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

But then firefighter conjurs up the image of someone who purely fights fires rather than also helping pump out flooded building, cut people from the wreckage of, rescue people stuck in lifts or little s stuck in trees (albeit at a cost) - the same for police officer, ok it may more accurately describe what they do, being stuck behind a desk filling in paperwork, rather than being out patrolling the streets (either by foot or by vehicle) protecting and serving the public which is where we'd like them to be...

If terms are deemed offensive it's often the way they're used by a minority, a minority which will always use whatever the current term is in an offensive manner because it is they who are being offensive - why should the relatively civil majority be forced to bastardise (and that's a technical term) a standard language into something that can only be understood by someone with a degrees in both law and quantum physics, let alone people who are trying to learn it as a second/third language to fit in with a country they want to live and work in?

<>

On that particular matter, I haven't either. However, I have met plenty of political correctness fanatics on the matter of race and I see no reason to assume that that is the only example of political correctness that people are fanatical about.




<>

I see your point and agree with you about the use of gender-specific words. However, I don't think that the word blind implies a negative stereotype. If there is a stereotype associated with it, you can be sure it will get transfered to whatever word is used to replace it.

<>

The problem is that the politically correct term of one generation becomes offensive in the next. Here's an example.

In the 1800's in the US, the n-word was the offensive term for blacks. It was polite to call them "negros". Organizations like the National Negro College Fund that were certainly not formed by racists used the word in their name. That word became offensive, so "colored" took its place. Example: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Persons. Once again, it was not considered offensice. That became politically incorrect, so "black" took its place. Now that term is considered offensive by some. It was replaced first by "Afro-American" and now "African-American". Black is now considered by many to be racist or at least politically incorrect.

How long before "African-American" becomes racist and we need a new word again?

The problem is that as long as there are negative stereotypes about a group, the term for that group will be used by some as an insult and people will want a new one. It's an endless cycle and the only way to stop it in its tracks is to stop replacing words whenever a group of the population uses them as insults. All you do is clutter up the language with fossiles of words that noone is allowed to use anymore.



One example that particularly annoyed me was a school report that I did on the "Buffalo Soldiers", a group of black calvary soldiers that served in the US army between the Civil War and the Spanih-American war. I refered to their unit by its official name, the #th Colored Calvary and my teacher made me change the word because it was politically incorrect. So what if it was the official name of the unit and I was writting a history report.

Nice point about the 'strawperson' Otto. I wont be saying straw man again

I feel sorry for you Lemon if you arent capable of the mental dexterity to go through life wiht out tripping over all the new phrases and archaic words that are "cluttering up" language.

My point about calling people non-whatever was that we shouldnt be tagging people by what they cant do. Likewise we shouldnt be describing people in ways that are inaccurate.

In the ninties an album came out called "Black meaning good" by Rebel MC (it was quite good actually).

How many phrases do you know where black is used in a negative way moreover black is a very different colour to the shades of brown in human skin. So given that not all people with dark brown skin are intrinsically bad and none of them are actually blck it fails on two counts. politically it is a damning and negative name and interms of correctness it is some way wide of the mark.

Lemon excuse me for being fanatical about this it just happens to be my life, the life of my relatives and future generations that we're talking about here. Sorry if things that I think are necessary for people who look like me to gain equality and proper respect both in themselves and others are cluttering up the language for you.

one love

hi blicky,

<>

Curious. I have expressed almost the same opinions as Lemon on this subject and yet you are not jumping down my throat and being rude and insulting to me.

Frankly I think you are at cross-purposes with Lemon and for some reason will not read what she has written without adding your personal slant to it.

<>

We all have lives. And when we feel we are being misunderstood we can then try to explain. Lemon is in fact very intelligent. It's quite possible she has more mental dexterity than you and I put together. So I'm sure if you took the time to politely ask her to clarify her points and also explain your position rather than leap to conclusions and accuse her of having opinions she doesn't hold then you both would probably get much further along in terms of understanding.

az

one love?

One example that particularly annoyed.

I resent the fact that people decry PC which can have a very positive effect on ome peoples lives because they find it annoying.

However, I have met plenty of political correctness fanatics on the matter of race and I see no reason to assume that that is the only example of political correctness that people are fanatical about.

We can all put thought and words in the mouths of others as Lemon here demonstrates. However I was just exteporising as to how far peoples antipathy to PC would go. If people disagree with my tentative assumptions they do ahave the right of reply. I have never pointed said this...is definately what people think.

As Lemon is the most strident anti-voice on the thread at the moment I find it most useful to use her posts as a jumping off point fot my own posts.

I dont hate anyone here, but as for some of the things that have been posted and Im sure other people may well feel the same about me Not that they "definateley" do.

one love

<>

<>

<>

If you're going to challenge "black" on the ground that noone or very few people have skin that color, logically, you should challenge "white" on the same grounds. However, I've only heard one person to ever do so--that clearly isn't a primary arguement for not using the word "black", then.

As for negative associations with the color black itself, there is an interesting point there. I'd suggest perhaps brown would be a better choice as that color lacks the associations commonly made with the color black. Here I see the point--there's a difference between challenging a word on the the grounds that it has inherent negative associations outside of its use as a word for a race and challenging it on the grounds that the word has egative racial associations. The latter leads to the endless cycle I mentioned before, the former does not.

Note that brown lacks the problem I mentioned with phrases like "African American", that they are nation specific and longer than necesary. One word is preferable to two if it can carry the same information--the extra information carried by "American" in the context actually detracts from the phrase's value because it adds unneeded specificity.

African on its own might work if you want to get away from colors entirely--that's how most groups other than whites and browns are identified. Examples: Asians,Indians, Native Americans, Australian Aborigenees. Ect. The problem is that people of African descent in America generally have developed a culture quite different from the native cultures of Africa and the term African on its own implies something different.


Just out of curiosity, can you suggest a term you'd find acceptable that doesn't imply nation of citizenship.habitation?

Preferably a consitant system that could be used for all racial groups. While ignoring race completely might be preferable, it is not practical to avoid having words for a concept that is so widespread.

If the current terminology is unacceptable, we might as well try to develope a system that is standardized and that is acceptable.

<>

Very well, I hope you use the list at the bottom of this post as a jumping-off point, then. Perhaps we can actually come to some sort of an agreement.


<>

I think I'll try to do that on the race-political correctness matter (I don't feel like bringing up the disability one again.).


1.) Simply term-jumping because an old term has picked up negative assocaitions is a waste of effort--the associations will follow you around and all you do is clutter up the language and history with a bunch of terms that were once polite and are now offensive.

2.) I accept that the color black does have a collection of associations that make the use of the word black unpreferable.

3.) I feel that if we accept the accuracy arguement about color, we must replace the word white as well--it is just as inaccurate.

4.) Country of residence/nationality terms should be avoided because nationality is irreleant to race and it produces complications that aren't needed.

5.) If we're going to try to eliminate the term black in place of something better, there are some other terms to consider. The terms Native American and Australian Aborigenee are both two-word phrases, as I think I noted above, one-word terms are preferable. Native American gives special problems, since the same group is called different things in different places--they're Aborigenees in Canada and American Indians to the US goverment (note the nationallity problem). Also, the terms Asian, Indian (the subcontinent, I mean), Australian, and African give the complication that they might logically refer either to any inhabitant of the continent or country, or only to a certain racial group. I'd advise a system that avoids such continent-terms.



Any suggestions?

The system anthropologists use has two problems--most people wouldn't agree with calling East Asians and Native Americans or whites and East Indians by the same term and the term "negroid" has enough negative connotations already that we probably shouldn't adopt it.

"If terms are deemed offensive it's often the way they're used by a minority, a minority which will always use whatever the current term is in an offensive manner because it is they who are being offensive - why should the relatively civil majority be forced to bastardise (and that's a technical term) a standard language into something that can only be understood by someone with a degrees in both law and quantum physics, let alone people who are trying to learn it as a second/third language to fit in with a country they want to live and work in?"

The problem is that language isn't 'standard', if by 'standard' we mean value neutral. Words have histories and associations, and if these are so serious that they cause offence or reinforce disadvantage, stereotype, or prejudice. If this means that language has to constantly evolve and change, so be it. Language will do this anyway, so a bit more won't hurt. I'm not sure that it's true to say that these changes to the language are difficult to understand or comprehend - certainly I can't think of any where the meaning is *that* unclear. I do have some sympathy with the older generations who perhaps have grown up using words that are no longer acceptable, though. However, I don't think it requires that much effort to keep up with progresive changes in society.

BTW, I agree with Lemon Blossom's point about 'blind' not implying a negative stereotype, but I prefer 'visually impaired' or 'partially sighted' on grounds of accuracy. Interesting how there are many more negative stereotypes about *mental* handicaps than physical ones. However, the word 'dumb' is still used for people who cannot speak. 'Dumb' implies stupid....

I am rather confused about why changing the language to remove offensive or oppresive words and those which imply stereotypes provokes so much opposition....

Precisely because it is an attempt to standardise language.

I mean, you're quite right to say that language evolves, but traditionally this has happened in a more or less organic way, with everyone participating. The ethos behind politically correct language is supposedly egalitarian, yet it can only achieve its objectives by being prescriptive, telling people what words they can and cannot use. That's where the objections stem from, I suspect.

Oh and, incidentally:

"I do have some sympathy with the older generations who perhaps have grown up using words that are no longer acceptable, though"

Isn't that a bit ageist? In my experience, the social group that appears to have the greatest difficulty 'keeping up' is teenage boys (in Britain anyway) among whom it's now 'standard' linguistic practice to use 'gay', 'retard' etc. as terms of abuse, precisely because these terms have been prohibited - and rightly so, I hasten to add - and therefore given a veneer of glamour.

The problem with political correctness has never been with the underlying intentions, which are thoroughly decent - it's a question of methodology...and the suspicion that for rather too many white middle-class liberals in the western world, fixing the language is a damn sight easier than doing anything about the actual problems themselves, so putting the cart before the horse.

Sorry - didn't mean to suggest that the term 'gay' had been prohibited But honestly, if there's one thing that makes me doubt the efficacy of political correctness it's listening to the kind of language used by teenage kids: all the terms that political correctness prohibited in the nineties suddenly become intensely funny and cool to the next generation.

Well well - who would have guessed.

And the funny thing is that doesn't mean in any way that the generation in question is somehow more prejudiced - quite the opposite in certain respects.

<>

The irritation comes from the fact that you're playing a game of cat-an-mouse if you can't come up with words that will STAY unoffensive. In the catagory of terms for African-Americans, it seems that there is a pretty bad record of maintaining the same word as politically correct. If there is a problem that makes every word for a group pick up negative impications and need to be changed, you aren't solving the problem by changing it.




<>

Mute is probably a better word...I've always made a point of pronouncing the final b when the word means mute.




<>

Part of it is that some of us don't like being told what not to say. I try to be polite and avoid words that I think are offensive; I don't feel like having either the whole planet or a group that declares itself an authority on the matter telling me what to say.

Also, the past history of trying to find an unoffensive word for Afrcan-Americans makes me think that it isn't that the words imply stereotypes as that those who promote the stereotypes impose them on the words. Until you change that, changing the words does nothing.

<>

Wasn't gay a term that gay-rights groups promoted orrigionally? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was my understnding. If so, this is just more evidence that changing words achieves nothing.




<>

That's part of what I don't like about it--I see that there's a problem with the way some groups are stereotyped, but I don't want people ordering me around telling me to do things that won't change anything.

Or maybe I'm just prejudiced because I fit the stereotype of my group well and don't see it as negative.

<>

I was wondering about the gay thing--I'd never heard it suggested that it was prohibited in the US, but I thought maybe it was different in the UK. After all f*g means ciggarette over there; it isn't an insult as far as I know.

Fag was a word aimed at homosexuals in a prejorative way whereas gay is a word quite happily used by many people who are attracted to the same sex. I think that this is the major difference. However if someone has acheived something in their life should we be describing them as a gay firefighter or even someone who has no special acheivements, why do we need a seperate word for people who do what most other people do but just do it with people of the same sex

In defence of teenage boys: they are a messed up bunch on the whole. (memories) We would pick on sexuality for insults because it was something very new to us and we were aware of how sensitive we all were about the subject, our words of choice at the time were "bummer" or "chutney ferret"

Lemon I dont see how we can use a word to describe race that *isnt* racist. Any word that describes race is by defenition racist. It acknowledges the lie that humanity is made up of seperate races. We cannot any longer accept this as we can now see from DNA and fosil evidence that this is not the case at all. However neither can we ignore that within every inhabited continent there are clear differences in the cultures and somtimes appearence of people much more obvious when viewed globaly. A more accurate and I suppose (politically) correct way of describing these differences is ethnicity.

one love

It's true that fixing the language won't fix the problems, but as I said earlier, doing something about certain linguistic forms is *neccesary* but not *sufficient* for solving certain problems. It's not an argument against amending terminology to say that it won't solve the problems all by itself. I don't think it's putting the cart before the horse, because explaining why certain words are offensive is part of the process of showing how prejudice has become entrenched.

It's also true that political correctness (or basic good manners) is prescriptive about language in the sense that presents an argument for using one set of words rather than another, but I don't see why this is a problem when what's being prescribed is reasonable. There are (and have been in the past) 'standard' terms for certain things, and all that's being suggested is that the 'standard' term changes. I use 'standard' here to mean something like 'most commonly used and understood word to describe x'. Language is already standardised in this sense. If by 'standard' term we mean value-neutral term, then that's surely a good thing if it replaces a term which is exclusively negative in connotation.

I take Trin Tragula's point about some teenagers being worse offenders than older people. I suppose the point that I was trying to make is that certain words just aren't part of my active volcabulary because they've not been acceptable for most of my life, which might not be the case for older people.

True Otto, there are other approaches to bringing about equality of which PC is only one.

Legislation is perhaps the most important one, but by itself it can do only so much. The abolition of slavery did make a huge change but it hardly brought about equality.

Education is another and in a sense sits alongside PC in that it can not be forced on people but the way it is delivered and its content can do a lot to alter preconceived and prevailing ideas.

Community activities are crucial, for example the right for children with special needs to attend mainstream schools will hopefully play an important part in letting everyone see that disability is no bar to participation.

Revising structure from things as simple as installing ramps to allowing flexible working times for working parents such changes can help individuals to participate and get the most out of what is happening around them and help society as a whole get the benefit of everyones participation.

Then there is the vexed point that is affirmitive action to ensure the participation of people excluded by exsisting structural ineqaulities or as the right wing are so beloved of calling them "quotas". Which I hate discussing but have already been hinted at by Creachy.

hi Creachy

AA is perhaps more unpopular and has an even worse reputation than PC, but it is even more misunderstood.

It does not give jobs to less qualified black people, it does however aim at addressing lack of representation in the work force brought about by years of open and concealed racism that *did* meant that often a less qualified white person got the job.

It does not mean promoting women over men for the sake of it but does aim at redressing imbalances caused by actions similar to those in the example above.

It does not mean that someone with disabilities will be shoe horned into a position that they can not execute but it does ensure interviews for people who previously would have been disregarded without a second thought in the past. It forces employers to meet disabled applicants and see them as people not "blind people" etc...

Moreover it gives people the chance to attend interviews and gain experience and iprove their interveiw techniques which can be a major elememtn in getting a job.

one love

"Lemon I dont see how we can use a word to describe race that *isnt* racist. Any word that describes race is by defenition racist. It acknowledges the lie that humanity is made up of seperate races."

Good point, but a word which describes sex is then sexist?
OK, well, a definition in the dictionary of race includes the following:-
"2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type"

But then I found this:-
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/anthro-l/archive/august-1996/0336.html

There are many good quotes on there so I shan't quote here unless anyone can't get to it. Interesting how it points out the confusion which has come about due to the confusion between the social use of race to mean, for example, 'the english' as opposed to the strictly biological sense which equates to sub species (which is what Homo sapiens sapiens is).

Although one question I have yet to see a specific answer on. When one comes across a particular breed of animal which is physically smaller than the others of the same species it is often called a dwarf species (although presumably dwarf sub species would be correct). Is this just sloppy wording, and if not does that mean that the pygmy peoples are a homo sapiens dwarf sub species?

Oh, and thankyou Blicky for sending me off on a most interesting web search