In the UK, if you're white and you use/type the word then you're getting arrested and taken to court for committing a hate crime, regardless of the context. Having Tourette syndrome would be one of the only exceptions.
Sorry to my fellow Brits but the UK has really become a dystopia...
........
Anyway, my take is pretty simple:
When a community normalizes a word within its own music and pop culture for decades, it shouldn't be shocking that the rest of the world ends up repeating it too. That doesn't erase the history behind it, but it does make the conversation more complicated than just "only we can say it, end of discussion."...
In the 90s, artists like Ice Cube , Ice-T, and groups like N.W.A amongst others, pushed gangsta rap into the global mainstream, their audience wasn't just one demographic, a huge portion of it was...white suburban kids all over the world. The language in those albums was repeated constantly, commercially packaged, and exported worldwide, now , when something is broadcast like that for 30 years straight, people are going to absorb it - that's just reality.
I'm not denying the history or pretending words don't carry weight, i'm saying there's a contradiction when something is aggressively globalized through entertainment and then treated as though it exists in a sealed cultural bubble.
Other cultures don't usually put their own intra-group insults on global display like that, If Greeks, for example, blasted "malakas" in every international hit song for three decades and then suddenly said, "Only Greeks can ever say this" , people would raise an eyebrow - context matters. Relationship matters. But so does consistency.
As for the word "negro," it literally means "black" in Spanish and Portuguese. It wasn't invented as a slur, In English-speaking history it absolutely became associated with racism and discrimination, which is why it's considered offensive in that context today but in countries like Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Peru or Chile it's still the standard word for the color black.
Language depends heavily on culture and history, at the end of the day, I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's experience, I just think when culture is exported globally and consumed by millions outside the originating community, you can't completely detach it from that global audience afterward. If we're going to talk about appropriation or boundaries, we should at least acknowledge that complexity instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
In the last 100 years there were bombings, lynchings, beatings, etc ... Some of those on video and pictures (Bloody Sunday for example)... There have been whole black communities wiped off the map ... There were, even today, sundown towns (look it up). It goes beyond just a slur... But what that slur represents. I gave a history of that word in the black community and why it still persists. It's unique in that aspect.
"100 years" you say? If we're going to measure historical grievance in centuries, then by that logic peoples such as the Greeks could claim an even longer ledger. Large parts of Greece were under Ottoman rule for roughly 400 years, and that period included heavy taxation, repression, and episodes of brutal violence. Later, at the end of the Greco-Turkish War, the destruction of Smyrna in 1922 and the wider catastrophe in Asia Minor led to mass displacement and immense suffering on both sides.
And Greece is hardly unique in that regard. If you look at Armenian history, particularly the events of 1915, or Irish history under British rule, you'll find long records of hardship, famine, persecution, and conflict. The point is not to rank suffering or turn history into a competition. It is simply to acknowledge that many nations and peoples carry deep historical scars.
That is precisely why we should be cautious about framing present-day disagreements as uniquely unprecedented injustices. Perspective matters. And in this specific case, especially when a person with a very particular disability is involved, it might be wiser not to default to outrage.