Bowman suggested that hearing racist slurs is a direct cause of cancer, diabetes and heart disease among black Americans.
| Published June 28, 2025
In an interview that’s gone viral for all the wrong reasons, former Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman recently told CNN that Black Americans who hear the N-word—whether directly or indirectly—are more likely to develop cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and obesity.
For many viewers, it was a jaw-dropping moment. Bowman claimed that the mere stress of hearing the word leads to physical illness, tying it to a broader argument about systemic racism in America. But his remarks left a lot of people—especially conservatives—asking: Is this really about health, or about pushing a political narrative?
The Politics of Language
Let’s be honest: the N-word is ugly, offensive, and rooted in a shameful past. But in a time when real issues are affecting millions of Americans—crime, inflation, broken education, and weakened families—Bowman’s claim felt like yet another emotional overreach from the political left.
Instead of focusing on policy, personal responsibility, or community rebuilding, we’re being told that words are now literal health hazards.
If that sounds like political theater, that’s because it is.
What the Science Actually Says
To be fair, researchers do acknowledge that chronic stress can impact health, especially for people who face frequent discrimination. High stress levels may contribute to higher rates of heart disease, high blood pressure, or obesity over time.
But let’s not twist the data. There is no scientific consensus that hearing a word—no matter how offensive—directly causes disease. Bowman’s framing skips the nuance and lands in pseudoscientific territory, which may do more harm than good by confusing correlation with causation.
Racism should never be tolerated, but we must also resist turning every uncomfortable experience into a medical crisis. If everything becomes trauma, then nothing is.
A Culture of Victimhood?
What’s more troubling is how quickly the left turns complex problems into narratives of victimhood. The idea that Black Americans are falling ill from words plays into a worldview where people are helpless products of their environment—incapable of resilience or rising above adversity.
But that’s simply not true.
Millions of Americans—of all backgrounds—face hardship, and many overcome it through strong families, faith, hard work, and perseverance. We shouldn’t discourage that by promoting a culture where people are told that offensive language will literally make them sick.
The Real Health Crisis
If Democrats like Bowman truly cared about the health of Black communities, they’d focus less on symbolism and more on action:
-
Fix inner-city schools
-
Promote fatherhood and stable homes
-
Encourage healthy eating and physical activity
-
Crack down on violent crime and drug abuse
These aren’t partisan goals—they’re just practical. But they don’t fit the narrative of endless oppression that some on the left rely on for political capital.
Implications
If we allow emotion to override evidence, we risk turning uncomfortable speech into a public health crisis—when the real crisis is cultural, educational, and economic. Overstating the effects of offensive language could lead to:
-
Speech-policing legislation that restricts freedom of expression
-
Wasted public funds on superficial programs that treat symptoms, not causes
-
A fragile culture where emotional discomfort becomes a political weapon
We cannot afford to let emotional narratives distract from common-sense reforms and personal responsibility. The more we dramatize words, the less seriously we treat the real structural problems that need fixing.
SOURCES: ZEROHEDGE – Radical Democrat Claims ‘The N Word’ Causes Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease In Black People
RELATED: “Negro”: A Word with a Complicated Past – Why It’s No Longer Acceptable Today
| Published June 28, 2025
You know, I’ve always been curious about certain words we used to hear a lot but don’t anymore. One of them is the word “Negro.” It shows up in old speeches, history books, and even organizations like the Negro Leagues or the United Negro College Fund. But when I brought it up recently, someone flinched—and that got me wondering: What happened to this word? Why is it now seen as inappropriate, even offensive?
Where Did “Negro” Come From?
The word “Negro” comes from the Spanish and Portuguese word for black. It was adopted into English in the 1500s during the height of the Atlantic slave trade. For centuries, it was the common term for Black people, especially in America. Even respected civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. used the word frequently in their speeches because it was the accepted terminology at the time.
So I thought: “If Dr. King used it, how can it be offensive now?”
That’s when I started looking into it deeper.
A Word That Reflects Its Era
The word “Negro” wasn’t just a term used in America—it was all over the map, literally. Colonial powers like Spain and Portugal, who were major players in the Atlantic slave trade, used their word for “black”—“negro”—in naming rivers, regions, and entire countries.
Here are some examples:
-
Rio Negro (Brazil & Colombia): A major river in the Amazon Basin, named by Portuguese and Spanish explorers for its dark-colored water. “Rio Negro” literally means “Black River.”
-
Negros Island (Philippines): A large island in the Visayas region, named by Spanish colonizers after they saw the island’s dark-skinned Negrito natives. While still officially called Negros, the name has sparked discussion, and there’s a proposal to change it to something less racially charged.
-
Negros Occidental / Negros Oriental: Two provinces on the island in the Philippines. These names are remnants of Spanish colonial rule.
-
Punta Negra (Argentina, Peru, Uruguay): Meaning “Black Point,” used in place names across several Latin American countries.
In all these examples, the word “negro” wasn’t originally meant as a slur—it was simply descriptive. But over time, especially in Western contexts, the term took on negative racial connotations due to slavery, segregation, and systemic oppression.
It made me think: If something so global became so controversial, how much power does a single word really hold? The answer? A lot.
ii A Word That Reflects Its Era
Turns out, the problem isn’t just the word itself—it’s everything it became associated with. During segregation and Jim Crow, “Negro” was stamped onto “colored” water fountains, schools, and buses. It became a label tied to second-class citizenship, even if the people using it weren’t always trying to insult.
As the Civil Rights Movement grew stronger in the late 1960s and 1970s, many Black Americans began rejecting “Negro” and embracing more empowering terms like Black or African American. These weren’t just word swaps—they were part of a larger demand for dignity, equality, and identity.
I realized then: The issue isn’t just the dictionary meaning—it’s the history and power behind the word.
From Acceptable to Offensive
Today, most people agree that “Negro” is outdated at best, and offensive at worst—especially when used casually. It’s still found in historical texts or official names of older organizations, but you’d rarely hear it in everyday respectful conversation anymore. Using it now can feel like dragging someone back into an era when they weren’t seen as equal.
Even more problematic are other words that used to float around as “synonyms”:
-
Colored – once common, now outdated and patronizing
-
Negroid – a racial classification term now considered pseudo-scientific and racist
-
Mulatto – used for mixed-race people but has dehumanizing roots
-
And don’t even get me started on terms like darkie or pickaninny—those are just plain racist.
So, What Should We Say?
If you’re wondering, like I was, what’s okay to say now, here’s what I found:
-
Black – widely accepted and often capitalized to show respect for the cultural identity
-
African American – appropriate, especially in U.S. contexts
-
Person of color (POC) – more inclusive term for non-white groups, though not everyone loves it
As I kept reading, I thought to myself: Wow, words really do evolve. And so should we. What was once neutral can become loaded over time—and it’s our job to listen, learn, and adjust.
Overall Takeaway:
While there’s no denying that stress and trauma can impact health over time, we should be careful not to let ideology replace science. Linking a single offensive word like the N-word directly to cancer, heart disease, or diabetes overstates the case and risks trivializing real health issues affecting Black Americans and others.
Chronic illness is influenced by many factors—diet, lifestyle, genetics, community, and access to quality health care. Playing politics with words and exaggerating their impact can distract from practical solutions: improving education, creating jobs, strengthening families, and restoring accountability in our communities.
Instead of pushing emotional narratives, we should focus on policies that empower individuals and promote personal responsibility, not victimhood. We need less rhetoric and more results—because the real causes of suffering in America today aren’t words, but broken systems, failing leadership, and cultural decay.
-DCZ
Be the first to comment