Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Very interesting question, Walter. I had known Mongoloid was out for people with Downs' Syndrome (or I strongly suspected it). I didn't know it had been excised from use describing the racial division.

Have those words describing the three main divisions of homosapiens been replaced or we just don't discuss racial divisions...?

I'm serious. Very Happy

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

snood wrote:
Lash wrote:
Thanks for the response, Infra. I appreciated the info about the actor/band.

{I guess the thought police haven't informed you that we aren't allowed to say "gypsy."}

Seriously, when, why and how did Negro become unacceptable?

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.

I see that it is no longer in technical use-- you know I was taught these divisions/words in school. Is it only "Negro" that isn't used? Is it all three? I don't hear "Mongoloid" much either. When did "Negro" get added to the verboten pile? What about "Caucasian"? Do you really think "Negro" is equal to "nigger"?

I was listening to PBS and there is a push to remove the term "mentally retarded" from use. The interviewer asked a mentally retarded girl which term she preferred--he offered a list--and she disliked all of them. One of the mentally retarded men interviewed said he hated "retarded" because people had teased him using that word. I can understand him hating it--but won't the word chosen to ameliorate bad feelings then become the one used by abusive people and added to the heap of words no one can say?

Come, Lash - are you actually trying to say you didn't know "Negro" was not nice to call a black person?

snood--

You seem to be forever stuck on "calling" someone a name. I don't "call" anyone anything. What about referring to the word? What about a Russian guy who is complimenting a person of color-- why should he be told he can't use that word?

It's not about hurling insults.

It's about speaking a word without being made to feel you've done something wrong. I'm not talking about me. I'm following general word usage.

It's the design v styling--retarded v whatever the new word will be --kind of thing I'm interested in. Keltic zoned in on it. And Set's sort of bewildered response to 'tarbaby' is apropos. It's not really a racial issue (to me) as it is how words come and go. I didn't realize Negro had gone (when not intended as a pejorative).

I appreciate all the related comments. OBill, yours as well.

Yes, Lash - I can see how a Russian or other foreigner might use "negro" innocently, as a purely descriptive word...

or for that matter, someone who has lived somewhere in the US for years without access to media or public schooling, or a visiting extraterrestrial whose research on humans was a bit dated.

I just have my doubts about everyone else who'd try to claim they don't know better.

0 Replies

I'm not sure what you want to hear - we don't use those "classifications" since the end of the Nazi period.

Besides that, "today the term [race] has little scientific standing, as older methods of differentiation, incl. hair form and body measurement, have given way to the comparative analysis of DNA and gene frequencies relating to such factors as blood typing, the excretion of amino acids, and inherited enzyme deficiencies." (source for the quote: M-W Collegiate Encyclopedia)

0 Replies

Setanta's example of the word "boy" should be more closely considered. The word itself is completely innocent until used in a fashion that is not. This can't be said of the N-word, but it most certainly can be said of "negro", Snood's protests notwithstanding. Please tell me who I'd be offending if I said "I just made a donation to the United Negro College Fund"?

0 Replies

It's the name of a Fund that was, like the NAACP, named in a different time. Since those who run it choose not to change the name (and I can't think of why they should - name recognition may equal $ and support), there's no reason for anyone not to use it, and no reason for anyone to take offense at that name.

(seriously, O'Bill)

0 Replies

I guess I just don't understand why some terms have come to be unacceptable. "Negro", strikes me as an anthropology-like term and "colored" always seemed quite benign. I know this isn't the case (I use neither), but I don't know why. Is it simply the preponderance of negative uses over time that made those terms themselves become bad? I still hear "people of color" and it sounds very friendly to me. Is that wrong as well? What is the fundamental difference between "people of color" and "colored people"? I apologize in advance if I sound like an ass; I'm not trying to be offensive.

0 Replies

Not at all. If it puzzles you, it puzzles you.

If I find out that a term is offensive to a group, my reaction has never included indignation at having a term robbed from my lexicon, or wonderment at why they find it offensive.

Everybody's different, I guess.

0 Replies

This reminds me of an incident about 10 years ago in DC, when a well-regarded white DC government employee used the word "niggardly." He used the word in the correct context, explaining that the government should not be [stingy] in connection with a particular program.

Immediately, numerous black employees went into fits, with several demanding that the employee be dismissed. The fact of the matter is that those employees should be dismissed for their display of extreme ignorance.

We should work to avoid PC whenever it raises its ugly head.

0 Replies

If I had my way, I'd chide those who overreacted, counsel the guy who used the word about its resemblance to the other word and why it may have raised hackles, and leave it at that.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

It's the name of a Fund that was, like the NAACP, named in a different time. Since those who run it choose not to change the name (and I can't think of why they should - name recognition may equal $ and support), there's no reason for anyone not to use it, and no reason for anyone to take offense at that name.
(seriously, O'Bill)

Surely, you see the hypocrisy.

0 Replies

No, but I'm guessing you see hypocrisy in my thinking there's nothing wrong with the NAACP or the UNCF keeping their names.

To be honest with you, there's always been a tiny little cringe in the back of my mind whenever I say thier names aloud, but I've also always been conscious of the difference between that, and say, saying something like "What's wrong with the Negros of today?"

0 Replies

snood wrote:

See Keltic - he's really not a clueless racist SOB. It's just that yew and me kant reed gud.

If it is clear to you and kelticwizard that I am a racist (clueless or otherwise) then surely it should not be too much trouble for either of you to offer some substantiation to your claims.

Note that I am not protesting being called an S.O.B., as that, in the face of so much evidence would be foolhardy.

However, I am highly offended by being called a racist, and likely a much as you are offended by being called any number of vile racial epithets.

Perhaps I am a racist and just won't accept it or perhaps you are someone who reflexively cries "racist" whenever you meet up with someone with whom you disagree. Either way, I have left plenty of evidence in A2K threads as to my way of thought, and so if I am a racist, as you and KW suggest, it shouldn't be too difficult to prove me as such.

Of course you need not bother, and, instead, choose to let your accusation stand as is. No doubt your pals on A2K will find this A-OK, so there really is no pressure on you to comply with my demand.

Do what you think is right.

0 Replies

Your claim that I resort to calling anyone racist with whom I disagree is false. I've disagreed with edgar, Frank, Setanta, Real Life, Intrepid, Phoenix, Chumley, O'Bill, Joe Nation and a host of others who I don't think of as racist.

But I don't want to offend anyone, and if my calling you that offends, I won't do it any more. In return I trust you will cease disparaging remarks about my intellect, reading ability and general character.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Your claim that I resort to calling anyone racist with whom I disagree is false. I've disagreed with edgar, Frank, Setanta, Real Life, Intrepid, Phoenix, Chumley, O'Bill, Joe Nation and a host of others who I don't think of as racist.

Pull me out of that sentence, at least, as you have indeed implied I was racist on at least one occasion. Further, a close comparison between Finn's postings on this thread and my own reveal little light in between. While I may have been more careful in treating the subject delicately, our overall positions appear largely the same.

IMO, your charge is unsupported, and Finn deserves an unconditional retraction.

0 Replies

Your opinion is noted. And would you mind producing the posts where I called you racist?

0 Replies

Implied, not called... and I don't feel like going on such a search.

0 Replies

Yes, I too have been under the Snood scrutiny accompanied by implications of racism. Finn and I don't agree on everything, but I have never seen even a suggestion of racism in his posts. O'bill and I certainly don't agree on everything--WW III on the immigration reform thread for instance Smile

--but any form of racist comment? I've never seen it.

The issue raised here is the whole issue of political correctness and the shifting of definitions of words from 'ordinary or normal' to 'acceptable but simply not done' to 'unacceptable/insensitive/racist' etc. and who should be aware of the changing trends.

Also the question is 'why' were some of these terms once okay and no longer are and 'why' are they offensive now when they once were not?

And finally, who is the racist? The one who inadvertently uses an out-of-date-and-thus-no-longer-acceptable term? Or the one who thinks that racial minorities are so sensitive and incapable of recognizing an innnocently expressed word for what it is so that everybody must walk on eggshells around them and treat them differently from everybody else?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Also the question is 'why' were some of these terms once okay and no longer are and 'why' are they offensive now when they once were not?

What would you think when I used some of the Nazi terms for minorities? That I could do it because they were okay during for some time? That those minorities now became so sentive? That they are incapable of recognising an innocently expressed word?

I suppose, your question was more rhetorical and perhaps in a kind of selfdefense.

0 Replies

i'm a little late joining in , but want to offer some personal experiences .
when we came to canada 50 years ago , one might occasionally hear that germans were referred to as 'krauts' or someone might say : "did you come from nazi germany ?' .
but since about the mid-sixties i have not heard that any more .

about five years ago there was a bit of a problem in the neighbourhood and the police interviewed a number of residents on our street .
when a young detective said to me : "i understand you are a german " ,
i gave him a bit of a - very polite - lecture and explained to him that i had been a canadian citizen for about forty years and that i was no longer a german - having had to give up my german citizenship upon coming a canadian .
i actually felt sorry for him when he started to apologize and turned rather red in his face .

to make a simple point :
certain terms may have been acceptable some time ago - they no longer are !
hbg

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Also the question is 'why' were some of these terms once okay and no longer are and 'why' are they offensive now when they once were not?

What would you think when I used some of the Nazi terms for minorities? That I could do it because they were okay during for some time? That those minorities now became so sentive? That they are incapable of recognising an innocently expressed word?

I suppose, your question was more rhetorical and perhaps in a kind of selfdefense.

I wanna jump in here,if I may.
Words by themselves are harmless.There are to many people that are looking for a reason to be offended by what someone else says.

If I use the word niggardly,in the way it is supposed to be used,and you take offense,that is your problem,not mine.

I am not saying that it is ok to look for ways to offend someone,but its also not my problem if you choose to get offended by my use of a word.

For example,the word "ignorant" means to have a lack of knowledge.
I am ignorant about doing heart surgery,but I am not ignorant about how to fight structure fires.

Now,if you call someone ignorant at all,no matter what the subject,it has become an insult.
There are people out there that choose to be insulted,no matter what words are used.
So,I choose to use words as I see fit,and if you choose to be insulted by them,thats your problem,not mine.

0 Replies

Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know