The Fora: A Higher Education Community

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 15, 2020, 11:04:48 PM

What is there to say, really? We should refer to and call groups of people by the names they wish us to use for them, and we should be reflective in our use of those names. Language isn't static, and the terms we use change as our usage drifts, and some cease to be useful for the purposes to which we previously put them.

Yes. This seems like a straightforward example of the euphemism treadmill, where euphemisms are used to refer to unpleasant subjects, but simply by association with those subjects they become themselves taboo, and so new euphemisms must be found. For example: water closet -> toilet -> (in N. America) bathroom/washroom -> restroom. We're constantly looking for more delicate ways to refer to pooping.

In this case it's not the topic itself that is taboo, but the unpleasant emotional load that keeps being associated with it by a subset of the population. Terms for minority groups are either corrupted or simply used with racist intents, so the groups ask to be referred to by other terms that do not carry the unpleasant emotional load of the previous terms. Then racists start using the new terms racistly, and so the new terms are now contaminated, and must be changed again.

This is not an instance of minority groups being perpetually dissatisfied, but rather an instance of racists polluting what they touch. And, as with all pollution, there are two solutions: avoid it or clean it up.  An individual cannot solve racism, but they can at least not use racist terms when explicitly asked not to.

The author does not seem to think the mess can be cleaned up this easily. I think I agree with her in spots. People who look black are black. That part's easy. Why did that need changing? Also I don't know what I am being asked to call people. People at work use POC when referring to themselves in my presence. But it only recently dawned on me that 'POC' is not just another term for 'black' it's more like an umbrella. (I should get out more.) And are these settled questions among the non-Caucasian people involved? I wonder.
Spell correct wants to write 'rakishly' in place of 'racistly.' There's another problem. But thanks for the new word. I bet I'm safe using it until I visit friends in North Dakota.
BTW I have a friend who's a billionaire or close to it. But instead of 'person of means' which might sound pejorative maybe I should call him 'giver to charity.'

Glad things are better...all good thoughts for continued healing in all dimensions.


My inhale: two friends and I had a spur-of-the-moment "UnValintine's Party" last night.

We went to a good crepes cafe, ate crepes, drank tea, and shared a chocolate-Strawberry-chantilly crepe for dessert. (Before and After photos of the plate suggest how good it was!l)

The rules were:
  1. No red, no pink, no lace.
  2. No flowers (we decided candy or sweets might be OK...hence the dessert crepe at the end!)

We spent three hours eating, discussing drawing, travel, quilting, painting, museums, knitting, new homes (two had recently moved), books, France, Quebec, Vancouver, California, jewelry, job hunting, and...oh, libraries.

No romantic relationships, or their lack, were even considered. They never even came up.

It was a fine evening.

M.

What is there to say, really? We should refer to and call groups of people by the names they wish us to use for them, and we should be reflective in our use of those names. Language isn't static, and the terms we use change as our usage drifts, and some cease to be useful for the purposes to which we previously put them.

Yes. This seems like a straightforward example of the euphemism treadmill, where euphemisms are used to refer to unpleasant subjects, but simply by association with those subjects they become themselves taboo, and so new euphemisms must be found. For example: water closet -> toilet -> (in N. America) bathroom/washroom -> restroom. We're constantly looking for more delicate ways to refer to pooping.

In this case it's not the topic itself that is taboo, but the unpleasant emotional load that keeps being associated with it by a subset of the population. Terms for minority groups are either corrupted or simply used with racist intents, so the groups ask to be referred to by other terms that do not carry the unpleasant emotional load of the previous terms. Then racists start using the new terms racistly, and so the new terms are now contaminated, and must be changed again.

This is not an instance of minority groups being perpetually dissatisfied, but rather an instance of racists polluting what they touch. And, as with all pollution, there are two solutions: avoid it or clean it up.  An individual cannot solve racism, but they can at least not use racist terms when explicitly asked not to.

When did POC ask to be called by that name? 

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/02/people-of-color-phrase-history-racism.html

Discuss please, particularly if you are a language expert, or if you are not. What is your responsibility to respond to this and other related discussions? (Wow, it's a year old already!)