# Can I change the world by changing the language?



## Hutschi

Hi, I have a small question, it came from a discussion about a word in the German forum.

Can I improve the world just by changing the language?

Is it possible to make the world better by deleting (not just forbidding) offensive or as-may-be-offensive-considered words? (For example, "Negerkuss" = chocolate mashmallow - because it contains the word "Neger").

Other examples for words to remove from the language could be: master-slave flip flop - and others.

Would this make the world better or just more cynically?

Best regards
Bernd


----------



## Kajjo

Making the world a better place is not about changing words, but about changing opinions. Political correctness has never done anything good. It creates taboos, it supports denial, it hides the truth -- where in fact objectivity and absence of prejudices would be necessary.

I am a vocal opponent of political correctness. I am in favor of a clear and precise language.

Kajjo


----------



## jester.

As it appears the thread in the German forum has been closed so I'll drop my comment here:

I totally agree with Kajjo. The mysterious idea of "political correctness" should not dictate language usage. If a word is considered offensive by the majority of those who speak a language, the word will cease to be used - certainly.

The funniest thing about the whole political correctness is that only minor groups (or sometimes even nobody) really feel offended by supposedly politically incorrect terms (e.g. "Negerkuss" in German or the -o/-a-debate in Spanish, an issue which has been addressed on various occasions in the Cultural Discussions Forum).


----------



## Acrolect

Hutschi said:


> Hi, I have a small question
> Can I improve the world just by changing the language?


 
 This is the biggest question of all.

Deborah Cameron (1995). _Verbal Hygiene_. London: Routledge.

... in case you are interested in intelligent and sophisticated answers beyond the mainstream opinion on the German forum (speaking of politically correct views).

I have suspended my contributions, so no answers from me. I wouldn't have the intellectual and linguistic tools (BTW Cameron has a lot to say about precise and neutral language) to provide answers anyway.

P.S.: I appreciate your careful and sophisticated contributions to the above discussion.


----------



## Bahiano

Acrolect said:


> Originally Posted by *Acrolect*
> 
> 
> (...)Das ist meine Ansicht, die kann ich begründen und zu der stehe ich (auch weil ich es Afrikanerinnen und Afrikanern schuldig bin, die diese Ausdrücke gar nicht 'süß' finden). (...)
> Nein Acro, das verstehe nicht!
> Was bist du Afrikanern - ich nehme an, damit meinst du Menschen mit dunkler Hautfarbe - denn schuldig?
> Auch auf die Gefahr hin, dass dies allmählich den Rahmen dieses Threads verlässt (oder hat es dies nicht schon längst??), wäre ich froh zu erfahren, um welche Schuld es hier geht.
> 
> LG, Bahiano


Ich erlaube mir, den Thread auf Deutsch weiterzuführen 
Hallo Acro,
habe nochmal meine Frage an dich aus dem deutschen Thread "gequoted" und hätte sie gerne beantwortet, damit ich dich besser verstehen kann.
Danke!


----------



## Hakro

The traditional brand name "Neekerinpusu" (Negerkuss) was forbidden in Finland some time ago. Later even this package (licorice) with a traditional figure was abandonned by Fazer company just because somebody said it's prejorative.

It's just ridiculous.

And, unfortunately, the black people are getting more badwill than goodwill.


----------



## Kajjo

Hakro said:


> It's just ridiculous. And, unfortunately, the black people are getting more badwill than goodwill.


This is an important point. Prohibiting free speech, free opinion and traditional symbols will not result in "everything is perfect", but in opposing notions of the people. I cannot imagine to tolerate prohibitions without any bad feelings -- mostly towards those whose hyprocrisy and bigotry led to the situation of limited liberty and precision.

Kajjo


----------



## jonquiliser

Well, I'd say that no, you can't change the world by changing a word. But that doesn't mean that words are indifferent, and language is part of changing the world. Obviously, it isn't a matter of mere political correctness - what is political correctness but an empty gesture, a shell with no inside? Adapting to a norm of political correctness is nothing more or better than adapting to a norm of the status quo.

There seems to often be an idea expressed that "language should not be political", language merely is and should be kept apart from any political views. This is nonsense, language is in its very being political. That there is such a thing as a standardised language is political; norms are established on the basis of something, usually one form of speaking (often, that of a 'central' part of a language speaking community, such as a capital or some other ubication of power). Which modes of talking are classified as language and which as dialects is to a large extent political. What is seen as normal is tied to political and moral views. 

Especially, those who 'oppose political correctness' (as the aversion to certain changes in the use of language seems to often be expressed ) seem to be oblivious of the fact that languages _always_ have, and always do, change. It is a property of language that they are in constant fluctuation, they change with use and change with users. These changes often reflect changing views and attitudes.We _do_ things with words, _we_ create and recreate languages, we don't only take over a finalised structure, a language once and for all settled.  

I definitely do not see it as 'ridiculous' that certain symbols are taken out of use - such as "little niggers looking so funny, haha" on choco cartons. And sexist ads may be common ad nauseam, but that doesn't make them better, does it?! There may be certain questionable traditions which go centuries back, but isn't that all the more reason to FINALLY change them?? Why should black people or women or whomever just have to laugh at being exoticised, objectified, ridiculised, excluded from language or seen as secondary, used as symbols in the most twisted circumstances?

And of course, it isn't (only) about single words, it is about attitudes, on that I agree. But that is often reflected in how we use and understand language. Think about this story, probably told many times already, and reflect about the possible reactions to it: A man and his child are in a car accident; the man dies and the young boy is brought to hospital. When brought into the emergency room, the doctor exclaims, "my son!". How is this possible? - Many, many people are confused. It is worth reflecting on what this could mean. 

Regards, 
j


----------



## jonquiliser

Kajjo said:


> This is an important point. Prohibiting free speech, free opinion and traditional symbols will not result in "everything is perfect", but in opposing notions of the people. I cannot imagine to tolerate prohibitions without any bad feelings -- mostly towards those whose hyprocrisy and bigotry led to the situation of limited liberty and precision.



I'm not sure if I understand - do you mean that black people, if offended by being depicted in certain ways on choc cartons - are bigots and hypocrits?


----------



## Hutschi

One of the problems is: Are they offended, or do we just suppose they are offended?

Another one: Does it depend on the kind of pictures?

One of the problems is, that we speak about "black people". Is this already offending? Because it does not show anything about the character. 

I think, a picture of any people is ok, if the picture is not offending itself.

There should be a way for understanding each other. 

But we can note: As long as there are areas in a country where people are forced out of a tram just because of their color, as Gomondai in Dresden in the 1990s, who died this way, as long it will stay a problem.

And it will not be removed by removing the word.


----------



## rumpelsbach

Hutschi said:


> One of the problems is: Are they offended, or do we just suppose they are offended?
> 
> Another one: Does it depend on the kind of pictures?
> 
> One of the problems is, that we speak about "black people". Is this already offending? Because it does not show anything about the character.



I 'm going to ask myself, if "black people" need our special protection anyway, or do we just suppose they need it?
Or is it a question of guilt, that "white people" at all suppose to have against "black people"?

Is there a guilt we have to endure because our ancestors facts?

I realize that problem is not a question of language, removing words or something other cosmetical adjustings.


----------



## jester.

No, there is no guilt.

And in fact there should not even be "the Whites" and "the Blacks". We're all humans.


----------



## elpoderoso

Hutschi said:


> Hi, I have a small question, it came from a discussion about a word in the German forum.
> 
> Can I improve the world just by changing the language?
> 
> Is it possible to make the world better by deleting (not just forbidding) offensive or as-may-be-offensive-considered words? (For example, "Negerkuss" = chocolate mashmallow - because it contains the word "Neger").
> 
> Other examples for words to remove from the language could be: master-slave flip flop - and others.
> 
> Would this make the world better or just more cynically?
> 
> Best regards
> Bernd


Do you mean that there should be some sort of governing body to decide which words are to be ''deleted'' and which words are to be kept because of their inoffensive value. Any word can be offensive when said with the right tone. Why would master and slave being removed help anyone? When there are no more slaves in the world, then there will be no more masters, just deleting the words won't delete the problems.


----------



## Hutschi

Master-slave flip-flop is a word in electronics. Because of "political correctness", it was considered as wrong by some people. There are no masters and slaves anymore. I do not see it being offending to anyone.
So there should be no problem no more.

In Germany, some tried to generate fairness for the women by including a "female I" into words. (Example "MeisterIn" to address both Meister and Meisterin). But at the same time a lot of women were fired in the industry. 

It is not allow to discriminate women because of their children. If human ressources manager says: "You have two children, we will not hire you." - the woman can go to court. But if he (or she) does not say it, all looks fine. I think this is a cynical way in the society. It "cleans" the language, of course. I agree: just deleting the words won't delete the problems.

To speak friendly to each other and honour the other may help to solve them, however.


----------



## ghoti

jonquiliser said:


> Well, I'd say that no, you can't change the world by changing a word. But that doesn't mean that words are indifferent, and language is part of changing the world.
> 
> .....
> 
> We _do_ things with words


 
I couldn't agree more. And words _do_ things with us.

One of my major areas of interest is theology, especially Christian theology. One of my graduate teachers, one of the USA's foremost Catholic feminist theologians, emphasized that words "function." They are not innocent descriptors. We worship a God who has characteristics that we think are important. So if your religion or society thinks bloodthirstiness is the way to go, you're going to have a bloodthirsty god.

And if you think men are more valuable or important than women, you're going to have a male god. In fact, the idea that God may "be" female can be considered sacrilege--even though in Christianity (which permits only one God, not a god and a goddess), once you get beyond Paul's "childish ways" you hopefully come to appreciate that attributing human genital sex to God is the sacrilege here. God is personal, and we can't think of something personal without thinking "he" or "she," but that's the language of analogy when it comes to God.

So can you change the world by changing the word? Maybe not, but it's a good first step.


----------



## Joca

There's a saying I would like to refer to in my answer to this thread. It comes from the Bible, but I can't locate it right now.

I don't know if this is good English, but it says:

Your mouth speaks what your heart is full of. 

I believe this to be true.

So, while words are important, the most important thing are your feelings and thoughts. Words are nothing more nothing less than conveyors. So, if you want to change the world, your first step is to change yourself. Words will follow suit.

JC


----------



## .   1

A spade is a spade and you can call it an implement for digging in the dirt and it will still be a spade.

We are no more than what we do with time joy pain and tears
Life lives completely proud and true or exists behind bleak fears​ 
Words do not insult people. Interpretations offend people.

Be sure you are sure of your sources
Your senses make sensible sense
Hear opinions expressed so exact here
You know that you knew what was meant​ 
I don't want to sound too stupid but what is offensive about flip flops? In Australia they are just a pair of thongs. They call them no backers in New Zealand. I have a pair at my back door.​ 
.,,​


----------



## Brioche

Hutschi said:


> Hi, I have a small question, it came from a discussion about a word in the German forum.
> 
> Can I improve the world just by changing the language?
> 
> Is it possible to make the world better by deleting (not just forbidding) offensive or as-may-be-offensive-considered words? (For example, "Negerkuss" = chocolate mashmallow - because it contains the word "Neger").
> 
> Other examples for words to remove from the language could be: master-slave flip flop - and others.
> 
> Would this make the world better or just more cynically?
> 
> Best regards
> Bernd



If you change words, but not attitudes, the new words will acquire the old meanings.

For example, after the Second Word War there was an influx of refugees into Australia. Many came from the Baltic States. They were sometimes refered to as "Bloody Balts" or "Bloody Reffos".

The government of the day wanted Australians to welcome immigrants and introduced the lovely expression "New Australians".  However, the attitude did not change greatly, and very soon, "New Australian" became equivalent to "Blood Foreigner". 

The term "Gastarbeiter" _guestworker_ has a similar history.

Then there's Mad House. In an effort to improve attitudes to mental illness, the hospitals were called Asylums = _place of protection_. The meaning of asylum changed, enabling jokes about someone looking for political asylum and being directed to the House of Commons.

Cretin is another. Cretin comes from Christian. The idea was that such people, despite their appearance and handicaps, were Christians.


----------



## alexacohen

jonquiliser said:


> Especially, those who 'oppose political correctness' (as the aversion to certain changes in the use of language seems to often be expressed ) seem to be oblivious of the fact that languages _always_ have, and always do, change. It is a property of language that they are in constant fluctuation, they change with use and change with users.


I agree with you. Languages do change. Words cease to be used, and new words come into use.
But to force a change in language out of political correctness is, as a Spaniard would say, de gilipuertas. And I wrote this in Spanish because here the politically correct language is becoming a plague. You can't say blind, but visually impaired. I bet blind people would rather our govermnent care about the accesibility of guide dogs than the name to politically alude to the fact that they cannot see. 
Alexa


----------



## Outsider

No, I do not believe that changing language can make the world better, as I've had the chance to argue at length elsewhere.

On the other hand, there is sometimes a fine line between what is called "political correctness", and plain good old fashioned politeness. Certainly, openly offensive language should be avoided in public, and I try to do that. But I must first be convinced that the language in question _is_ harmful. I find people who make it a point of scrutinizing what others say in search of words to feel offended about tiresome and inquisitorial.

Finally, while changing words does not change society, the opposite is certainly true: as society changes, language is often transformed along with it. But this is an effect, not a cause.


----------



## alexacohen

Outsider said:


> But I must first be convinced that the language in question _is_ harmful. I find people who make it a point of scrutinizing what others say in search of words to feel offended about tiresome and inquisitorial.


Yes. There are people like that. As if creating an Inquisition for Political Correctness would be of any good for anyone.
Alexa


----------



## Ofboir

This thread make me think of 1984 ...

For me, it's not only unthinkable to try to change the world by prohibiting words, but it's also impossible !
The power of the human language is the infinity of thoughts and feelings it can express (to explain a new thought no-one never had, you don't need a new language !), so it can inevitably express evil thoughts. And I think these evil thoughts are congenital to the human nature, and not to the language : try to quit all "bad words" from the language, and people will start to give offensive sense to regular words.

And, of course, all the political correct stuff is ridiculous ! It's giving more importance to a single word than to the context and the whole sentance in which it's used. You can say something really racist using the expression "colored people", whereas you can say something ok using "black people". Racism is not about words, it's about ideas.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> But I must first be convinced that the language in question _is_ harmful. I find people who make it a point of scrutinizing what others say in search of words to feel offended about tiresome and inquisitorial.


Thanks for this comment! You are right. 

Kajjo


----------



## Joca

Outsider said:


> No, I do not believe that changing language can make the world better, as I've had the chance to argue at length elsewhere.
> 
> On the other hand, there is sometimes a fine line between what is called "political correctness", and plain good old fashioned politeness. Certainly, openly offensive language should be avoided in public, and I try to do that. But I must first be convinced that the language in question _is_ harmful. I find people who make it a point of scrutinizing what others say in search of words to feel offended about tiresome and inquisitorial.
> 
> Finally, while changing words does not change society, the opposite is certainly true: as society changes, language is often transformed along with it. But this is an effect, not a cause.



I know this is controversial, but as I see it, some "political correctness" can be in place here and there. I can think of one instance at least. In the past we used to say "mongoloid children", offensive as it was. Now we mostly say "children with Down's syndrome". I am not saying that simply by changing the word people have as a whole changed their attitude towards these children (although it is easier to see that these children are less excluded these days), but "mongoloid" was clearly a pejorative term and I am glad it was made into a taboo.

JC


----------



## Outsider

Well, I grant you that "children with Down's syndrome" sounds more neutral than "mongoloid children", but I don't find the latter terribly offensive, either. It just means they look like Mongolians (more precisely, their eyes resemble those of typical Mongolians), which I imagine is true. Having said this, I think I prefer to say "Down's syndrome", myself...


----------



## Joca

I know, I know, Outsider. But I think it has to do with the suffix oid. It gives to me an idea of belittlement.

JC


----------



## jonquiliser

Hmmm... I think that whether political correctness is best isn't really the question - in a sense, it seems so obvious (to me, at any rate) that if something is merely an instance of political correctness, it isn't anything but a facade. 

I for one talk not about any "official bans" (what a strange thing that would be!!) of certain words. I am talking about personal changes of language, about feeling uncomfortable saying things like "don't be such a women" (to a man who's crying, for example), because I feel it expresses a very unpleasant perspective on things. There are innumerable examples. What one says, the words that are used, have a meaning, and it is relevant which words one chooses to employ. But of course, it isn't about picking on words, the spirit in which something is said gives the words a flavour. 

All this said, if someone sees nothing problematic whatsoever in saying whatever, and brushes of any questioning as "political correctness", I'd not have much confidence in that person. ...


----------



## cuchuflete

There is such a thing as expressing sensitivity and acceptance in our words, rather than choosing to use words
that we know are offensive to a listener, or that express 'time-honored' insult to those described.  We make that choice when we write or speak.  Legislating words out of existence to enforce someone's idea of what is appropriate is just like censoring books the censorship office and its masters don't like.  It doesn't suppress the ideas effectively.

I use the term "politically correct" to label the most extreme examples of silly attempts at social engineering through enforced or coerced vocabulary changes.  There is a difference between politically correct and thoughtful language.

In another thread on this topic, I gave the following example:

When I was a small child, my school had a staff of people called janitors.  
They cleaned the floors.

When I was in the fifth or sixth grade, their title was changed from janitor to custodian.
They cleaned the floors.

When I reached high school, those same people had their title changed to sanitary engineers, or something equally pretentious and inaccurate.

They cleaned the floors.

There is a lovely thread in the English Only forum that discusses what to call a person who is fat.
When I was a child, words like fat and skinny were used to describe people who were fat and skinny.
If I were describing a person with such characteristics to a third party, and wanted to be direct, accurate and descriptive, I see no reason not to used either of those words.  If I were talking to a person who was
fat or skinny, I might select another term to avoid potential hurt feelings.  But that too might be hurtful,
as I have both fat and skinny friends who call themselves fat and skinny, and might feel patronized by
the use of a euphemism.     

Imagine a world in which the word skinny were banned.  People would soon replace it with something else that
would quickly acquire the same, or nearly the same, descriptive power, and with exactly the same ability to be
used either as a clear descriptive term, or as an insult.  How much nicer are emaciated or skeletal?


----------



## Athaulf

Joca said:


> I know this is controversial, but as I see it, some "political correctness" can be in place here and there. I can think of one instance at least. In the past we used to say "mongoloid children", offensive as it was. Now we mostly say "children with Down's syndrome". I am not saying that simply by changing the word people have as a whole changed their attitude towards these children (although it is easier to see that these children are less excluded these days), but "mongoloid" was clearly a pejorative term and I am glad it was made into a taboo.



In such cases, there is always the problem of the euphemism treadmill. Euphemistic and even scientific terms for all sorts of unpleasant things usually start sounding more and more harsh and offensive with time, until they become grossly insulting and have to be replaced by newly coined euphemisms.

For example, the terms _idiot_, _moron_, or _imbecile_ used to be completely neutral scientific terms describing different types of mental disabilities (is that the correct term these days?), without any pejorative meaning. My parents still have an old medical encyclopedia that has these entries (I remember being surprised when I came across these articles and realized that these insults used to be official names of medical conditons). However, nowadays these words have become nothing more than vulgar swearwords and thus had to be replaced by different terms in medical practice. I remember that when I was a kid, _retarded_ sounded like a polite, euphemistic, and scientific-sounding word -- physicists still use it with its original meaning -- but in the meantime it has almost reached the swearword status, too. The same word (_retarded_/_retardiran_) exists in both English and Croatian, and has passed through exactly the same process in both languages!

This is why any attempts at mandating politically correct terms for unpleasant things are doomed to failure. Within several decades, or even years, even the most euphemistic PC terms will become grossly un-PC terms of abuse. I remember the time when _challenged_ sounded like an extreme attempt at euphemism, and yet in the last few years I've been seeing it used as a joking insult increasingly often. Eventually, it will likely reach the status of the above mentioned terms.


----------



## alexacohen

cuchuflete said:


> There is such a thing as expressing sensitivity and acceptance in our words, rather than choosing to use words
> that we know are offensive to a listener,


Yes, Cuchu, but how are we to know what is offensive and what is not if we don't know our listener? 
What's wrong with the truth, anyway?
Alexa


----------



## cuchuflete

alexacohen said:


> Yes, Cuchu, but how are we to know what is offensive and what is not if we don't know our listener?
> What's wrong with the truth, anyway?
> Alexa



I agree with you.  If I have reason to know that a particular word will be hurtful to a particular individual, I may choose to avoid it, unless it is the only way to speak honestly and directly. That is a personal choice, not a reaction to the attempted mandates of some political or social movement.
I do not adhere to the notion that any word should be suppressed on the grounds that some person at some moment might find it offensive.  The language I refer to as politically correct is, for the most part, characterized by its dishonesty.


----------



## Acrolect

Ofboir said:


> Racism is not about words, it's about ideas.



No, racism is about practices. And using language is among these practices.
If you use terms such as _nigger_ or _negro_ you are being racist irrespective of your ideas since language is not an individual (or at least not just an individual) phenomenon but a social one and these words will be perceived as discriminatory, not just by those referred to. So by choosing not to use them , i.e. by changing your language, you are changing the world, making it a little less discriminatory. If more people choose to do this, all the better for the world.

Of course, PC actually amounts to politeness and respectful language (actually PC as a concept is an invention by the political Right to ridicule any suggestions concerning respectful language use) and there are cases where it is not easy to decide whether a term is disciminatory or not (well, in any case, this is not for the majority to decide as was suggested at the beginning of the thread, in a - IMHO - complete misunderstanding of political ethics). I for my part try to be as respectful as possible to other group, and language use is one area where this respect plays a role. So I critically reflect upon the terms I am using, possibly modifying them, even though this might mean having to break with traditions and habits. In the process, I also learn a lot about my own stereotypes.

I am not in favour of politically correct language, because I do not like the term _correct_. For me it is more about _politically respectful_. And this is not at all about policing anybody's thought (BTW, many highlighting the freedom of expression and freedom of thought - rightly so, of course - forget about the 'freedom' of those referred to to feel discriminated against).

Let me just this one point:
Of course, disadvantaged minorities such as persons with a disability prefer material and practical help to changes in language. But these two aspects are not mutually exclusive and the former do not require any real efforts. And I know people who in addition to more material help appreciate being called, for instance, _with a hearing disability_ rather than _deaf-dumb_. Sure, it does not change their condition, but it changes the way they feel treated by their environment.


----------



## alexacohen

> If you use terms such as _nigger_ or _negro_ you are being racist


I don't see why. "_Nigger" _is not a Spanish word, but in Spain "negro" is just a colour. Are we racist because we describe a colour?
Sorry, but I think this is too far fetched.


> And I know people who in addition to more material help appreciate being called, for instance, _with a hearing disability_ rather than _deaf-_


But it is still a personal choice. I know people who are deaf, who call themselves deaf, and who joke that they are the best suited people to manage a "Customer Claims" office. And who think it is ridiculous to be described as people with a hearing disability. 
Someone, somewhere maybe is hurt by some words. But I do not see the necessity of changing the entire dictionary because of maybe someone somewhere. 
Alexa


----------



## Kajjo

Joca said:


> I know, I know, Outsider. But I think it has to do with the suffix oid. It gives to me an idea of belittlement.


Which is generally not true. The suffix -oid gives the idea of "resembling" or "similar to". Thus, the term _mongoloid_ is not pejorative in itself. 

Kajjo


----------



## ghoti

Acrolect said:


> Of course, disadvantaged minorities such as persons with a disability prefer material and practical help to changes in language. But these two aspects are not mutually exclusive and the former do not require any real efforts. And I know people who in addition to more material help appreciate being called, for instance, _with a hearing disability_ rather than _deaf-dumb_. Sure, it does not change their condition, but it changes the way they feel treated by their environment.


 
I think it does more than that. It actually can change the environment when people stop and say, "Hey, what's wrong with 'deaf and dumb'?" and someone makes the effort to tell them. That may put a burden on the person who feels discriminated against--I'm being called something unpleasant and I'm expected to overlook my hurt and tell people calmly what's wrong? But actually, it can often make others realize how their words, though unintentionally hurtful, were perceived. Then in the future, that particular person may be more sensitive.

It goes back to my earlier point, that words function, they don't just describe.

I recall a few years ago going to a one-day seminar on St. Augustine being given by a rather famous American priest who was known as a spiritual writer and director, supposedly a sensitive person. The seminar had a varied group, among which were a bunch of nuns, many of whom were clearly older than Fr. X (who was at least in his sixties). At the end, he wanted everybody to sing the "Salve Regina," so he turned to the sisters and said, "You girls go first."

Calling adult women "girls" in this day and age and under those circumstanaces came across to most of the rest of us as infantilizing, somewhat dismissive, and supremely disrespectful. Certainly he would not have turned to a bunch of brothers and called them boys. How likely do you think it is that Fr. X considers women as adult and valuable as men? Not very, I'd say.

Word _do_ things. Change the words and you can make changes in the environment.


----------



## Kajjo

Acrolect said:


> No, racism is about practices. And using language is among these practices.


No, I believe racism is actually about ideas -- sometimes manifesting itself in practices, but in the first place are ideologies and opinions.



> If you use terms such as _nigger_ or _negro_ you are being racist irrespective of your ideas since


That might be your impression. In many languages _negro_ is just a color and the country _Niger_ and the river _Niger_ are not offensive in any way. Neither is the color. Neither is the fact that without any prejudice you can call black people _black_.

Acrolect, you started this controversy by claiming in the German forum that _you_ are in debt or guilty of something towards the Africans, and we all therefor should not use terms relating to black people. What do we owe? I believe it to be patronising to defend people who are in no need of defense and can easily defend themselves. Each black person will know for himself whether he like the term _Negerkuß_ or not. We should not surrender to American forms of extreme political correctness. There is probably no single term applied to local minorities that is not somehow felt to be pejorative by some of them or other. The term _Neger_ in itself means just _black person._ 



> So by choosing not to use them , i.e. by changing your language, you are changing the world, making it a little less discriminatory. If more people choose to do this, all the better for the world.


As stated above by many people, changing words does not change anything. Racism is about feelings of superiority, not about words. It is possible to distinguish between insults and offenses and neutral terms. As Althauf described, the new terms will become offensive in some years anyway. 



> BTW, many highlighting the freedom of expression and freedom of thought - rightly so, of course - forget about the 'freedom' of those referred to to feel discriminated against.


Maybe so. In many cases the so-called discriminated do not feel at all discriminated. I never met a disabled person using a wheelchair who does not like the term disabled. It is not offensive at all. However, to be described _differently abled_ is highly ridiculous and I know enough persons who actually feel ridiculed by such stupid terms. Political correctness is used as instrument in politics, as tool, but not in favor of those discriminated, but in favor of the politicians' own agenda. 

Kajjo


----------



## faranji

Meanwhile, the real racist powers that be are delighted with all this inane squeamishness about korrekt terms and lexical sensitivity... _Let them believe they've accomplished *anything *by banning such and such words and euphe-imposing such and such others ha ha ha._

As if that were the real battle.


----------



## Joca

Kajjo said:


> Which is generally not true. The suffix -oid gives the idea of "resembling" or "similar to". Thus, the term _mongoloid_ is not pejorative in itself.
> 
> Kajjo


 
Yes, Kajjo, that's right. Yet - and I apologize for my (silly) insistence - it's perhaps the idea of incompleteness that bothers me here: you are similar to something/someone, but you are not it, you don't have that identity, if you see what I mean. You are not complete. I am saying this is the impression that the suffix oid gives me, especially with this word - mongoloid - not what it actually means. In addition, mongoloid can be viewed as offensive to the mongol race, even if the original coinage had not that purpose at all.   

JC


----------



## Joca

Athaulf said:


> In such cases, there is always the problem of the euphemism treadmill. Euphemistic and even scientific terms for all sorts of unpleasant things usually start sounding more and more harsh and offensive with time, until they become grossly insulting and have to be replaced by newly coined euphemisms.
> 
> For example, the terms _idiot_, _moron_, or _imbecile_ used to be completely neutral scientific terms describing different types of mental disabilities (is that the correct term these days?), without any pejorative meaning. My parents still have an old medical encyclopedia that has these entries (I remember being surprised when I came across these articles and realized that these insults used to be official names of medical conditons). However, nowadays these words have become nothing more than vulgar swearwords and thus had to be replaced by different terms in medical practice. I remember that when I was a kid, _retarded_ sounded like a polite, euphemistic, and scientific-sounding word -- physicists still use it with its original meaning -- but in the meantime it has almost reached the swearword status, too. The same word (_retarded_/_retardiran_) exists in both English and Croatian, and has passed through exactly the same process in both languages!
> 
> This is why any attempts at mandating politically correct terms for unpleasant things are doomed to failure. Within several decades, or even years, even the most euphemistic PC terms will become grossly un-PC terms of abuse. I remember the time when _challenged_ sounded like an extreme attempt at euphemism, and yet in the last few years I've been seeing it used as a joking insult increasingly often. Eventually, it will likely reach the status of the above mentioned terms.


 
Yes, I am aware of the issues you are bringing up. It goes without saying that words are imperfect tools. Many words, however, are eternal: they may never change their original meaning and if they ever do, it's only a slight change. Other words are more fleeting and among these there are many words referring to human disabilities. 

If I can use a more positive word, even if it is slightly trendy, I will. I know some people suffering from different degrees of paralysis and I know that most of them would rather be referred to as "physically deficient" than any other term. I know this may change with time, but maybe not. Many of such people are now being integrated into the job market, so it's natural for them to want more positive terminology to describe them and leave the old charged words behind. 

If this is political correctness, I will subscribe to it, because it can make life easier for those people. But this doesn't mean that I will use any politically correct word whatever just because it has been mandated. Indeed I seem to have some personal criteria to select what to use. All in all, as someone said, this is a very personal process and I won't be critical of other people's choices, either, provided that they aren't intentionally offensive. 

JC


----------



## Athaulf

Joca said:


> Yes, I am aware of the issues you are bringing up. It goes without saying that words are imperfect tools. Many words, however, are eternal: they may never change their original meaning and if they ever do, it's only a slight change. Other words are more fleeting and among these there are many words referring to human disabilities.
> 
> If I can use a more positive word, even if it is slightly trendy, I will. I know some people suffering from different degrees of paralysis and I know that most of them would rather be referred to as "physically deficient" than any other term. I know this may change with time, but maybe not. Many of such people are now being integrated into the job market, so it's natural for them to want more positive terminology to describe them and leave the old charged words behind.



However, now I'm not sure what language you are talking about. From your profile, I conclude that you live in Brazil. So when you cite some concrete examples of problematic (as you claim) terms in English, are you referring to the use of those terms in English or you are you presenting a literal translation of some Portuguese terms that you find objectionable? A literal translation of a term, or even a very similar cognate word with a similar meaning in another language, can have very different implications when it comes to the tone and attitude it implies. In particular, "physically deficient" in English sounds to me very harsh and potentially insulting; I find it hard to imagine that someone paralyzed would want to be called that way.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> In particular, "physically deficient" in English sounds to me very harsh and potentially insulting; I find it hard to imagine that someone paralyzed would want to be called that way.


Physically challenged is a softer way of saying it but it is as indistinct.

I confront 'able bodied' people at parties and such whenever I approach a person sitting in a wheelchair and ask them how they aquired their wheelchair or comment on the wheelchair like I was talking about a pair of Adidas running shoes or a Mountain Bike.  

The able bodied give me a frowning but, give me a break, what is the single most important issue in the life of a person in a wheelchair?  Such people are not ashamed of being in a wheelchair.  It is not a sexually transmitted disease nor that of a druggie or a warb.  Even the knuckleheaded who blew their spinal cord apart with booze and fast cars or suddenly discovering that the bottom of the ocean is covered with sand are content to relate their tale and seem pleased to be able to speak as equals.

People in wheelchairs are sitting in a 600 pound pink elephant and would much rather discuss it openly than be stifled by the squeemishness of the able bodied trying to come up with a way of not mentioning the war and goosesteping around them like Basil Fawlty in a wheelchair.

.,,


----------



## gaer

Joca said:


> I know this is controversial, but as I see it, some "political correctness" can be in place here and there. I can think of one instance at least.


I call it "tact", and it's about as common as "common sense". I see "PC" as an attempt to force people who have no tact and common sense to act as if they have both. 

Gaer


----------



## Joca

Athaulf said:


> However, now I'm not sure what language you are talking about. From your profile, I conclude that you live in Brazil. So when you cite some concrete examples of problematic (as you claim) terms in English, are you referring to the use of those terms in English or you are you presenting a literal translation of some Portuguese terms that you find objectionable? A literal translation of a term, or even a very similar cognate word with a similar meaning in another language, can have very different implications when it comes to the tone and attitude it implies. In particular, "physically deficient" in English sounds to me very harsh and potentially insulting; I find it hard to imagine that someone paralyzed would want to be called that way.


 
I am mostly thinking in terms of Portuguese. "Deficiente físico" certainly doesn't sound so harsh and potentially insulting as the English equivalent.


----------



## Joca

. said:


> Physically challenged is a softer way of saying it but it is as indistinct.
> 
> I confront 'able bodied' people at parties and such whenever I approach a person sitting in a wheelchair and ask them how they aquired their wheelchair or comment on the wheelchair like I was talking about a pair of Adidas running shoes or a Mountain Bike.
> 
> The able bodied give me a frowning but, give me a break, what is the single most important issue in the life of a person in a wheelchair? Such people are not ashamed of being in a wheelchair. It is not a sexually transmitted disease nor that of a druggie or a warb. Even the knuckleheaded who blew their spinal cord apart with booze and fast cars or suddenly discovering that the bottom of the ocean is covered with sand are content to relate their tale and seem pleased to be able to speak as equals.
> 
> People in wheelchairs are sitting in a 600 pound pink elephant and would much rather discuss it openly than be stifled by the squeemishness of the able bodied trying to come up with a way of not mentioning the war and goosesteping around them like Basil Fawlty in a wheelchair.
> 
> .,,


 
I find this a valid approach. Whenever it is possible and adequate, I will talk to people, even strangers, about their "problems", but privately. I don't do it out of condescension, but out of real interest. People interest me and it's hard to find someone who definitively refuses to talk about himself.

JC


----------



## Hutschi

gaer said:


> I call it "tact", and it's about as common as "common sense". I see "PC" as an attempt to force people who have no tact and common sense to act as if they have both.
> 
> Gaer


 
This is a good point.
Tact can help a lot in communication.


----------



## Kajjo

gaer said:


> I call it "tact", and it's about as common as "common sense". I see "PC" as an attempt to force people who have no tact and common sense to act as if they have both.


Right! Tact, respect and common sense are much more important than political correctness. Unfortunately, it is not possible to enforce the first three, while it appears that even the dumbest could behave PC-like.

Kajjo


----------



## alexacohen

gaer said:


> I call it "tact", and it's about as common as "common sense". I see "PC" as an attempt to force people who have no tact and common sense to act as if they have both.
> 
> Gaer


You are right, Gaer. It's manners, and common sense. But I do not see what advantage can it be for anyone to have a Government decreed Politically Correct language imposed upon speakers (that's what the Ç%#~¬@ Spanish Government is trying to do). If people have no manners, no education, no consideration for others, it does not matter what words they are forced to use. They won't acquire common sense simply because they use "North Africans" instead of "Moors" (literal translation from Spanish).
"How clever you are" may be a very insulting sentence. It depends on the
intonation you use and the person you are so addressing.
Alexa


----------



## Brioche

ghoti said:


> .
> 
> I recall a few years ago going to a one-day seminar on St. Augustine being given by a rather famous American priest who was known as a spiritual writer and director, supposedly a sensitive person. The seminar had a varied group, among which were a bunch of nuns, many of whom were clearly older than Fr. X (who was at least in his sixties). At the end, he wanted everybody to sing the "Salve Regina," so he turned to the sisters and said, "You girls go first."
> 
> Calling adult women "girls" in this day and age and under those circumstanaces came across to most of the rest of us as infantilizing, somewhat dismissive, and supremely disrespectful. Certainly he would not have turned to a bunch of brothers and called them boys. How likely do you think it is that Fr. X considers women as adult and valuable as men? Not very, I'd say.



The two questions to ask yourself are "Did the nuns feel 'infantalised'?", and "Did Fr X intend to 'infantalize' them?"
And why do you think women in their 70s or 80s will have the same reaction to words as 20 year-olds?

My late mother, in her 80s, requently referred to other women of her own age as "girls".  
I used to joke and say "If they're girls, I'm not born yet."

I happened to see re-run of an early _Sex in the City_ last night, where Carrie Bradshaw called the other 3 principal characters "girls".

How do you know that he would not have called a group of brothers "boys"?
Adult men frequently call each other boys. 
Have you ever heard a man say "I'm having a few drinks with the _men_ after work to-night?"


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally Posted by *ghoti*
> The seminar had a varied group, among which were a bunch of nuns, many of whom were clearly older than Fr. X. At the end, he wanted everybody to sing the "Salve Regina," so he turned to the sisters and said, "You girls go first."
> 
> Calling adult women "girls" in this day and age and under those circumstanaces came across to most of the rest of us as infantilizing, somewhat dismissive, and supremely disrespectful. How likely do you think it is that Fr. X considers women as adult and valuable as men? Not very, I'd say.


Maybe this is because I'm from another country, but I'm lost. I can understand that a blind person prefers to be called visually impaired, (though that term can refer to anyone who is short sighted) but I cannot, for the life of me, understand what is wrong with "girls". Surely any group of females would rather be addressed as "girls" than "old women"?
Alexa


----------



## Kajjo

alexacohen said:


> Maybe this is because I'm from another country, but I'm lost. I can understand that a blind person prefers to be called visually impaired, (though that term can refer to anyone who is short sighted) but I cannot, for the life of me, understand what is wrong with "girls". Surely any group of females would rather be addressed as "girls" than "old women"?
> Alexa


The same for me, the same in Germany. Many husbands say girl to their wife -- as compliment, not as insult. How can youth, freshness, attractiveness be bad?

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

ghoti said:


> I recall a few years ago going to a one-day seminar on St. Augustine being given by a rather famous American priest who was known as a spiritual writer and director, supposedly a sensitive person. The seminar had a varied group, among which were a bunch of nuns, many of whom were clearly older than Fr. X (who was at least in his sixties). At the end, he wanted everybody to sing the "Salve Regina," so he turned to the sisters and said, "You girls go first."
> 
> Calling adult women "girls" in this day and age and under those circumstanaces came across to most of the rest of us as infantilizing, somewhat dismissive, and supremely disrespectful. Certainly he would not have turned to a bunch of brothers and called them boys. How likely do you think it is that Fr. X considers women as adult and valuable as men? Not very, I'd say.
> 
> Word _do_ things. Change the words and you can make changes in the environment.



Those who advocate sensitivity in choice of words are capable of showing great insensitivity, verging on the arrogant assumptions that (1) they are always right, regardless of context, and (2) that anyone who doesn't see things as they do is insensitive.  This is the height of insensitivity.

For contemporaries of an older generation to continue to use words -and the associated meanings- they are accustomed to may be, for those people, natural and comfortable and free of insults, either perceived or intended.  For members of a younger generation to assume that there is insult
or insensitivity intended or perceived is shallow and self-righteous.  

How brash it is to assume that we have found better, more inclusive, more respectful, more decent and honorable ways of speaking, and then berate those who among themselves use a different dialect.  How spremely disrespectful it is to take things at face value, with little apparent thought to what the words are meant to convey by the speaker, and how they are apt to be perceived by those spoken to, and simply declare that a term is, "in this day and age" no longer
proper.  

How often I have read posts in the forums here in which younger members have declared, authoritatively, that a given word is unknown to them, and is "never used".  Some of these words
are and have been in frequent use by my generation.  Those who have never heard or read them
show a certain expertise in dismissively categorizing these words as non-existent or not used.  
If I don't understand someone's dialect, I am not the best judge of its usage.  

When Fr. X spoke to the nuns, did his tone or body language or facial expressions show disdain?
Did the nuns so addressed grimace in politically correct pain at a perceived slight?
Did the witnesses project their own worldview/wordview onto people who do not share it and rush to an insensitive, judgmental conclusion?


----------



## Zsanna

You cannot have a better topic for a good debate but one that is ambiguous! 
Words are "just words" or exactly *not* "just words" - depending on the case. Whether you call a spade a spade or an ásó (in Hungarian, actually) won't change the nature if the object itself (well, at least not much).
However, it may say something about *you* or about what *you want others to get as a message*. 
If we consider that "saying is doing" (cf. J.L.Austin's _How To Do Things With Words_), our _verba volant_ may not seem so innocent, after all...

With the "tête de nègre" all I can say that _*I*_ do not have any nasty hind thoughts saying it but can I expect black people to know this? 
How would I react if in a foreign language "Hungarian" was the synonym of a big fat pig with red eyes? 
At first it may amuse me but after a time it may have another effect... Depending (probably) on how much nastiness I could detect in it to start with... That'll depend on what sort of people I meet but even in the best case it may still hurt me because I am sensitive. 
OK. You can say that everybody is hurt in this world sooner or later and if that was the worst one could get from the others, we wouldn't be far from paradise. 
But don't you remember when you were a child and noticed how adults could hurt you without wanting to just by not paying a little more attention? Didn't you (too) promise to yourself that you'll be  different when adult? Those impressions were right. It's _now_ that you are wrong if you think it does not hurt (or does not matter, etc.).

The funny thing is that the "politically correct" annoys me, too - in spite of it all. But I think it's just like all the other "obligatory things" that lose their real meaning (or it gets too diluted) when they get down to the individual. 
But then you do what you do normally/all the time: try to mine out the essential of it, the "stuff with the meaningful bit".) That is always allowed...


----------



## Kajjo

> The funny thing is that the "politically correct" annoys me, too - in spite of it all. But I think it's just like all the other "obligatory things" that lose their real meaning


Well, political correctness is the modern form of dictatorial policies, or telling people what to think and what to say. Contrary opinions are wrong by definition, discussion not wanted. _They_ know what is right. 



> But then you do what you do normally/all the time: try to mine out the essential of it, the "stuff with the meaningful bit") That is always allowed...


I do not need political correctness to allow me to choose the meaningful bit. As Gaer pointed out, we need only tact and common sense to do so. Abolish political correctness. I like to think for myself and to express my own thoughts in my own words.

Kajjo


----------



## Zsanna

Yes, if you are an intelligent, responsible person, Kajjo. 
But, unfortunately, there is a mass of people who aren't. Of course, the key word stays "education" in their case, too. 
I suppose this PC-thing is aimed to be a short-cut to it.


----------



## Kajjo

Zsanna said:


> Of course, the key word stays "education" in their case, too. I suppose this PC-thing is aimed to be a short-cut to it.


Yes, but only if you believe that "education/thinking" came to the same result as PC. It does not, at least not in my case.

A blind person is not visually impaired. Blind people cannot see at all. I am visually impaired, I need very strong glasses. I do not have a "different visual ability" -- like infrared vision or eagles' eyes. I have a _worse_ visual ability. How stupid to think that there is a single person on this planet that would enjoy to have worse vision than others. "Different" is an euphemism, because it does not say what there is to be said, but only gives a code and expects the audience to decode the real meaning.

Political correctness is bad communication. Normal words like blind, deaf or wheelchair are not offensive at all. They are straight-forward. 

Kajjo


----------



## Zsanna

Yes, it is bad communication if the meaning and the form does not correspond to the speaker's meaning and intentions. (Mind you, sometimes you wish those intentions stayed hidden... But I am *not* going to defend PC?!)

However, I'm afraid, I could not follow you there:
"Yes, but only if you believe that "education/thinking" came to the same result as PC. It does not, at least not in my case."


----------



## Kajjo

Zsanna said:


> However, I'm afraid, I could not follow you there:
> "Yes, but only if you believe that "education/thinking" came to the same result as PC. It does not, at least not in my case."


Sorry for expressing myself unclear. It was a play with your words: You postulated that PC might be a short-cut, i.e. that a) PC and b) education and responsibility are two means to reach the same goal. I wanted to contradict you by saying that your idea is only correct, if education and PC actually would result in the same words. However, they do not in most cases. To the contrary, PC often results in bad and hindered communication, while common sense often results in clear and non-offensive language.

Kajjo


----------



## Zsanna

Thank you for the explanation, Kajjo. 
I did not put education (= "key word") and PC ("short-cut") on the same level exactly because my expectations are not the same towards them. Education is like a "cure of the cause of the illness" meanwhile PC is just like a "treatment of the symptoms".  
However, in both cases something is imposed on the individual. A true, reasonable explanation is easier accepted (one hopes) than a forced, false-tasting, ready-to-use sticky label that looks shiny but hardly covers thin air but as was invented by humans, cannot be eternal and is not. 
So, no worry, we'll forget about it as soon as we'll get another toy.


----------



## jonquiliser

The irony about it all that what's politically correct these days is to dismiss being politically correct 

At any rate, I still see it as a false conflict; the question shouldn't be whether one should be politically correct (of course one shouldn't!!!), but whether there is any point in changing one's (personal) language. To label everything one doesn't agree with as instances of "political correctness" just seems too easy a path to take.


----------



## Kajjo

jonquiliser said:


> At any rate, I still see it as a false conflict; the question shouldn't be whether one should be politically correct (of course one shouldn't!!!), but whether there is any point in changing one's (personal) language. To label everything one doesn't agree with as instances of "political correctness" just seems too easy a path to take.


Yes. It is quite easy to distinguish the _intention_ of what is being said, i.e. whether it is meant as offense or insult or not. Common sense and tact, as Gaer pointed out, can do much good.

Kajjo


----------



## Acrolect

Kajjo said:


> No, I believe racism is actually about ideas -- sometimes manifesting itself in practices, but in the first place are ideologies and opinions.



Of course, racism as a practice is normally based on a set of beliefs and attitudes (or on ignorance of social interaction). But as long as they stay in a person's mind, they are not discriminatory. So if the only choice is between you considering me stupid or calling me _stupid_, I'd prefer the former, probably because I think that the latter presupposes that (but we probably disagree on this).



> That might be your impression. In many languages _negro_ is just a color and the country _Niger_ and the river _Niger_ are not offensive in any way. Neither is the color. Neither is the fact that without any prejudice you can call black people _black_.


I was just commenting on the English terms _nigger_ and _negro_ (and - by extension - on the German term _Neger_). I am aware that in other languages  cognate terms do not have the same social connotations as in English or German.



> Acrolect, you started this controversy by claiming in the German forum that _you_ are in debt or guilty of something towards the Africans, and we all therefor should not use terms relating to black people. What do we owe?


I was talking of myself (I would never bring up the topic of collective debts between nations in a globalized world, but as you can guess, I have my views on this) and of specific people I know who hate being called _Neger_ because they feel offended by this word. As I know them and what they have gone through, I said I owe it to them to voice my opinion on the matter in the forum. 



> I believe it to be patronising to defend people who are in no need of defense and can easily defend themselves.


I was not claiming to speak on behalf of all African people or peoples or of all black people, not even of all African immigrants in Austria. I was just making a statement about my feelings about the issue and about my awareness that not all people affected find this issue as trivial as suggested . And I trust them to tell me if they find this patronising or not and I will reconsider my position accordingly.



> The term _Neger_ in itself means just _black person._


(The same could be said of English _nigger_ or _negro_)

But we cannot ignore the multiple layers of connotations that words have, implying various attitudes towards the referents and relating it to different discourses and the world views implicated by them. And even if we do not want to associate with the latter, by using the term we cannot help evoking them. 

Do you use the word _Neger_, not in _Negerküsse_, but generally?
I am just asking because its use in Austria, as far as I can judge, correlates strongly with age and maybe regional background (more likely to be heard in the countryside than in cities). But in public discourses (politics, academia, administration, media) it is absolutely inacceptable, unless in farfarfar right-wing contexts.




> As Althauf described, the new terms will become offensive in some years anyway.


This is a problem. But what is the solution? Sticking with the older, offensive ones? I will certainly not use _negro_ just because _African American_ may be developing negative connotations in a few years' time.



> I never met a disabled person using a wheelchair who does not like the term disabled. It is not offensive at all.


Well, there is a difference between liking it and not finding it offensive. Anyway, I met a few who would have preferred more specific terms (_paraplegic_, e.g.) and most actually would have liked not being talked about in terms of their physical disabilities in the first place (actually, this also applies to the immigrants I was talking about above).

Interestingly, there are people who are opposed to certain terms because of their lack of precision, e.g. _deaf-dumb_ (because they are not dumb) or _blind_ (because they just achieve 20/200 or 5% vision even with the strongest form of correction and therefore legally count as blind).



> However, to be described _differently abled_ is highly ridiculous and I know enough persons who actually feel ridiculed by such stupid terms.


I agree. I think that terms such as this one - together with all the compounds ending in _challenged_ - have never seriously been proposed or promoted. They are mostly inventions by those wanting to ridicule any views seeing a connection between language use and respect.


----------



## alexacohen

jonquiliser said:


> whether there is any point in changing one's (personal) language. To label everything one doesn't agree with as instances of "political correctness" just seems too easy a path to take.


I would like to explain something about my job, if you allow me, and you care to read, of course.
My job as supervisor for a big airline consists of assigning land staff and flight attendants to flights according to the number of passengers they carry, and the characteristics of these passengers. For security reasons if the number of disabled people is more than X, then the flight has to have more flight attendants; if we fail to comply, then the people who excede number X simply cannot be allowed to fly. The booking system of every airline (and the system works WORLDWIDE) has several questions that disabled passengers are asked so the flight may be prepared in advance.
WCHC: Totally paralyzed; needs to be carried to seat by staff.
WCHS: Can walk from door of plane to seat. 
WCHR: Asthmatic, old, confused: Needs help to boarding gate.
BLND: Blind, cannot read or write. Needs help to reach plane.
DEAF: Deaf, unable to understand language spoken by staff. Needs help to reach plane.
UMNR: Minor, mentally handicapped: To be accompanied at all times.
There are more, but these are the main ones.
You can't imagine what a nightmare can be to prepare a flight when you don't know what to expect, because the only thing passengers specified is "minusválido" (politically correct term for *all *disabilities). 
As *Kajjo* said (and I'm grateful): 


> Political correctness is bad communication. Normal words like blind, deaf or wheelchair are not offensive at all. They are straight-forward. ​


----------



## .   1

ghoti said:


> I recall a few years ago going to a one-day seminar on St. Augustine being given by a rather famous American priest who was known as a spiritual writer and director, supposedly a sensitive person. The seminar had a varied group, among which were a bunch of nuns, many of whom were clearly older than Fr. X (who was at least in his sixties). At the end, he wanted everybody to sing the "Salve Regina," so he turned to the sisters and said, "You girls go first."
> 
> Calling adult women "girls" in this day and age and under those circumstanaces came across to most of the rest of us as infantilizing, somewhat dismissive, and supremely disrespectful. Certainly he would not have turned to a bunch of brothers and called them boys. How likely do you think it is that Fr. X considers women as adult and valuable as men? Not very, I'd say.
> 
> Word _do_ things. Change the words and you can make changes in the environment.


I reckon that the old girls would have been chuffed. I am when my fifty year old face is referred to as boy.
A bloke from England once tried to insult me by calling me boy but he completely missed.
Look inside your heart and ask yourself how old you really feel.
If you really feel that you feel as old as your birth certificate tells you then you have my pity.
I reckon that I am still about 25.
I have heard many other blokes express similar sentiments.

Those old girls don't think that they are old. Just ask any one of them and they should all twinkle you with an eye and claim to be a mere slip of a girl but tell you about someone who is old because they act their age.
I reckon that the old dears would have sung up a storm.
Far more than had they been introduced as 'Our Venerated Older Generation of Valued Citizens' which would have cracked more voices than the equivalent of, 'OK girls, give us what you've got!' I'd have loved to have seen it.  I'll warrant that a few habits were loostened and a few older lungs filled to bursting point with sheer joy.
Was it videoed? If so it's probably on you tube or whatever or should be.

.,,


----------



## Joca

My glimpse is that everyone here is in general against PC and perhaps against most euphemisms. I feel I have to state my case more clearly before you may wrongly think that I am always an ardent support of PC and lead me into ostracism.  

I can't afford to have a radical position, anyway. As someone who needs to draft and write official documents (I am a civil servant), I often find myself having to conform to rules and terminology that I may not entirely approve of. Whereas in my daily life I will mostly speak straightforwardly, if I am hired to write for someone else I may have to be more cautious and compliant. 

So, even if I am given carte blanche to produce and author a document, I will occasionally use a so-called PC term if otherwise the common term, not for a fault of its own, but perhaps due to the patina of time or other misuse, is emotionally charged and if the PC term is punctually appropriate, euphonic and not a mere cover. Such a constellation is not so improbable as one might expect.

Yes, most PC is indeed unnecessary and even harmful, but a couple of them might prove useful now and then. I wouldn't permit that a prejudice summarily bans from my vocabulary what otherwise could be a potential resource for me to reach my audience and objective more fully. 

JC


----------



## Athaulf

Acrolect said:


> I agree. I think that terms such as this one [_differently abled_] - together with all the compounds ending in _challenged_ - have never seriously been proposed or promoted. They are mostly inventions by those wanting to ridicule any views seeing a connection between language use and respect.



You're wrong about this, at least when it comes to the term _challenged_, which is used very widely in North America these days. In fact, _mentally challenged_ is now the preferred official term for what used to be called mental retardation (just Google for the term to see how widely it's used). When it comes to _differently abled_, you won't see and hear it nearly as often as _challenged_, but this still doesn't mean that there aren't people who seriously use it (or even insist on its use).


----------



## ghoti

Brioche said:


> The two questions to ask yourself are "Did the nuns feel 'infantalised'?", and "Did Fr X intend to 'infantalize' them?"
> And why do you think women in their 70s or 80s will have the same reaction to words as 20 year-olds?
> 
> My late mother, in her 80s, requently referred to other women of her own age as "girls".
> I used to joke and say "If they're girls, I'm not born yet."
> 
> I happened to see re-run of an early _Sex in the City_ last night, where Carrie Bradshaw called the other 3 principal characters "girls".
> 
> How do you know that he would not have called a group of brothers "boys"?
> Adult men frequently call each other boys.
> Have you ever heard a man say "I'm having a few drinks with the _men_ after work to-night?"


 
Certainly women often call each other girls, just as men often talk of a night with the boys. And African American people can call each other by a certain word that could cause a great deal of trouble if a white person used it. Talking among one's own group allows for a certain latitude.

But one dynamic here is that of power. Traditionally, men have it and women haven't. A man calling women "girls" is often suspect, whether it's meant that way or not.

Interesting that you mention women in their 20's; what in what I wrote would have suggested that? In fact, I don't think anyone at the seminar was under 45, minimum. As for women in their 70s or 80s -- I'm just about there myself. I'm certainly closer to 80 than I am to 20!  And I do know for a fact that some of the sisters were at least taken aback and recognized the language as unfortunate, to say the least. But in addition to being older, they've also got a good dose of wisdom and weren't about to try to call him on it in public. Whether any of them did so in private, I don't know.

No, Father X didn't mean to insult or demean. But that's part of the point. He was old enough, educated enough, and had been around the block enough politically and religiously to know that such talk could well be taken wrong. He is also a widely published author. That he didn't censor himself, in my opinion, points to insensitivity. And the insensitivity is not only to the connotations of "girl" but also to the effectiveness of language and the well-chosen (or poorly chosen) word.


----------

