quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Yank is a slightly odd one, since it's OK to use it in Britain, but Americans will assiduously point out to you that it strictly should only be used of people from the top right hand corner of the USA.

---

quote:

---

For foreigners, a "yankee" is an American. For American southerners, a "yankee" is a northerner. For northerners, a "yankee" is somebody from New England. For New Englanders, a "yankee" is somebody from Vermont. For Vermonters, a "yankee" is somebody who eats apple pie for breakfast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The word ''nigger'' was perfectly acceptable to say in Britain up until the 1950s and was common parlance for a black person, it wasn't always said with disdain but is now very unacceptable. In strictly descriptive terms it does just mean black (niger apparently means black?).

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The word ''nigger'' was perfectly acceptable to say in Britain up until the 1950s ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The word ''nigger'' was perfectly acceptable to say in Britain up until the 1950s ...

---

No it wasn't. A BBC announcer was suspended from their job in the 1940s for using it on air.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The word ''nigger'' was perfectly acceptable to say in Britain up until the 1950s ...

---

No it wasn't. A BBC announcer was suspended from their job in the 1940s for using it on air.

---

The rules for what is acceptable on air at a Government-controlled media organisation may not always line up exactly with what the rest of the country sees as acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The word ''nigger'' was perfectly acceptable to say in Britain up until the 1950s ...

---

No it wasn't. A BBC announcer was suspended from their job in the 1940s for using it on air.

---

The rules for what is acceptable on air at a Government-controlled media organisation may not always line up exactly with what the rest of the country sees as acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The word ''nigger'' was perfectly acceptable to say in Britain up until the 1950s ...

---

No it wasn't. A BBC announcer was suspended from their job in the 1940s for using it on air.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The word ''nigger'' was perfectly acceptable to say in Britain up until the 1950s ...

---

No it wasn't. A BBC announcer was suspended from their job in the 1940s for using it on air.

---

The rules for what is acceptable on air at a Government-controlled media organisation may not always line up exactly with what the rest of the country sees as acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The word ''nigger'' was perfectly acceptable to say in Britain up until the 1950s ...

---

No it wasn't. A BBC announcer was suspended from their job in the 1940s for using it on air.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
It's OK to call Scots "Jock" ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:
"Politically incorrect" is usually just a term to justify rudeness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Another curious thing, is that if one watches US television programmes, it seems the Canadians and ourselves are fair game to be insulted, but if you insult anyone else, that's racist etc. Everyone else is entitled to be touchy, but the Canadians and us aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Another curious thing, is that if one watches US television programmes, it seems the Canadians and ourselves are fair game to be insulted, but if you insult anyone else, that's racist etc. Everyone else is entitled to be touchy, but the Canadians and us aren't.

---

Canadian insults on American TV are an interesting case. Half the joke (usually) is that the American delivering the insult is reveling in his own boorishness in the face of Canadian politeness and modesty. We do like to think of ourselves as being cooler than our neighbors to the North, but we are aware of the irony behind making fun of someone for being too polite and modest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The word ''nigger'' was perfectly acceptable to say in Britain up until the 1950s ...

---

No it wasn't. A BBC announcer was suspended from their job in the 1940s for using it on air.

---

The rules for what is acceptable on air at a Government-controlled media organisation may not always line up exactly with what the rest of the country sees as acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
'Coloured' these days seems like a slightly less offensive alternative to the N-word. I read only yesterday on a display about a church's former clergy, a priest from Africa was described as 'coloured'. Clearly it was intended politely, but now comes across as patronising. (He would probably have been so described at the time - 1960s - but I think the info was written much more recently)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lawrence:
Intent is everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I also recall in the film 'Crocodile Dundee', Dundee asking the New York burly black doorman of the posh hotel he was staying at ''what tribe you from, mate? ''. Said in another context and with malice, that would earn a verbal reprimand at the very least, but Dundee is naive and the doorman understands, he replies with a world weary grin: ''I'm from the Harlem tribe.'' No offence meant and none given.

Saul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

Another curious thing, is that if one watches US television programmes, it seems the Canadians and ourselves are fair game to be insulted, but if you insult anyone else, that's racist etc. Everyone else is entitled to be touchy, but the Canadians and us aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
"Yankee" and "Yank" are definitely not offensive, independent pf context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Let us put nigger in context no matter the era and it was always racist.
In the supposed, "it was only a description" days...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Let us put nigger in context no matter the era and it was always racist.
In the supposed, "it was only a description" days, white person was simply a person. A black person was a nigger. A term was employed which often had no bearing on the information conveyed. Or, if it did, the colour was the important consideration in the event. Racist no matter how one looks at it.
But then, I have heard the word black uttered with dripping vitriol, so...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
So many of these words are by their nature derogatory;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
So many of these words are by their nature derogatory;

---

No, not "by their nature". That's my point. A person coming from a different background cannot look at a particular combination of vowels and consonants and know the quality of the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
The doorman's unoffended response is rather far-fetched, unless the film's aim was to show him as having a good understanding of indigenous Australian issues. If that had been the case, I don't think he would have been opening doors for people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, the term negro was often used in a racist fashion. An illustration circa 1650. Four men are disembarking a ship; an observer writes there were an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Spaniard and a negro. The very fact that colour was considered the defining feature is in itself racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

/Tangent

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
The doorman's unoffended response is rather far-fetched, unless the film's aim was to show him as having a good understanding of indigenous Australian issues. If that had been the case, I don't think he would have been opening doors for people.

---

I am sorry, but I had to laugh whilst reading this, as it is a tad bit elitist. And, in my experience of the academic world, misplaced regardless. There are many fairly educated professional people who would have no clue as to the structures of aboriginal cultures. /tangent

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
None of those; British/English, Canadian or American can be considered races. The jibes back and forth from these sources are amongst equals, with no major animosity. Not so most of the other words used on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Dave W, I think you meant to refer to the Pitjantjatjara peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
While the Crocodile Dundee incident is fiction, it's a reasonable depiction of cross-cultural misunderstanding. For Dundee, a black person would have been an indigenous Australian, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask about their cultural origins. "Tribes" wouldn't be a preferred term, with clan, language group, people and nation being suitable terms, but the depiction of Dundee's usage would be accurate.

The doorman's unoffended response is rather far-fetched, unless the film's aim was to show him as having a good understanding of indigenous Australian issues. If that had been the case, I don't think he would have been opening doors for people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Dave W, I think you meant to refer to the Pitjantjatjara peoples.

---

No, I was referring to a word transcribed from the audio track of a movie; possibly Paul Hogan's character was referring to "the Pitjantjatjara peoples" - or possibly he would have followed the usage of Tania Major (Young Australian of the Year 2007!) and transcribed it as "Pintinjarra"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:


I've always found it a bit hard to fathom why anyone would want to "rescue" these words and make them more generally acceptable. You can accuse me of being "politically correct" if you wish, but there really isn't anything political about it--it's simple good manners. "Politically incorrect" is usually just a term to justify rudeness.

However, if I can have apple pie for breakfast every morning you are more than welcome to call me a Yankee.

---

quote:

---

STM, the term negro was often used in a racist fashion. An illustration circa 1650. Four men are disembarking a ship; an observer writes there were an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Spaniard and a negro. The very fact that colour was considered the defining feature is in itself racist.

---

I understand that other races/nationalities apply similar generalisations. I'm not saying that this justifies the use of racial descriptors, just noting that it's not only a characteristic of "white culture".

I am given to understand that in China Europeans are still referred to as "white ghosts" or "white devils" and no distinction is made between, say English people, Greeks or Italians, they're all just white ghosts whilst a Chinese person is just a person. A number of Chinese friends have told me there is no word for white person in Chinese that isn't derogatory. In a similar fashion there are parts of Africa where all "foreigners" are referred to simply as white people. A Sri Lankan friend of mine said she used to hear whispered "white person" wherever she went in this village where her father was a teacher, she thought it was hilarious as her skin is certainly not white and she doesn't identify as white at all.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
During the fifties, and I think into the early sixties, there was a brand of licorice in Australia known as Nigger Boy.

It was common for a person of my parents' generation to refer casually to themself or someone else as "working like a nigger".

As recently as the eighties there was a brand of toothpaste sold in South-East Asia which featured a picture of a stereotypical "nigger minstrel" figure with huge, gleaming white teeth.

In the extremely ethnically diverse school in which I taught in India, some of the students from Malaysia used to use it without exciting any comment.

Song of Solomon 1:5 from the Vulgate: "Nigra sum, sed formosa".

On another area, "dago" has practically disappeared in Australia, but "wog" has become gentrified, up-market and acceptable - largely as a result of a generation of very funny comedians of Greek and Italian ancestry.

I have had at least one objection on the Ship to the use of "Scotchman", but as the late A.J.P. Taylor commented in his English History 1914-45, "Some inhabitants of Scotland now call themselves 'Scots' and their affairs 'Scottish'. They are entitled to do so. The English word for both is 'Scotch', just as we call les francais the French, and Deutschland Germany. Being English, I use it".

[ 01. January 2013, 05:39: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Sorry Evangeline, I cross-posted with you on the Australian use of "wog".
 

---

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
No worries CK

Re that toothpaste you mention, up until the 1990s, that brand was sold in Singapore under the name "Darkie", I remember being somewhat shocked by the name and image, when returning a few years later I noted that the packaging and image was the same but the name had been changed to "Darlie.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
There were also Nigger Boy steel wool pads, for pot scouring. When I was growing up in the 50s, there was always one of these in a dish on the windowsill above the kitchen sink. IIRC, that was changed to Bigger Boy.
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
lilbhudda said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I also recall in the film 'Crocodile Dundee', Dundee asking the New York burly black doorman of the posh hotel he was staying at ''what tribe you from, mate? ''. Said in another context and with malice, that would earn a verbal reprimand at the very least, but Dundee is naive and the doorman understands, he replies with a world weary grin: ''I'm from the Harlem tribe.'' No offence meant and none given.

Saul
You do realize this was fiction?

---

No, it was a factual documentary on a backwoods Australian let loose in NYC

But the illustration , despite being fiction, does serve a purpose - context can be everything.

Casual racism was endemic in the Liverpool I was bought up in of the 1970s. It was quite common to call someone a ''black bastard''. Not nice, but ''acceptable'' to those who did it, unacceptable to those on the barbs of sharp vitriol.

Saul

[ 01. January 2013, 08:25: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Saul, Vulpior, people - what you've all apparently missed is the key point that Gus (the black character in question) is not a doorman, but a limo driver.

Why is that key, you ask? ... OK, I'm sure I heard someone ask! Because as a limo driver, he felt empowered to wrench the antenna off his vehicle and use it in support of Dundee - an antenna that was shaped like a boomerang! (Get it? Australia, boomerang?) It's this apparent facility with the iconic Australian aboriginal weapon which prompts Dundee to repeat his question to Gus about his possible Pintinjarra tribal affiliation. To which Gus now responds "No, man. Harlem Warlords." (Earlier in the movie, Gus's response to a similar question was brusque, bordering on offended [the exchange is roughly as Vulpior suggested would be likely] but by this point Dundee's Australian forthrightness and charm has won over the cynical New Yorker and they've become friends. Not close enough to win actor Reginald VelJohnson a spot in the two Crockodile Dundee sequels - but then that was probably for the best, as a much more prominent role in the Die Hard series beckoned...)

And Organ Builder - I can report that I have, in fact, on one occasion eaten apple pie for breakfast in a Vermont diner, but the waitress's reaction to my order seemed less one of recognition of my attempt at true Yankee-ness than of faint disbelief that anyone would want a piece of a pie that had likely been sitting out all night in a display case on the counter...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Also -- and I really will quit for a while after this -- I once printed "African American" in a newsletter article about a church member's late husband, who had been a Tuskegee Airman, and she called me up and chewed me out because, as she told me, she is not from Africa. Which was a complaint I really didn't see coming! But I thought she had a point. Nobody calls me a European American.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Also -- and I really will quit for a while after this -- I once printed "African American" in a newsletter article about a church member's late husband, who had been a Tuskegee Airman, and she called me up and chewed me out because, as she told me, she is not from Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It's even weirder when you get called African American despite being not even slightly American. I took it as an indication that many people had learnt to say "African American" when they meant "Black", and so continued doing that even when it wasn't a great fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kittyville:
We also have a brand of cheese called Coon here, which was a bit of a shocker for this transplant from the UK.

---

The term "coon" was never a very common expression in Australia. Wikipedia is the easiest reference but I've read this explanation on cheese packets and heard it elsewhere as well, so I believe the manufacturers.


The cheese is said to be named after its American creator Edward W. Coon (1871–1934) of Philadelphia, who patented a method, subsequently known as the Cooning process, for fast maturation of cheese via high temperature and humidity.[1][2][3][4][5] Former manufacturer Kraft, and later Dairy Farmers and National Foods, have vigorously defended the trademark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coon_cheese
 

---

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :
 
Oh, not suggesting the manufacturer means anything by it, Evangeline - it's just a bit startling for someone who comes from a place where it is an extremely offensive term. Much as hearing "wog" was when I first got here - even knowing it means something different here and has even been reclaimed, as noted further up the thread.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
I recall doing a very big double-take when a poster on these boards, one of the nicest, politest, most charming people around here, mentioned that he owned a "coon gun". What is that used for, I thought.

Until I worked it out.
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
It's OK to call Scots "Jock" ...

---

Not really, no.

---

We'll stick to "Scot" then. Far more dignified in any case.

 

---

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I recall doing a very big double-take when a poster on these boards, one of the nicest, politest, most charming people around here, mentioned that he owned a "coon gun". What is that used for, I thought.

Until I worked it out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Have a look at this one about Michelle Obama

Sorry, weird spacing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
It's OK to call Scots "Jock" ...

---

Not really, no.

---

We'll stick to "Scot" then. Far more dignified in any case.

---

Thank you.

And as for this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I have had at least one objection on the Ship to the use of "Scotchman", but as the late A.J.P. Taylor commented in his English History 1914-45, "Some inhabitants of Scotland now call themselves 'Scots' and their affairs 'Scottish'. They are entitled to do so. The English word for both is 'Scotch', just as we call les francais the French, and Deutschland Germany. Being English, I use it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The point is that people feel the need to note that the person in question has not got the same colour of skin as the speaker or the group, which implies some degree of separateness.

How often do you hear someone referred to as "white" or "flesh-coloured"? Yes, some cosmetics, even in Rihanna's line of cosmetics, are markerted as "flesh-coloured" for that vaguely pinkish tone that so many people (but not the majority!) regard as "normal"

If a word has been used to put certain people in their subservient or hated place, then one should avoid using it.

Unless one is consciously trying to be rude or denigrating, as mentioned upthread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Common understanding can be completely wrong. Which is why the show QI exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Dave W, I think you meant to refer to the Pitjantjatjara peoples.

---

No, I was referring to a word transcribed from the audio track of a movie; possibly Paul Hogan's character was referring to "the Pitjantjatjara peoples" - or possibly he would have followed the usage of Tania Major (Young Australian of the Year 2007!) and transcribed it as "Pintinjarra"...

---

"Pintinjarra" is indeed a rough transcription of how most ignorant white people would pronounce the name of the Pitjantjatjara people. It's still not correct even if intended as a guide to pronunciation.

---

You didn't click on the link, did you?

I'm quite willing to admit my total ignorance of Aboriginal groupings, cultures, languages, and transliterations, but having found that spelling used by a prominent Aboriginal Australian, I think I can step back now and let you take it up with her (and maybe Paul Hogan.)
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
If I saw anyone with flesh the colour of that dress, I would think they were unwell.
 

---

Posted by Reuben (# 11361) on :
 
Regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia terms such as 'black' or 'native' are regarded as offensive. Apparently 'indigenous' is now also on the inappropriate list.

I actually appreciated the Aboriginal-owned newspaper Koori Mail's summary of what to call various people groups where they recommend that you try to be as specific as possible. They recommend the following hierarchy in descending order of preference:
•The person’s language group, e.g. Wiradjuri.
•The area the person comes from, e.g. Murri.
•Aboriginal if they come from mainland Australia, Torres Strait Islander if they are from Torres Strait.
•Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) to be generic.

This hierarchy demonstrates a preference for specific personal knowledge of an individual's background but also an acceptable 'escalation' process if less information is known.

Although in my early days in the workforce, I was still naive enough to ask a very fair skinned lady I worked with (who had identified herself as Aboriginal) just how Aboriginal she was? She sweetly said to me 'Oh that is such a white boy question.'
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
Just to widen the discussion a little, I was at the cinema the other day and a trailer came on for a film about an English football player who had transplanted to America to teach football to American kids there. At one point this man and a whole load of children called the opposing team "wankers".

I've noticed this recently. It appears to have been transplanted from the UK to the US, where it seems to be used as a mild term of abuse, like "losers" or "jerks".

Unfortunately when program's are broadcast over here in the UK with the phrase wanker in it, it retains its UK meaning, which is as a very strong expletive indicating someone who masturbates, usually only heard after the watershed in gritty drama's or by edgy comedians. It is not a word used in polite company and would almost certainly get someone sacked or given an official warning if they used it inappropriately at work for example. It is probably slightly more offensive than "shit" and slightly less than the f-word.

as we become more global, language becomes more important, otherwise we run the risk of causing offence where none is intended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Is this a tangent? If so, please forgive. I'm often struck when watching Question Time (current affairs programme on UK TV, involving local audience and panel of politicians etc) how David Dimbleby struggles to describe those members of the public who want to contribute. He'll say things like 'the man in the blue shirt', or 'the woman with the large earrings' , but never, 'the black man on the back row' or 'the Asian lady'. It's obvious why, but it sometimes seems as if he's floundering to identify the person when the most obvious thing about them might be their skin colour.

---

I my last school, we had two teachers with the same surname and who taught the same subject. One was obese.

A girl at the staffroom door asked to see mr. X and was greeted with the response, 'Which one.'

She was flustered until the obese one shouted back, 'The fat one?'
 

---

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :
 
Our company college used to present certificates to leavers at break on Friday mornings. The atmosphere depended on who was doing the presenting - a favourite was the principal who thought himself quite good with names and never prepared.

This particular morning there were several Smiths called out in order of first name. Adrian Smith was OK and Justin Smith too but then came a Botswanan, I think, with a five syllable first starting "Omgl..." to which the principal said "Oh my God": a large black man got up saying "Near enough". On his way back he was distinctly hear to say "I'm the black Smith".

Collapse of ceremony.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, "handicapped" is generally fine where I live -- you see the sign for a "handicapped parking space" everywhere. If you say "disabled people," sooner or later someone will object to identifying people entirely in terms of being disabled, saying they should literally be people first: "persons with disabilities."

I think the word "handicapped" became generally okay (though some do object to it as well) because of the signs, which have the effect of making it bland, of normalizing it. There are also the handicapped parking placards that entitle you to park in a handicapped space. If you don't have a placard and you park in a handicapped parking space, in my neighborhood someone is liable to comment that your only handicap is mental.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
.... its UK meaning, which is as a very strong expletive indicating someone who masturbates, usually only heard after the watershed in gritty drama's or by edgy comedians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Doesn't 'jerk' mean the same thing in North American?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Doesn't 'jerk' mean the same thing in North American?

---

Oh, I never thought of that...

Which might go to show that words used purely as pejoratives can eventually outgrow their original meaning. According to this the word originally meant someone tedious and ineffectual. I've generally understood it to mean someone small-minded, capricious, and mean.
 

---

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
It seems perfectly OK to talk about a black person in the UK.

Obviously this can't be used if one was wanting to insult the person, so you ''black.......'' whatever the following word is not acceptable. As I suppose the reverse, you ''white........'' ?

But I was surprised to read this about the South Africa of today where black women apparently bleach their skin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20444798

So perhaps for them their blackness is not so attractive then?

A tangent, but language can be a powerful instrument, of good or ill.

Recently here in the UK I have not heard much racial abuse as it seems to be unacceptable. And a good thing that is too.

Saul
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by birdie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
.... its UK meaning, which is as a very strong expletive indicating someone who masturbates, usually only heard after the watershed in gritty drama's or by edgy comedians.

---

Really? I heard it - twice - on Radio 4 at about 6.50 this evening.

---

quote:

---

In the UK we do not say 'handicapped anymore'. We must say 'disabled people'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Also -- and I really will quit for a while after this -- I once printed "African American" in a newsletter article about a church member's late husband, who had been a Tuskegee Airman, and she called me up and chewed me out because, as she told me, she is not from Africa. Which was a complaint I really didn't see coming! But I thought she had a point. Nobody calls me a European American.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Dave W, I think you meant to refer to the Pitjantjatjara peoples.

---

No, I was referring to a word transcribed from the audio track of a movie; possibly Paul Hogan's character was referring to "the Pitjantjatjara peoples" - or possibly he would have followed the usage of Tania Major (Young Australian of the Year 2007!) and transcribed it as "Pintinjarra"...

---

"Pintinjarra" is indeed a rough transcription of how most ignorant white people would pronounce the name of the Pitjantjatjara people. It's still not correct even if intended as a guide to pronunciation.

---

You didn't click on the link, did you?

I'm quite willing to admit my total ignorance of Aboriginal groupings, cultures, languages, and transliterations, but having found that spelling used by a prominent Aboriginal Australian, I think I can step back now and let you take it up with her (and maybe Paul Hogan.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

And as for this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I have had at least one objection on the Ship to the use of "Scotchman", but as the late A.J.P. Taylor commented in his English History 1914-45, "Some inhabitants of Scotland now call themselves 'Scots' and their affairs 'Scottish'. They are entitled to do so. The English word for both is 'Scotch', just as we call les francais the French, and Deutschland Germany. Being English, I use it".

---

The late A.J.P. Taylor was clearly an ignorant and offensive man, and I hope you will not follow his example. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
The late A.J.P. Taylor was clearly an ignorant and offensive man

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Canberra has a suburb called "Aranda" named after a people that are also called "Arunta" and these days would more commonly be called "Arrernte".

It's no different to the fact that it took a long time to replace Peking with Beijing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
Although I was born in England I came to live in Australia at the age of two. All my life I have been referred to by many as a Pom even though I sound Australian. None of this offends me. I think people become too precious about such things and just need to either learn to accept it or else laugh it off. Chill out!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In America I understand you are allowed to say people are retarded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In America I understand you are allowed to say people are retarded.

---

You have been misled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
The late A.J.P. Taylor was clearly an ignorant and offensive man

---

Taylor was certainly an offensive man - he offended me at any rate, in a number of respects, such as his attitude toward the Soviet Union.

Given his academic, publishing and media career, I would hesitate to call him ignorant, Cottontail, but perhaps your equivalent or superior erudition to his entitles you to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by birdie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
.... its UK meaning, which is as a very strong expletive indicating someone who masturbates, usually only heard after the watershed in gritty drama's or by edgy comedians.

---

Really? I heard it - twice - on Radio 4 at about 6.50 this evening.

---

Really? I am surprised. I would be interested to find out if there are any complaints about it because I'm pretty sure that it would not be allowed on television at that times. I wonder if there are different rules for radio?

The program wasn't an American one being broadcast on R4 was it, which would be explained by my post above regarding the differences in the meaning of the word in use in the UK and the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
BTW, nigger brown was darker than chocolate brown – I wonder what it is now called.

---

quote:

---

I don't 'use the adjective Scotch because it doesn't sound correct but why is it offensive? I have tried googling and all I can find is that it isn't used very much anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

I don't 'use the adjective Scotch because it doesn't sound correct but why is it offensive? I have tried googling and all I can find is that it isn't used very much anymore.

---

I wouldn't be offended if someone called me "Scotch" I'd just think they were wrong. "Scotch" describes things, such as Scotch whisky, Scotch pine trees, Scotch eggs, etc. "Scottish" describes people.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a grammatical difference, on a par with "apple's for sale". It would only be offensive if A.J.P. Taylor was deliberately implying that we Scots as "things" rather than "people."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

I don't 'use the adjective Scotch because it doesn't sound correct but why is it offensive? I have tried googling and all I can find is that it isn't used very much anymore.

---

I wouldn't be offended if someone called me "Scotch" I'd just think they were wrong. "Scotch" describes things, such as Scotch whisky, Scotch pine trees, Scotch eggs, etc. "Scottish" describes people.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a grammatical difference, on a par with "apple's for sale". It would only be offensive if A.J.P. Taylor was deliberately implying that we Scots as "things" rather than "people."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
I wouldn't be offended if someone called me "Scotch" I'd just think they were wrong. "Scotch" describes things, such as Scotch whisky, Scotch pine trees, Scotch eggs, etc. "Scottish" describes people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
'Coloured' these days seems like a slightly less offensive alternative to the N-word. I read only yesterday on a display about a church's former clergy, a priest from Africa was described as 'coloured'. Clearly it was intended politely, but now comes across as patronising. (He would probably have been so described at the time - 1960s - but I think the info was written much more recently)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In America I understand you are allowed to say people are retarded.

---

You have been misled.

---

Pleased to hear it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:
I can go back to the 1930s when I was a child, we used to have nigger brown shoe polish, nigger brown coats etc. It was just a colour used for clothes etc.and we would use the word nigger without a second thought. People would not get offended by it, althought there were no black people around by us in those days to take offence.
People seem to take offence too easily these days. I live in Birmingham and people sometimes call us Brummies but I don't make a fuss about it,even though I am not amused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:
People seem to take offence too easily these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
I wouldn't be offended if someone called me "Scotch" I'd just think they were wrong. "Scotch" describes things, such as Scotch whisky, Scotch pine trees, Scotch eggs, etc. "Scottish" describes people.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a grammatical difference, on a par with "apple's for sale". It would only be offensive if A.J.P. Taylor was deliberately implying that we Scots as "things" rather than "people."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
And at least in my neck of the woods, "colored" is not acceptable (nor, as the good man pointed out, does it even make sense!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
And understandable when used by older people who learnt some years ago that it was acceptable language (though, importantly, not necessarily to those so described) compared to the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
This is an ignorant statement, because he claims for himself as a representative of a more powerful culture the right to define the less powerful one ... and sees no problem in doing so.

An intelligent bigot is still a bigot. And bigotry is ignorant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
And at least in my neck of the woods, "colored" is not acceptable (nor, as the good man pointed out, does it even make sense!)

---

I wasn't suggesting that it was or should be (whether spelt with a 'u' or not). It is at best patronising and at worst dehumanising. It's just that it seems slightly less offensive than the N word. And understandable when used by older people who learnt some years ago that it was acceptable language (though, importantly, not necessarily to those so described) compared to the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
When people from Scotland become precious about the issue, play the victim card, and pretend that as members of a safe, prosperous, Western, developed country they are the victims of ignorance, bigotry and cultural oppression, my natural instinct is to think, "What a wank! I am deliberately going to go on referring to you as Scotch just to wind you up".

---

Colour me surprised.
 

---

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In America I understand you are allowed to say people are retarded.

---

You have been misled.

---

Pleased to hear it

---

Yes, it is definitely offensive to those impacted by cognitive disabilities. Unfortunately, it's become trendy among the young/ignorant to use the term as the go-to adjective for any thing (not person) that is stupid or worthless, as in "that's so retarded". I find it a most unfortunate trend, hoping it goes the way of "gnarly".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
When people from Scotland become precious about the issue, play the victim card, and pretend that as members of a safe, prosperous, Western, developed country they are the victims of ignorance, bigotry and cultural oppression, my natural instinct is to think, "What a wank! I am deliberately going to go on referring to you as Scotch just to wind you up".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I find it a most unfortunate trend, hoping it goes the way of "gnarly".

---

quote:

---

When people from Scotland become precious about the issue, play the victim card, and pretend that as members of a safe, prosperous, Western, developed country they are the victims of ignorance, bigotry and cultural oppression, my natural instinct is to think, "What a wank! I am deliberately going to go on referring to you as Scotch just to wind you up".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by birdie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by birdie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
.... its UK meaning, which is as a very strong expletive indicating someone who masturbates, usually only heard after the watershed in gritty drama's or by edgy comedians.

---

Really? I heard it - twice - on Radio 4 at about 6.50 this evening.

---

Really? I am surprised. I would be interested to find out if there are any complaints about it because I'm pretty sure that it would not be allowed on television at that times. I wonder if there are different rules for radio?

The program wasn't an American one being broadcast on R4 was it, which would be explained by my post above regarding the differences in the meaning of the word in use in the UK and the US.

---

It was on 'Never Seen Star Wars' with Marcus Brigstocke talking to Meera Syal about her first experience of attending a football match. They were talking about chants and songs and he asked "Did you find out who the wanker in the black was? Nobody ever seems to know." I can't remember her exact response but she also used the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So we don't seem to have got so wound up about it that we can't show media from times where it was OK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Officially, 'disabled' is now replaced by 'differently abled', the rationale being that 'disabled' identifies a person negatively; the change is to emphasise the fact that people seen initially as visibly lacking a normal function may have many other outstanding abilities, eg the woman with one leg (no legs?) who is a gold medal paralympic swimmer, the blind man with a musical gift etc etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Although it's freely available to buy on DVD at Amazon...

---

quote:

---

Interestingly, on new years day I watched The Dambusters film, in which one of the pilots has a dog called Nigger

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't the critical question whether the people being referred to are an oppressed and put-upon minority. They are entitled to be touchy, in situations where the rest of us aren't.

By no stretch of anyone's imagination are the Scots or scousers an oppressed and put-upon minority. That's why the rest of us are entitled to be a bit irritated if they come the hard done by. Nor are the Chinese. They are a major world power, with a booming economy and a seat on the Security Council. Which is why I stick to calling their capital Peking, just as the capital of France is Paris and not Paree and the capital of Spain is Madrid and not Madreeth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So we don't seem to have got so wound up about it that we can't show media from times where it was OK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Officially, 'disabled' is now replaced by 'differently abled', the rationale being that 'disabled' identifies a person negatively

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Then how should we describe those disabled people who also happen to be feckless, lazy and of average intelligence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
lowlands boy said:

quote:

---

Interestingly, on new years day I watched The Dambusters film, in which one of the pilots has a dog called Nigger

---

It was Guy Gibson and in the 1940s the term ''nigger'' was completely acceptable to use and was in common parlance, for example ''like a nigger in the wood pile.''This was a fairly common expression right up until the 1960s.

Now the word is only used by black people amongst themselves or those white people who are out and out racists. IMHO.*snip*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
'Coloured' these days seems like a slightly less offensive alternative to the N-word. I read only yesterday on a display about a church's former clergy, a priest from Africa was described as 'coloured'. Clearly it was intended politely, but now comes across as patronising. (He would probably have been so described at the time - 1960s - but I think the info was written much more recently)

---

Sorry for bringing up something from page 1, but I couldn't resist. When I went to see the movie "Redtails" (about the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of black US combat pilots that distinguished themselves in the face of discrimination and downright racist attitudes in WWII), one of the Tuskegee pilots, in reply to the question by a "white" pilot "Do you guys prefer to be called "negroes" or "colored?" said something to the following effect:

"You guys turn red when you're embarrassed, yellow when you're cowards, green when you're sick, blue when you're depressed, white when you're scared, and you call US colored?!"

One of the best lines in the movie! And at least in my neck of the woods, "colored" is not acceptable (nor, as the good man pointed out, does it even make sense!)

Happy New Year everyone!

Tom

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Black Canadian friends tell me that the N-word's contemporary use among and between Blacks is controversial and is only marginally acceptable--apparently one teenaged sibling of a friend was sentenced to shovel the snow during the holidays for using the word (and had to do the neighbour's driveway as well).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I find it a most unfortunate trend, hoping it goes the way of "gnarly".

---

Cliffdweller the word "gnarly" is used here in NZ to describe something that is challenging and not to be undertaken by beginners, such as a cycle track down the side of a very steep hill or a particlarly difficult and complicated stretch of water for kayaking. Does it have other connotations where you live, or did you say that because it is overused?

Huia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
lowlands boy said:

quote:

---

Interestingly, on new years day I watched The Dambusters film, in which one of the pilots has a dog called Nigger

---

It was Guy Gibson and in the 1940s the term ''nigger'' was completely acceptable to use and was in common parlance, for example ''like a nigger in the wood pile.''This was a fairly common expression right up until the 1960s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
... Friends will often pull my leg about it and along with being a scouser, the people have a reputation for being thieves. Now a bit of good humoured banter is fine; but who delivers that is the key. A good friend who calls me a ''thievin' scouser '' is fine by me, I give back as good as I get.

But if it were my boss, who said it and then the whole dynamic changes doesn't it? Or someone who doesn't know me and again the context is changed. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
lowlands boy said:

quote:

---

Interestingly, on new years day I watched The Dambusters film, in which one of the pilots has a dog called Nigger

---

It was Guy Gibson and in the 1940s the term ''nigger'' was completely acceptable to use and was in common parlance, for example ''like a nigger in the wood pile.''This was a fairly common expression right up until the 1960s.

Now the word is only used by black people amongst themselves or those white people who are out and out racists. IMHO.*snip*

---

The N-word was more neutrally used in Britain and Canada than in the US-- description of clothing in the 1940s used the term "nigger brown." Interestingly, white southerners told me that their grandparents were forbidden (pain of spanking) to use the word in the 1930s as being insulting towards servants and fieldhands. The term "coloured" was much more common, and "negro" when one was being formal or polite, or writing. Note that General Pershing, known as Nigger Jack on account of his command of US Coloured Troops in the pre-war period, could not be called so in the press, which named him Black Jack Pershing. Even a century go, it appears to have been unacceptable in polite society.

Black Canadian friends tell me that the N-word's contemporary use among and between Blacks is controversial and is only marginally acceptable--apparently one teenaged sibling of a friend was sentenced to shovel the snow during the holidays for using the word (and had to do the neighbour's driveway as well).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Then how should we describe those disabled people who also happen to be feckless, lazy and of average intelligence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Nor are the Chinese. They are a major world power, with a booming economy and a seat on the Security Council.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It was Guy Gibson and in the 1940s the term ''nigger'' was completely acceptable to use and was in common parlance, for example ''like a nigger in the wood pile.''This was a fairly common expression right up until the 1960s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Chinese people have been the victims of vicious racism, deportation, and other ills in this country. How their former nation is treated in the Security Council is completely irrelevant and the idea that it is is offensively stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
In North America, "nigger", to refer to people of African decent, traces its origin back to the 1600's Dutch use of the term "neger" or "negger" for the slaves shipped to the U.S. colonies. The original name for the slave cemetery in Dutch New Amsterdam (New York City) was "Begraafplaats van de Neger".

Whites may have found it acceptable until recently, but for African-Americans it has always been a reminder of their slave past and all the degradation and abuse that went with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
In North America, "nigger", to refer to people of African decent, traces its origin back to the 1600's Dutch use of the term "neger" or "negger" for the slaves shipped to the U.S. colonies. The original name for the slave cemetery in Dutch New Amsterdam (New York City) was "Begraafplaats van de Neger".

Whites may have found it acceptable until recently, but for African-Americans it has always been a reminder of their slave past and all the degradation and abuse that went with it.

---

I was trying to point out that most whites -- certainly in the US -- have known darn well for a long time that its use was unacceptable and demeaning and they would have no more used it in civil discussion than they would have used the f-word. If the press would not use it in 1912, and if southern youth were punished in the 1930s, then I think everyone was aware of its offensiveness. There might be an excuse of sorts for British or Canadians who might not have been as directly aware of the viciousness of slavery and Jim Crow, but it's not a strong excuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The whole African / black thing is replete with contradictions and language based on power is endemic amongst all races and nations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
A ''Roots'' understanding of black history is sort of sentimental tear jerking slush, it makes good TV but is not really based on a full assessment of all the facts e.g. the power of black chieftains (who actively helped the foreign slave traders) . These black chiefs were very happy to carry on raiding other less powerful communities to supply the insatiable greed of both the rich Arab and White traders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The whole African / black thing is replete with contradictions and language based on power is endemic amongst all races and nations.

---

More contradictions than the whole European/ white thing? What do you mean?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
A ''Roots'' understanding of black history is sort of sentimental tear jerking slush, it makes good TV but is not really based on a full assessment of all the facts e.g. the power of black chieftains (who actively helped the foreign slave traders) . These black chiefs were very happy to carry on raiding other less powerful communities to supply the insatiable greed of both the rich Arab and White traders.

---

So there were collaborators who were black. That hardly makes Roots sentimental slush. Slavery was very real and Roots doesn't go halfway into the evils of it.

By comparison, one wouldn't say that any dramatisation of the holocaust that didn't feature some cowardly collaborating Jews was sentimental slush.

By the way dickens wrote Oliver Twist, and yes it is very anti-semitic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I've also heard of black students who are high achievers being belittled and bullied by their peers for being "too white."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I stand by my statement about Roots as historically (it is based on a book I believe) there would have been no slave trade without collusion by these powerful black chieftains. The white sailors and traders didn't venture inland in West Africa due to tropical diseases they couldn't fight off and hence the collusion. It benefited both sides economically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Language is a reflection of the above. A friend of mine goes to the poorer parts of Kenya and Malawi both countries have an off the cuff term for white folk, which is lingua franca amongst the black community in which he works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
So there were collaborators who were black. That hardly makes Roots sentimental slush. Slavery was very real and Roots doesn't go halfway into the evils of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You seem to want Haley to have stopped every 50 pages and given a little sermon about the evils of slavery, perhaps with footnotes and diagrams.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Russ, "nigger" wasn't a nice word in the 1950s either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
"Nigger" seems to me a word which is considered too rude to use by many English-speaking people, but not all. There are older people, for example, who still use words with their 1950s meanings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
"Nigger" seems to me a word which is considered too rude to use by many English-speaking people, but not all. There are older people, for example, who still use words with their 1950s meanings.

---

The word was offensive to black people from its very inception. How many times or ways must this be illustrated before people understand this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I put it to you that whatever term is used by the perpetrators for the group receiving that treatment will turn out to be an offensive one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And we just end up with a longer and longer list of words that are tainted with an association with a kind of negative action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Or you could end up with a situation where African American remains a perfectly acceptable, literally descriptive and polite word, and therefore the racists don't use it, and the racists keep saying nigger.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Or you could end up with a situation where African American remains a perfectly acceptable, literally descriptive and polite word, and therefore the racists don't use it, and the racists keep saying nigger.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But we have had anecdotes and observations on this thread about the unacceptability of African-American to some people. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in another couple of generations, that view becomes more prevalent.

---

It's of course possible, but it won't be because racists have started using the word. It will be because, for instance, people want to emphasise the fact that they aren't African Americans, they are Americans. In which case it is the identity that is changing and evolving.

Hundreds of years of slavery, segregation and oppression are going to leave a community with a need to evolve it's identity and the new words can help sign post that.

It is already the case that those who want to call themselves Black are telling you something a bit different from those that prefer African American.

True, Gwai, that of course happens, but I it doesn't seem to me inevitable. It doesn't seem to be the case that African American is going to become the new way of saying Nigger, for instance. Black shifted in that it is used in a negative way, but got reclaimed, and also has a pedigree as a simple descriptive term. There are shifts, some of which are influenced by the effect you cite, but I don't think it is all a uni-directional conveyer-belt thing from OK term to racist term.

[ 03. January 2013, 21:06: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
I believe the use of Brit, limey, yank , n-word etc is a-sloppy speaking & thinking b- shows an
negative attitude towards such groups. I can
recall the last time I was in the UK , and I was just short of 6 at the time my grandmother using the n wored in regards to a child , obviously of mixed race and my sister
who was 3 and a half being shocked that she would use the term. If we ever used it well let's just say we would be sore for a while. But I think that such terminology shows a lack of love for a fellow human being .
Violating love thy neighbour as thyself.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And we just end up with a longer and longer list of words that are tainted with an association with a kind of negative action.

---

True but what alternative is there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Or you could end up with a situation where African American remains a perfectly acceptable, literally descriptive and polite word, and therefore the racists don't use it, and the racists keep saying nigger.

---

I think that could only happen if all racists were consciously racists. As long as there are people who have racist attitudes they don't think about, they will continue to drag down whatever word they use and they will always switch to the latest word, because they don't want to admit to themselves they are prejudiced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulBC:
I believe the use of Brit, limey, yank , n-word etc is a-sloppy speaking & thinking b- shows a negative attitude towards such groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
True, Gwai, that of course happens, but I it doesn't seem to me inevitable. It doesn't seem to be the case that African American is going to become the new way of saying Nigger, for instance. Black shifted in that it is used in a negative way, but got reclaimed, and also has a pedigree as a simple descriptive term. There are shifts, some of which are influenced by the effect you cite, but I don't think it is all a uni-directional conveyer-belt thing from OK term to racist term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Which brings me back to another thing I said, that focusing energy and attention on the words rather than the actions is misplaced. If racists switch to a new, 'polite' word, they'll still be racists and the new word will gradually become "the word that racists use".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fried chicken was not developed to demean anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
"Nigger" seems to me a word which is considered too rude to use by many English-speaking people, but not all. There are older people, for example, who still use words with their 1950s meanings.

---

The word was offensive to black people from its very inception. How many times or ways must this be illustrated before people understand this?

---

For a long time? Okay. "Since its very inception" simply strikes me as illogical. You cannot seriously tell me that the first African slaves, with no grasp of English, immediately felt insulted the first time they heard themselves described in a word of Dutch/Spanish origin. They didn't pipe up and say "the correct term for us is...".
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fried chicken was not developed to demean anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
[QUOTE] Dickens took great literary pleasure in developing what can only be called stereotypical arch demon Jew in Oliver Twist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, slaves rarely pipe up to correct their masters on much of anything. That silence should not however be confused with approval.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]

But it is far harder to make the case that 'Negro' or 'nigger' was developed with the express purpose of being demeaning, because the etymological source is not inherently demeaning. There are any number of things that can be described as negro without a negative connotation. You cannot possibly convince me that the purpose of naming the Rio Negro was to convey to everyone that it was an inferior river.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously you are correct in terms of "negro"-- but then, again, "negro" has rarely been considered racist or offensive (see United Negro College Fund), it's considered outdated more than anything else. I'm not at all convinced however, that the n-word shares that same benign etymology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fried chicken was not developed to demean anyone.

---

And neither was every word that has come to be demeaning.

Was 'feminazi' developed to be negative and demeaning? Yes. The derivation of the word makes it inevitable.

But it is far harder to make the case that 'Negro' or 'nigger' was developed with the express purpose of being demeaning, because the etymological source is not inherently demeaning. There are any number of things that can be described as negro without a negative connotation. You cannot possibly convince me that the purpose of naming the Rio Negro was to convey to everyone that it was an inferior river.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fried chicken was not developed to demean anyone.

---

And neither was every word that has come to be demeaning.

Was 'feminazi' developed to be negative and demeaning? Yes. The derivation of the word makes it inevitable.

But it is far harder to make the case that 'Negro' or 'nigger' was developed with the express purpose of being demeaning, because the etymological source is not inherently demeaning. There are any number of things that can be described as negro without a negative connotation. You cannot possibly convince me that the purpose of naming the Rio Negro was to convey to everyone that it was an inferior river.

---

Negro means black in Spanish. When used to describe an object, such as a table, it is not a designation of value. But that is the problem, then, isn't it. Negro and nigger were used to place people in the object category. You are Australian, he is Irish, she is Negro or nigger. Not Scottish, not Jamaican, nor any descriptor applied to a white person as a primary designation. Can you not see the difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Negro, perhaps. Nigger? I am sorry, I do not agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
But please do a thought experiment: what if someone who loathed your group(s) treated you the way you treat other people? Wouldn't you be pissed off?

---

quote:

---

Oh, and I don't know much about the current situation of the Scots. But, in the past, they definitely *have* been "the victims of ignorance, bigotry and cultural oppression".

---

quote:

---

You seem to think that the Scots you know are asking you to be politically correct.

---

quote:

---

But PC is just a way of dismissing someone else's concerns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Negro, perhaps. Nigger? I am sorry, I do not agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I suspect the etymological relationship of negro and n-word is similar to that of "spastic" and "spaz". "Spastic" was, at least originally, a medical term with a fairly clear diagnostic criteria and medical meaning/ purpose. "Spaz" is clearly derived from that term-- but the very act of contriving a diminutive form seems to signal a derisive, rather than medical, purpose. So I suspect "spaz" has always been used in an offensive, insulting manner. The n-word seems to have arrived thru a similar path with similar intent. That doesn't mean every shortened version of a word is intended to be offensive from the git-go, but it is often the case.

---

quote:

---

'Differently abled' is a lie. A person is not 'differently abled' unless their disability gives them an ability that is inaccessible to a non-disabled person. There are not many examples of that, and it does not apply to most disabled people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alright. I'll admit I tend see red on this subject.
So, here is my bare bones take on this.
Nigger is racist.
The word Negro is not inherently racist, but is often used in a racist fashion.

---

quote:

---

I am not aware of any evidence that Dickens had anti-Semitic tendencies, and he deliberately balanced Fagin with Riah (in Our Mutual Friend) after complaints from Jewish readers.

---

quote:

---

Anti-Semitism is always wrong, but there is a difference between anti-Semitism before the Holocaust (Kipling, Chesterton, Eliot etc) and anti-Semitism after it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
KC said:

quote:

---

I am not aware of any evidence that Dickens had anti-Semitic tendencies, and he deliberately balanced Fagin with Riah (in Our Mutual Friend) after complaints from Jewish readers.

---

Really? Ask a British Jewish person who due to Dicken's immense popularity in Victorian Britain had to endure countless taunts and jibes as a ''thieving Jew''.

---

quote:

---

Anti-Semitism is always wrong, but there is a difference between anti-Semitism before the Holocaust (Kipling, Chesterton, Eliot etc) and anti-Semitism after it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Does Dickens ever say that Fagin was Jewish? Or does this perception only derive from the illustrations?

Riah is the opposite. He is an honourable man who is reduced to having to earn his living by being the front man for a grasping goy moneylender, who trades on conventional stereotypes as a cover to divert people from finding out that it is him who is running the grubby business and making the money out of it. Dickens is intentionally making a point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Russ, "nigger" wasn't a nice word in the 1950s either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I guess what I really resent is the subtext to a few posts here - not yours - that says "if you don't or didn't use words the way we do here and now then you're a racist".

Maybe no-one intends to say that, and I'm misreading the tone of voice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alright. I'll admit I tend see red on this subject.
So, here is my bare bones take on this.
Nigger is racist.
The word Negro is not inherently racist, but is often used in a racist fashion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alright. I'll admit I tend see red on this subject.
So, here is my bare bones take on this.
Nigger is racist.
The word Negro is not inherently racist, but is often used in a racist fashion.

---

Let's unpack it a bit further- "nigger", as currently used, is racist.

If you say "negro" (a common Spanish word) with certain Southern U.S. accents, you get something akin to "nigra", which over time became "nigger".

In its conception, then, it was simply a mispronunciation of the Spanish word for "black"- not inherently racist, per se. It acquired its other, more sinister, meanings as time went along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The key word is probably. However, assuming it to be accurate, it would change do no more than change always has been completely offensive to damn near always.

---

quote:

---

from the book ''Cat Among Pigeons'', 1959

“‘Seventeen years is a long time,’ said Poirot thoughtfully, ‘but I believe that I am right in saying, Monsieur, that your race does not forget.’
‘A Greek?’ murmured Papopolous, with an ironical smile.
‘It was not as a Greek I meant,’ said Poirot.
There was a silence, and then the old man drew himself up proudly.
‘You are right, M. Poirot,’ he said quietly. ‘I am a Jew. And, as you say, our race does not forget.’”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The key word is probably. However, assuming it to be accurate, it would change do no more than change always has been completely offensive to damn near always.

---

Of course the key word is 'probably'. Given the rather absolute way you've framed your arguments, and given that I've made clear that I was weighing up different possibilities, and given that we don't have a time machine to go back and ask whoever it was who first started regarding 'nigger' as a separate word.

I'm not actually arguing about this in an attempt to rehabilitate a specific word that is well beyond my powers to rehabilitate. I'm arguing about this because of the implications about the way we (1) use language more generally and (2) regard the use of language by others more generally. The thread didn't start off by being about that one specific word.

What is of interest to me is the much more general question about where 'bad words' come from and how we recognise them, and how we pillory others for using words that they should 'know' they're bad. Because frankly I don't think that recognising a bad word is either as automatic or as universal as some people seem to think, and that context is quite important. There's a world of difference, in my mind, about how to respond to intentional offence versus how to respond to unthinking, accidental offence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In my experience, the "costs" of multi-cultural communication have gotten so high that it undermines the effort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In my experience, the "costs" of multi-cultural communication have gotten so high that it undermines the effort.

---

I'm having a hard time seeing how refraining from using offensive words is all that costly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Let me try an analogy:

Learning to speak, teach, and act more multi-culturally is a bit like learning a foreign language. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Let me try an analogy:

Learning to speak, teach, and act more multi-culturally is a bit like learning a foreign language. ...

---

With respect, if that's how it's being presented to you, it's dated. Current practice in this area is to focus on inclusivity rather than diversity. Let me explain.

The "learning a foreign language" paradigm suggests that cross-cultural communication is a matter of learning the "language" of how to talk to a Sikh, how to talk to a woman, how to talk to a member of the Lil'wat Nation; what words to use or avoid, what foods to serve or not, etc. The problem with that approach is that a) there's too many "languages" to reasonably learn and keep up with, and b) you only learn the language of the groups you're aware of, but not the ones that are presently completely off the radar.

Setting inclusivity as a goal is more open-ended and requires more introspection, because it is about examining the environment for barriers or assumptions that many of us may not be aware of because they don't affect us directly. Or to put it another way, you can't communicate cross-culturally if you don't know what YOUR culture is communicating.

When judging the costs and benefits of these efforts, it's important to realize that efforts to include a particular group of people may also have benefits for others. For example: our local transit system is completely accessible to wheelchairs and scooters. This makes it also completely accessible to strollers. Before this change, parents had to fold up their stollers and carry child and stroller up steps to get on the bus. Now the ramp comes out and they just ... stroll on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
My teenage daughter has brown hair, her teenage cousin has blonde hair and comes in for a fair amount of stick for her "blonde moments".

The other day my daughter said something dumb and her cousin called her a "malteser". It took me a little while... brown outside, blonde inside!

Labelling for good or ill is endemic to us as humans. That doesn't excuse us for using it to offend or oppress people or groups, but it is always going to go on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Isn't that another pond difference? 'Dumb' in the sense of unintelligent is not a very common usage on this side of the Atlantic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... Our efforts to make systems and structures more accessible are going to entail trial & error-- we may suggest one way of increasing access but learn that our "invisible assumptions"-- ones we're unaware of-- have blinded us to why that's not a good solution, but some other way of doing it is. Now, with good, honest communication that's easy to fix. We suggest solution "A" (e.g. ramps) and the effected group says, no that's not right, explains why, and lets us know what would be helpful. Problem solved. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I guess what I really resent is the subtext to a few posts here - not yours - that says "if you don't or didn't use words the way we do here and now then you're a racist".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... Our efforts to make systems and structures more accessible are going to entail trial & error-- we may suggest one way of increasing access but learn that our "invisible assumptions"-- ones we're unaware of-- have blinded us to why that's not a good solution, but some other way of doing it is. Now, with good, honest communication that's easy to fix. We suggest solution "A" (e.g. ramps) and the effected group says, no that's not right, explains why, and lets us know what would be helpful. Problem solved. ...

---

Rather than engaging in this trial and error process, one could simply ask those who are excluded what needs to be done to include them. Input will work better than feedback.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

It would be arrogant to suggest that we all ought to abide by your use of the word racist, surely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd like to ask exactly where it is now 'official' to use the term 'differently abled' - that would suggest it's printed on official documents. I have never seen it. It always seemed a clumsy and rather unnecessary and rather patronising term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
One very positive by-product of the shift away from using the dehumanising 'disabled' is that facilities which might have previously been termed 'disabled toilets' or 'disabled car park spaces' are now referred to as 'accessible toilets' and so on. This is good, because it opens up the use of accessible facilities to all who need them, rather than implying that its use is only for people who have some condition that would be commonly defined as a disability. Good accessibility should be for everyone!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
One very positive by-product of the shift away from using the dehumanising 'disabled' is that facilities which might have previously been termed 'disabled toilets' or 'disabled car park spaces' are now referred to as 'accessible toilets' and so on. This is good, because it opens up the use of accessible facilities to all who need them, rather than implying that its use is only for people who have some condition that would be commonly defined as a disability. Good accessibility should be for everyone!

---

The usage, 'Disabled toilet' irritates me for a quite different reason. Its more natural meaning is 'a toilet that has been the equivalent of switched off', i.e. don't use it; it doesn't flush. 'Disabled car park spaces' ought to = car spaces that have been suspended from use for some reason.

It's like the notice one often sees, 'This door is alarmed'. Is it? What about?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
For similar reasons 'accessible toilet' irritates me. For the vast majority of people all toilets are accessible, how else are you supposed to make use of them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
For similar reasons 'accessible toilet' irritates me. For the vast majority of people all toilets are accessible, how else are you supposed to make use of them?

(I've put aside for the moment the fact that men aren't allowed to access the ladies and vice versa.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
if you continue to use an offensive, racist word after learning that it is offensive and racist, then it's hard not to conclude you're a racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
For similar reasons 'accessible toilet' irritates me. For the vast majority of people all toilets are accessible, how else are you supposed to make use of them?

---

I think accessible is short for accessible to all. The point is that the other toilets are not all accessible to all. This one is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
For similar reasons 'accessible toilet' irritates me. For the vast majority of people all toilets are accessible, how else are you supposed to make use of them?

(I've put aside for the moment the fact that men aren't allowed to access the ladies and vice versa.)

---

I haven't seen that one, but I agree. Euphemisms should not themselves be misleading or ambiguous. Perhaps people should make a point of deliberately going in the wrong one!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
One very positive by-product of the shift away from using the dehumanising 'disabled' is that facilities which might have previously been termed 'disabled toilets' or 'disabled car park spaces' are now referred to as 'accessible toilets' and so on. This is good, because it opens up the use of accessible facilities to all who need them, rather than implying that its use is only for people who have some condition that would be commonly defined as a disability. Good accessibility should be for everyone!

---

The usage, 'Disabled toilet' irritates me for a quite different reason. Its more natural meaning is 'a toilet that has been the equivalent of switched off', i.e. don't use it; it doesn't flush. 'Disabled car park spaces' ought to = car spaces that have been suspended from use for some reason.

It's like the notice one often sees, 'This door is alarmed'. Is it? What about?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
I was using differently abled back in the late 70s. It was a step up from "cripple" or "wheelchair confined"*

Now the "word du jour" is Pete, who uses a wheelchair.

* I hate being confined. Wheelchairs give me freedom. As anyone who knows me will attest!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
... For similar reasons 'accessible toilet' irritates me. For the vast majority of people all toilets are accessible, how else are you supposed to make use of them? ...

---

Way to spectacularly miss the entire point. It's not accessible if it isn't accessible to everybody. The vast majority of toilets are still INACCESSIBLE [ETA] for some people.

Edited because I haven't finished my coffee

[ 07. January 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
 

---

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
I may get told off for feeding the troll, but I'll bite...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
I was using differently abled back in the late 70s. It was a step up from "cripple" or "wheelchair confined"*

Now the "word du jour" is Pete, who uses a wheelchair.

* I hate being confined. Wheelchairs give me freedom. As anyone who knows me will attest!

---

Yes, you may use it, but is it the 'official' designation - i.e. on official forms and notices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
if you continue to use an offensive, racist word after learning that it is offensive and racist, then it's hard not to conclude you're a racist.

---

That would be so if the offensiveness of a word were an objective and context-independent property of the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
No one in their right mind would object to this would they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
No one in their right mind would object to this would they?

---

Always a dangerous assumption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... It was actually very hard for me to imagine how I would tell the quaduplegic man in our church exactly how he had 'different abilities' to me when he can only move his face!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It was actually very hard for me to imagine how I would tell the quaduplegic man in our church exactly how he had 'different abilities' to me when he can only move his face!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
No one in their right mind would object to this would they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Perhaps you missed the part that you quoted that says, "after learning that it is offensive and racist"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
I was using differently abled back in the late 70s. It was a step up from "cripple" or "wheelchair confined"*

Now the "word du jour" is Pete, who uses a wheelchair.

* I hate being confined. Wheelchairs give me freedom. As anyone who knows me will attest!

---

Yes, you may use it, but is it the 'official' designation - i.e. on official forms and notices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
No, I missed the part where you admitted that if offensiveness isn't an objective property then you cannot learn that a word is offensive, you can only learn that some person or group of people consider it so.

You may consider this an irrelevant distinction.

---

quote:

---

But your view comes across as being that if one of the people is Mousethief then the others don't matter and the rest of the world past, present and future should fall into line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well there you go then.

Disabled person then it is.
It was actually very hard for me to imagine how I would tell the quaduplegic man in our church exactly how he had 'different abilities' to me when he can only move his face!

---

??Why in the world would you tell him that?? (Via any wording.) Given that *he's* living his life, he's probably infinitely more familiar with his disabilities and abilities than you are.


 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... It was actually very hard for me to imagine how I would tell the quaduplegic man in our church exactly how he had 'different abilities' to me when he can only move his face!

---

Really? That's really the only thing he can do? I wouldn't presume that anyone's abilities are defined by what I can imagine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
I was using differently abled back in the late 70s. It was a step up from "cripple" or "wheelchair confined"*

Now the "word du jour" is Pete, who uses a wheelchair.

* I hate being confined. Wheelchairs give me freedom. As anyone who knows me will attest!

---

Yes, you may use it, but is it the 'official' designation - i.e. on official forms and notices?

---

Mudfrog: Official government policy (and associated handbook of terms which can be used) state that you focus on the person, not the disability.

That is, XXX, who uses a (wheelchair, uses crutches, and so on) but not xxx who is confined to a wheelchair.
A general question would be: Do you use assistive devices? Yes/no. If so, is there anything we can do to assist you?

The correct French term is personne ayant un disabilité (Person having a disability). On some Québecois forms, one may see une personne handicapée)

I assisted in writing the list of accepted terms, some 20 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well there you go then.

Disabled person then it is.
It was actually very hard for me to imagine how I would tell the quaduplegic man in our church exactly how he had 'different abilities' to me when he can only move his face!

---

??Why in the world would you tell him that?? (Via any wording.) Given that *he's* living his life, he's probably infinitely more familiar with his disabilities and abilities than you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'Oh it's OK, even though you can only speak and move your head from side to side, you're just differently-abled... isn't it wonderful; to know that you simply have different abilities to me because of that?'

Patronising I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, no, no - you've misunderstood the entire point. My comment was about 'official' designations following a comment about the official term for disabled people being 'differently abled'.

My point was that I couldn't justify using that term because I know someone who spends his entire waking life in a wheelchair and in any conversation with him regarding his present circumstances I would never be able to use that phrase.

I talk to him often, I use his name, we talk about things regarding church, work (yes he has a job), etc, etc. I have never even used the word 'disabled' to him because 'normal' subjects are what we talk about. If ever I had to talk to him about his disability I would use that word. I would never use 'differently abled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Officially, 'disabled' is now replaced by 'differently abled', the rationale being that 'disabled' identifies a person negatively;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd like to ask exactly where it is now 'official' to use the term 'differently abled' - that would suggest it's printed on official documents. I have never seen it. It always seemed a clumsy and rather unnecessary and rather patronising term.

---

quote:

---

Nor should a euphemism be a lie. 'Differently abled' is a lie. A person is not 'differently abled' unless their disability gives them an ability that is inaccessible to a non-disabled person. There are not many examples of that, and it does not apply to most disabled people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
There's nothing patronising about it. What was patronising in your mock conversation was the "isn't it wonderful" part of the statement.

---

Of course the "isn't it wonderful" part of the statement is patronising! It was supposed to be, because it was a reflection of the use of the patronising phrase 'differently-abled'.

Don't you recognise sarcasm?

It is, to my mind, the very use of the phrase 'differently-abled' by the over-sensitive, worthy and well-meaning PC brigade that is the problem; it's as if they are trying to diminish the seriousness of the person in the wheelchair's situation by suggesting that it's not as bad as all that, you're not 'dis'abled, you're just 'differently'abled.'

I think the person in the wheelchair, knowing full well what his limitations and abilities are, is beyond the stage of silently mouthing the word 'disabled' because it's too uncomfortable to say.
And he certainly doesn't want people tiptoeing round the back of his wheelchair to say it out of earshot.

The reason people put 'disabled badges' on their cars is because they know fine well they can't walk 300 yards to the shop door - they are disabled; they are not 'differently abled' because they are NOT able to walk far enough and no other 'ability' (not even an ability to learn a language, conduct a band or paint with their teeth!) will compensate for their inability to walk more that 10 steps from the car - unless they are so 'differently abled' they can fly!.

[ 09. January 2013, 15:41: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... person in the wheelchair ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... person in the wheelchair ...

---

Maybe before unpacking "differently abled," you could try writing / saying "person who uses a wheelchair"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
by this from Enoch:

quote:

---

Nor should a euphemism be a lie. 'Differently abled' is a lie. A person is not 'differently abled' unless their disability gives them an ability that is inaccessible to a non-disabled person. There are not many examples of that, and it does not apply to most disabled people.

---

It is not only patronising to use it of an individual, it is also patronising to use it of a group.

---

Differently abled simply means we are able to do things able bodied people are able to do by using different skills to do them. The term "disabled" always rankled me as I am not disabled. I use a wheelchair to get around and I have to go at things differently than "normal"people do, but I am anything but disabled. In my younger years I traveled, played tennis, body surfed and a number of things society told me I couldn't do, but I did. I just did them using different skills than you. And yes, it is rather patronizing to brush off how physically challenged/differently abled people wish to be referred to and insist on using a term that implies that we can't do anything - i.e. a car that is disabled doesn't run at all, but those facing physical challenges can do just about anything. In fact, your post went beyond patronizing into open disdain.
 

---

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
Speaking as a person who doesn't face any physical challenge beyond needing to wear glasses, I agree. There are just too many awesome examples of people with disabilities achieving way more than the majority of people who don't to remain ignorant of that.

Just a couple I personally appreciate...

A previous pastor of our church had a painting on his office wall which was done by a local artist who had to learn how to paint using his mouth after he was hit by a motorbike and lost all movement from the neck down. His paintings are magnificent in their own right as paintings, and they easily surpass anything I could do even with two arms and no restricted mobility.

There's a bloke from Italy named Alex Zanardi, he's a motor racing driver who lost his legs in a crash about ten years ago. He then spent years helping a number of companies advance the technology for hand controls, which he then used to make a return to motorsport and compete successfully at world championship level including a few race wins. He then decided it was time for a new challenge and switched to handcycling in time to win both gold medals in his class in 2012. I'm a fairly keen cyclist, but I know for sure that I would have no chance of keeping up with him in a race even if I was using my conventional-format bike.


When you come across people like these examples who refused to let the challenge of learning new skills get in the way of their achievements, the concept behind "differently abled" as a proud form of self-identification makes sense.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I just want to say that I'm sorry if I offended anyone - my intention wasn't to lead the discussion in such a way. I wanted to do what many of you have done - to defend the dignity and value of people - whether they are referred to as disabled people, people with disabilities, or even people who are 'differently abled'.

Like others here I am concerned that the words we use of people who are often categorised are the best and are not artificial or, as I have said, patronising.

I guess that the problem of language is that we bring our own perceptions and experiences to words we use or hear others using and what is patronising to some is not patronising to others.

I guess therefore the best thing to do is indeed to use the official terminology which, I assume, has been through the mill of discussion and consultation with the very people it is meant to describe.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Good post, Mudfrog.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I guess therefore the best thing to do is indeed to use the official terminology which, I assume, has been through the mill of discussion and consultation with the very people it is meant to describe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I guess therefore the best thing to do is indeed to use the official terminology which, I assume, has been through the mill of discussion and consultation with the very people it is meant to describe.

---

What would that be in the case of people of African descent ? Does the Race Relations Act or US equivalent use any particular official terminology for people at risk of discrimination because of the colour of their skin ?

Just curious as to what the outcome of your suggestion would be if more widely applied...

Best wishes,

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People is the preferred word. Black will do if you must go further than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People is the preferred word. Black will do if you must go further than that.

---

Well of course. People is indeed the preferred word but there are occasions when ethnicity is asked for - on the census forms for example, I would describe myself as 'White British' the person who has recently received her citizenship is now described as 'Black British.'

That is the official designation - which was what was being asked for in the post just earlier on.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0