h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<<(b) they focus on what people can't do rather than what they can. Now, it may be that individuals don't mind being refered to as 'blind' or 'deaf', and this may give a warrant for that person's friends to use those words, but I don't think that warrant can extend to a more general permission about others with similar impairments.>>

On the other hand, the only point in refering to someone as blind or deaf is because it is relevant what they can't do. What they can do, in most cases, is not something others can't (if they know sign-language or braile, you wouldn't refer to that as an affect of their medical condition; a normally sighted person with normal hearing can learn braile and sign language (perhaps not as easily)).

The terms are only important if one is refering to inabilities because that is the primary distinction.

It is not the primary distinction, the persons abilities and personality is what defines *EVERYONE* even you. Would you like to be described as a non-male, non-pilot.

Saying that some one who can see half as well as normal is blind is *incorrect* that's why its called political correctness do you enjoy or get some sort of kick out of being incorrect Lemon? Or do you get some sort of kick out of the frustration and hurt caused to those who are called these names?

I seriously doubt that you get a kick out of either.

You have told us quite clearly what your problems with political correctness are:

First, it is an inconvienience

It's irrationally repteative

Heaven forbid Lemon that ignorant people like you should have go to all the trouble of actually engaging your brain learning some new phrases and ideas about other people.

Lets forget about signs in two languages or pamphlets in braille or large print. The idea that people who cant read the majority language or see information as well as those of us lucky enough to be fully sighted should have access to everday information just causes unecessary and irrational repetition.

one love

I see at least two issues here.

There's the matter of politeness - describing people in a way which is not derogatory. That description should only be used where it is essential to identify the person or type of person you are specifying. That might be their gender, race, disability or whatever. Going back to the original posting, I feel that some literature does try too hard to be all inclusive - picturing at least one male, one female, one old, one young, one white, one Asian, one African and so on. It looks too obvious and unrealistic.

Then there's giving someone a label to raise awareness of some special consideration that may be necessary in your dealings with them. That is more likely to be something like a language difficulty or physical disability. People don't choose to have a disability, so I think it is quite right that within reason, documents and so on should be made available in a form they can access. I am not so sure about the obligation to provide translated documents. An aganecy for doing so, perhaps. If people choose to come to this country then generally I think they should learn the language or make their own arrangements for interpretatiopn/translation.

hi Otto,

<>

Yes, I agree. And I hope I didn't come across as 'sneery', though I know I was being a bit facetious about 'visually challenged'. I don't actually know the proper PC term for someone who is 100% blind (like my friend) - perhaps it is just 'blind'? Meanwhile, why would anyone call a person who is partially sighted 'blind'?

<>

That's true. Though I wonder if these words started out having such negative connotations or if they simply refer back to a time when society treated these people inhumanely and so now reflect that in their meanings. For example, the second definition of moron in my dictionary is: a person having an intelligence quotient of between 50 and 70, able to work under supervision.

Words, words, words . . .

az

Changing words on its own doesn't change attitudes. Who's heard someone being sneeringly described as 'special', for instance?

But yeah I see the point about where the attitudes have changed but the words remain derogatory.

Oh, RFJS: liking that thread .

You're part of the solution or you're part of the problem.

Not a universally accepted idea I know but, why do people not want to make the effort ot make things better for people who quite obviously have the unpleasant end of the stick.

The Sun or some other mindless low brow and deliberately devisive media sources delight in telling us a bout a minority of assylum seekers, ehtnic minorities and people with various disabilities who milk the system or play both ends against the middle. Then whip these few incidents up into a seemingly huge drain on the UK.

Here are the facts. The UK spends *more* money dealing with the problems of excluded minorities of all kinds than it would take to facilitate better prospects of inclusion for everyone. Im not saying it would be easy to create a more harmonious and fair society here.

What I am saying is that combined, the efforts of the BNP, ignorance of individual and group employers along with a misguided resistance to PC ( a major tool in creating equality) by a large part of the public makes the job far more difficult.

We could say that people ought to learn English befor they come to our shore or we could make the effort to help them learn. We could tell wheel chair users to learn to walk on their hands as well, it would save money on all those troublsome and expensive ramps and other convertions wouldn't it.

It's no good saying learn English to an immigrant from Pakistan with no English,(they probably wouldnt understand you for a start). Though I really doubt anyone willfully goes to another country and doesnt want to learn the language. (Except for us English maybe) Thing is Pakistan is a relatively impoverished country. While many of us in Britain benefitted from free and compulsory schooling in large victorian schools payed for with revenues drawn from the Empire of which Pakistan was once a part.

Of course there are those who come here as a second choice. They might like to live in their native coutry but flee because of armed conflict should we help them to contribute to our country by helping them learn English or just marginalise them and keep forking out benefits?

I think we have a duty to help people in such situations, afterall some of the arms used in the conflict they are fleeing were probaly made here.

So do we say "catch up" to groups with less advantages or do we help?

Do we try to eradicate the attitudes that once allowed minority groups to fall behind or do we cling to ideas and language that are the foundations of our unfair prejudices?

one love

hi blicky,

I think you seriously misread Lemon. I don't think she intended what you think she said. At least that wasn't how I read her postings. But perhaps she can clear up any misunderstandings.

Meanwhile, I agree with her that it is quite confusing to know how to refer to 'people of colour' these days. I find African American a bit clumsy and, yes, what about black people born in England or Greece? African Greek? What are black people called in England? Do you personally find the term 'black' offensive? I know many black people who don't, though as I said, I will always call someone by whatever term they prefer.

az

When I travel about some people ask me where Im from.

If Im feeling I say English, then Smethwick. Till they get exassperated and say "No like what are you?" and I say "Virgo"

If Im feeling I say "human, you idiot"

I like to be called Blicky.



Its ironic I suppose that those of us most concerned with creating a more equal society probably spend more time discussing difference and using "label" words to identify individuals' needs or origins. Ethnic monitoring and disability awareness etc...with all the terminology involved is are necessary evils in ensuring that what we are doing to bring us towards equality is working.

You do touch on the central problem for those behind PC and those who dont like it.

I find African American a bit clumsy

There are those who disagree with it because it ruffles their feathers to some degree. However the other option to PC changes to how we do and say things is leaving things how they are and just waiting for equality to come about.

The term 'blind' may have come to be inappropriately used because you don't need to be totally blind to be registered blind. There is also a lot more done these days to enable those with some sight to use it effectively.

<>

Non-pilot: Why not, if the question at issue is whether or not I can fly a plane. Certainly, it makes more sence then calling me "flying impaired" or simply refering to some ability that I have instead. What term would you rather be called?

The word blind is used to refer to people specificly because it is relevant that someone can't see in so many situations--it means that they can't see or read signs that other people can. Considering how much information we communicate by sight, that someone cannot see is often quite relevant. In those cases, is makes perfect sence to refer to a person who can't see's inability. In fact, "vision impared" refers to that inability just as much. While vision impared is a reasonable word for someone who can see well enough to function as a seeing person in some situations (crossing a street without special aids) but not in others (say reading a normal print book). Just as the phrase "hard of hearing" is used to refer to someone who can here, but not very well. Calling a person who can't hear a jackhammer 10 feet away hard of hearing doesn't describe their problem very well.

The PC terms don't actually get around the problem of negative definition because the things they are refering to are inherently negative conditions. That's the problem with the "non-male" statement. Being blind or deaf does not intrinsicly give a person special abilities that they can't have otherwise. The conditions are purely negative. A blind person may no braile, but a sighted person can learn it. A deaf person may know sign language, but a hearing person may know it--in fact its primary usefullness comes from its ability to let deaf people communicate with hearing people who also know it, since there are many more hearing people than deaf people in almost all situations.





<>

The point is that the new prases don't often communicate any new information, they're just longer and more obtuse. They clutter up the language with long phrases that don't supply any new information. They make statements longer without need.



<>

If you're implying that I'm calling braile or large print unnecesarry, I am insulted. They do serve a purpose, since they communicate information to people who otherwise couldn't get it. However, that is not true of most of the politically correct replacements for valid English words--anyone who can understand the PC term can understand the normal word.

Please don't accuse me of positions that I don't hold and that have nothing to do with the point I'm making. I am not George W. Bush or Rush Limbauge!

<>

Thanks for the support; it's nice to know that not everyone on the guide misinterprtets everything I say and then attacks the misinterpretations as soon as I offer an opinion.

That isn't true of everyone I've met here, but it is true of quite a large percentage of them.

<>

It depends what you mean by partially sighted. I'd say blind is a valid term for anyone who has to function in society in the way a person who can't see at all does--in other words, they can't read any printed text, can't walk outside safely without a cane, ect. It doesn't make sence to use it to refer to a person who can see well enough to do some things, but not others. However, the impression I've gotten is that it is NEVER politically correct to say blind in any context.

<>

If you're accusing me of not wanting to make things better for people who have disagvantages, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm saying that I think that expunging words like blind, deaf, and black from our language doesn't help anyone. It just gives people an excuse to be offended by perfectly reasonable uses of English.

<>

Certainly it doesn't make sence to say that immegrants should learn English before they come. On the other hand, their children who grow up in an English-speaking nation ought to learn the language--in school if nowhere else. Surprisingly, many people in the US don't seem to think that that is so obvious.



***********

Someone here made a comment about the use of words like "moron" and "cretin" to refer to people with mental disabilities.

I agree that such words are intended to be derogatory and shouldn't be used. The words are and have always been used in a derogatory way and thus can't help but be insults. AFter all, they're words that people regularly use to insult people who don't have medical disabilities. Not using them to refer to people with medical disabilities is common politeness.

The problem is that political correctness has gotten far beyond politeness and has turned into a need to find new terms for every disableing (not that that word is very politically correct) medical condition and minority group.

There is a time when very precise technical language is needed and it makes sence to refer to the exact type of eye or nervous problem that makes a person unable to see. However, everyday conversation is not that time. The word blind is a perfectly legitimate word for people who cannot see or have such bad vission that they must function in society basicly as though they cannot see. The phrase vision impaired is useful in refering to a midpoint between people with relatively normal vision (if they have minor problems, they can be corrected easily with such things as glasses and don't rewally impede one's actions) and people who are practically blind. Trying to eliminate the word blind isn't being polite, it's being fanatical.

I don't think anyone *is* trying to eliminate the word blind, merely ensure that it is used accurately ie to refer to people who cannot see, rather than to those who are partially sighted. Describing people who are partially-sighted as blind is actiually wrong, so to insist that epeople refer to them as "partially-sighted" isn't so much political correctness as just plain correctness.

<>

I agree; it isn't always relevant to bring up every possible description of a person. However, in once case you give, gender, our language makes it impossible to avoid.



<>

I'd say the oblication probably depends on a variety of things. One would expect a big corporation like Microsoft that can afford to to go to a greater effort to translate its software manuels into braile or large-print than one would expect a small company run by a couple people out of their garage. Exactly what amount of effort compared to the means of the person or group asked to take the effort I am unsure of. Perhaps a governement agency that would translate things for the disabled would be a good idea.

<>

It may be that noone here is trying to eliminate the word blind, but I think that there are certainly some political correctness fanatics who would like to.

Also, it is worth noting a question about what "partially sighted" means. It is certainly descriptive of someone who can only read large-print books or has limited peripheal vision. But what about someone who can see general distinctions between light and dark, but not much more. THey can't form images of things. I'dd say that such a person is blind because, for practical purposes of their abilities, they are. They have some rudimentary vision, but would still need the same special aides (like braile text, white canes, ect.) that a completely blind person would.

Quite - that's what I said earlier, that to be registered blind, you don't have to be completely blind, it's more to do with how you are able to function.

Partially sighted sounds more positive to me than visually impaired, but I guess we all have our own interpretations. I don't think anyone has seriously suggested 'visually challenged' have they?

As some have said in earlier postings, it's really not the terminology itself that's necessarily offensive but the way it's used.

Yes, it's not what you say, it's the way you say it and what you mean by it.


az

"It may be that noone here is trying to eliminate the word blind, but I think that there are certainly some political correctness fanatics who would like to."

I've never met any of these so-called 'political correctness fanatics', and I don't know anyone else who has either. All these 'absurd' instances of 'political correctness' that are reported are almost always anecdotal and very vague. It's a convenient 'straw person' to attack.

"The point is that the new prases don't often communicate any new information, they're just longer and more obtuse. They clutter up the language with long phrases that don't supply any new information. They make statements longer without need."

I think it's a mistake to underestimate the power of language to shape ideas and opinions. In George Orwell's '1984', a whole branch of government was devoted to removing words from the language to try to remove concepts that the party didn't like. That's how important language is - we cannot even think about complex ideas without using language, never mind communicate about them. It's better to use terminology that expresses the way that things are than to use terminology that doesn't. Particularly if that use of terminology serves to reinforce stereotypes which affect the life chances and aspirations of others. That's why 'firefighter' is better than 'fireman' and 'police officer' is better than 'policeman'.

Otto