nothing he was seeing (Slate, Wilson, 2014). His
testimony correlates strongly with the historical animalistic imagery of black men, characterizing
Brown as inherently superhuman and aggressive. His testimony relies on dehumanizing Brown
in an attempt to justify what he had done to him, and his testimony leans back on the century-old
stereotypes of black people being the other, and deviation of the norm. For Wilson, there was
simply no other option, no other angle in which this incident can be viewed. Brown was
aggressive, large and powerful. Careless with his own life, a threat to Wilsons and inevitable
danger to society as well.
Cases like this have become so frequent in recent times they are akin to a proverbial
groundhog day of police brutality. With this constant exposure to the deaths of these men and
boys along with the media circuses that follow, people are continuously oversaturated with
imagery and video footage of the incidents. Add this with the language used to criminalize and
place the accountability of the situation upon the hands of the victims, we have become
desensitized to these incidents. We normalize the violence, especially gun and police violence
against black people of all ages and we accept them as an everyday occurrence. Jennifer
Eberhardt, a psychology professor at Stanford, conducted an investigation where results revealed
that test subjects still to this day continued to liken black people with monkeys as opposed to
people of other races when images were compared, and after being exposed to a video of cops
beating a man whose race was not disclosed, subjects were far more likely to believe the beating
was justified if it were a black man as opposed to a white one. This study only shows that those
damaging ideas still linger in our perceptions of black people, and this only carries harmful
consequences for all involved. When we dehumanize black people, we can socially accept

Love 10
widespread violence and discrimination against them, we can lack the empathy needed to
connect with their suffering. When we normalize the sight and occurrence of black death, it will
only continue in a historically damaging cycle.
The stereotypical language used to describe black people has long caused a chain of
effects to occur in our society. At its very base, black people were not seen as fully human and as
such, language used to characterize them echoed this. With this dehumanizing language
remaining in the consciousness of Americans for centuries, it can be connected to this current
cycle of brutality, violence and death. The language of dehumanization isnt limited just to the
way of speech. It is a way of thinking, a way of thinking that pervades mindsets and had allowed
the acceptance of violence if they happen to those who we have stripped of humanity. The
language used to dehumanize black people has long plagued America, and continues to have a
significant impact on it as well. The effects of this language has normalized violence and
discrimination and has desensitized death and tragedy to the American public.
While it is important to examine the problem of dehumanizing and racially coded
language it is also important to understand how the ideology backing these words gets around ad
well. It is not an innate behavior but a learned one, and one that has to be continuously
perpetuated. Racism is passed down through family, friends and culture all the time. It is global.
However, it can be amplified through the use of media, broadening the horizon on who can gain
access to it.
In 2013, Reza Aslan, a historian with a P.h.D in religious studies appears on Fox News
online web-show, Spirited Debate alongside host Laura Green to discuss his new book about the
life of Jesus aptly titled, Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Aslan appears on the
show to discuss and promote the book. However, he is met with repeated questions on how it

Love 11
could be that a Muslim man would want to write a book about Jesus. You are a Muslim, so
why would you write a book about [Jesus]? Green asks him. The entire discussion continues on
this trajectory, with Aslan repeatedly trying to state why his faith had to somehow bar him from
writing about Christianity when it was in fact, his job to do so as a religious professor. This
segment has gone on to become rather infamous in a long line of awkwardly offensive moments
with Fox News and there has been no shortage of controversial, almost cringe-worthy incidents
involving the network since its launch in 1996. Fox has now become the running-gag in pop
culture when it comes to the conservative and right-wing viewpoints the network is mostly
aligned with. Although Fox News has become a comical presence in the news media to many, it
still remains the highest-rated cable news network in the US with over 1.8 million viewers
nightly and is even accessible to over 95 million households in the nation. The incident with
Aslan is one of the more awkward situations due to ignorance by the host, but many of the other
statements, claims and beliefs are downright as poisonous as they are laughable. The ideas held
and language used by Fox News, no matter how ridiculous, still carry extremely dangerous
consequences for those who are continuously targeted by the shows aired.
Offensive content and Fox News segments go hand in hand quite like a box of assorted
candy. There exists quite possibly, one for each specific individual taste, or more accurately,
politically incorrect no-no. From Ann Coulter mocking gay soldiers by suggesting that they make
their own all-gay division, and decorated with a number stereotypical gay interests as a
solution to not being wanted by the US military; from Stuart Varney, a man who easily makes a
six-figure income on his own, boldly and smugly uses an erroneous statistic that claimed 99.6
percent of poor Americans owned a refrigerator and other basic necessities, and used this to
claim that poor people had it good nowadays, thus somehow miraculously dismissing the

Love 12
complexity of poverty, not considering the simple fact of owning a refrigerator does not
guarantee that the owner will have adequate access to food. Many TV shows and hosts, like Jon
Stewart, Stephen Colbert and even Saturday Night Live have begun to practically feed off of the
seemingly nonsensical hate rhetoric used by Fox News as fuel for their skits openly mocking
Fox. However, Fox News and their apparent anti-everyone logic does hold influence over the
mindsets of its viewers and the people around them, and for some, these messages, no matter
how demonizing, will continue to shape how they interact with the communities affected by
these statements and mindsets.

Bill OReilly, one of Fox News longest-standing anchors, is perhaps nearly

singlehandedly responsible for creating the mainstream image of Fox News today and is
undoubtedly the networks posterchild. The OReilly Factor has been in syndication with the
network since its launch, and it is one of the networks highest-rated programs airing. Clocking in
at seventeen seasons and over 5,000 episodes, OReilly has held a platform to speak into the
American conscious for nearly twenty years. During a rather infamous segment on The OReilly
Factor, Bill O Reilly raises his hand in hypothetical questioning towards his guest speaker Marc
Lamont Hill, a black professor, Lets say youre a cocaine dealer, he begins, and you kinda
look like one he then is cut off by Hills immediate retort that OReilly looks like a cocaine
dealer as also as well as a user. OReilly also, a few years earlier, discussed his surprise on how a
black-owned restaurant functioned quite similarly to other restaurants in New York, exclaiming,
"There wasn't one person in [the restaurant] who was screaming, 'Motherfucker, I want more iced
tea! As if this were to be expected simply due to the race of the restaurant owners and patrons.
In April 2016, OReilly asked presidential candidate Donald Trump just how he was going to

Love 13
give black youth jobs when many were ill-educated [with] tattoos on their foreheads, and were
not qualified for jobs. Each time the internet soon erupted with immediate reactions about
OReillys outlandish statements with videos and posts popping up everywhere claiming about
how hilariously ignorant, OReilly was. Obviously, for the average American, Bill OReilly
can be shrugged off as an old and crazy show host for Fox News so what he says shouldnt be
taken so seriously, as his beliefs only reflect a small, hidden portion of our population. Perhaps
this nonchalant attitude also extends to the other Fox News reporters who referred to observing
the Baltimore Protesters as watching thugs go thugging, The narrative has become so that Fox
News has become so incredibly inflammatory and downright ridiculous to some that it can be
dismissed as nut-job theory, therefore people with supposed common sense and rationality
wouldnt possibly buy into what is said. So naturally, these ideals and beliefs should be
dismissed. That is not the case, however. Not everyone is above the possibility of what
destructive language can influence in the mindsets of people, regardless of how rational they
may seem to be. We can point at Fox News and its show hosts and use them as a scapegoat for
comedic purposes, but the effects the rhetoric that many Fox News shows hold, are extremely
damaging. Geraldo Rivera on Fox and Friends, blamed seventeen year-old Trayvon Martins
death entirely on his attire, claiming that he dressed like a wannabe thug, and that the hoodie
[was] as responsible for Trayvon Martins death as George Zimmerman was, OReilly once
again, repeats this statement, saying that Trayvon Martin died because he looked a certain
way.that is how gangstas look. It is no coincidence that Facebook pages and blog posts also
come popping during this time all repeating this same disturbing mantra: that Trayvon Martin
deserved to die.

Love 14
Its easy to laugh at what Fox News Hosts say, as most of the time, it is funny in almost
an unbelievable and outlandish way. But it is dangerous too, and the general public is not above
being influenced by the messages and themes it portrays. That must be accounted for. Instead of
accepting Fox News as a source of humor due to its damaging show hosts and the ideology they
hold, it is time that the discriminatory rhetoric be confronted. Fox News shouldnt be considered
as just a joke, what is said and perpetuated carries extremely harmful consequences and extend
long and deep into Americas long-winded relationship with a very deadly and abusive
passiveness towards racially-coded language. Everything ranging from the beliefs and the words
used to express them are deeply connected to this long-standing culture of dehumanization,
abuse and violence. If a solution to getting rid of a pervasive and destructive culture of language
exists then it must be confronted in all aspects, it must be acknowledged in its history and in its
presence today

Love 15
Works Cited
CNN. "Children Learn Attitudes about Race at Home." CNN.com. 25 May 2010. Web. 26 Feb.
2016.
Clyne, Melissa. "Huckabee: Obama Asked 'Thugs and Rioters' to WH for Ferguson Meeting."
Newsmax.com. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.
Silverstein, Jason. "I Don't Feel Your Pain." Slate.com. 27 June 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.
Trawalter, Sophie. "Racial Bias in Perception of Others' Painn." Racial Bias in Perceptions of
Others Pain 10.13 (2012). PLoS ONE. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.
Bouie, Jamelle. "Michael Brown Wasn't a Superhuman Demon to Anyone but Darren Wilson."
Slate. Nov. 2014. Web.
Smith, Jamil. "What Does Seeing Black Men Die Do To You." Newrepublic. 24 Apr. 2015. Web.
Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia. 1785. Print.
Pipher, Mary. Writing To Change the World. New York: Riverhead, 2006. Print.
Castellanos, Dalina. "Geraldo Rivera: Hoodie Responsible for Trayvon Martin's Death." Los
Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 2012. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
Mirkinson, Jack. "Bill O'Reilly: Trayvon Martin Died Because He 'Looked A Certain Way'" The
Huffington Post.
Darley, John. "A Hypothesis Confirming Bias in Labeling Effects." Journal of Personality and
Social Pyschology 44 (1983): 20-33. Web.
Mazza, Ed. "Bill O'Reilly Asks Donald Trump about 'Ill-educated' Black Voters with 'tattooes on
Their Foreheads," Huffington Post. N.p., 12 Apr. 2016. Web. 5 May 2016.
Chappel, Bill. "If They Gunned Me Down, What Photo Would They Use?" NPR. N.p., 11 Aug.
2014. Web.

Love 16
Krulwich, Robert. "Words." Radiolab. N.p., 08 Aug. 2010. Web.