If that’s not a logical fallacy with a name, it ought to be: the claim that because an improvement won’t taken by itself entirely and absolutely fix the problem, there’s no sense in making it.
If somebody’s got a compound fracture, should medical people not give them pain meds, just because those won’t in themselves fix the fracture or prevent possible deadly systemic infection?
Effect also matters.
And I don’t see anyone in this thread claiming that using any word in genuine ignorance, before having been informed that it’s a problem, means that the person using it is evil or racist. Only that they ought to quit using it once so informed.
ETA: yes, also for fictional characters of indeterminate race. An ethnic or racial slur and/or stereotype is still a slur and/or stereotype if it’s applied to somebody who’s not a member of the group it’s a slur/stereotype against/of, because it’s a comparison to that group.
Not talking about the Euphemism Treadmill. Talking about your apparent argument that because refraining from using racist/ethnically demeaning terms won’t in itself end prejudice, that there’s no sense in doing it.
Because of the euphemism treadmill, specific terms to avoid may well change from time to time, and old works need to be read/viewed with a consideration of whether specific terms were polite at the time they were produced. But that doesn’t mean the terms shouldn’t be avoided, or that people shouldn’t educate others as to which ones need to be avoided and why.
If you are hoping to make a case for not calling people what they wish to be called, and refraining from calling them things they feel are insults, you are doing poorly.
If you are wishing to give the impression of being angry and resentful that the world is changing and it isn’t necessarily about you and what makes you comfortable, good job!
And if you wish to make the point that some people, in their efforts to be respectful of the needs of those who have hithertofore been belittled and insulted, verge on the ridiculous, well, that is already obvious. However it is pretty harmless in comparison to the damage that’s been done to the classes of people who aren’t like you.
I realize this is nuance…but I was making a rhetorical argument in response to the implication that my use of the word caused the racist actions. You taking what I said out of context is the actual problem with this discussion.
This is the entirety of the post of yours that I was responding to.
And this is what I quoted when responding:
“So are you saying that this kind of bigotry wouldn’t happen if people started calling you Roma exclusively? That some random American using the term gypsy in reference to some cartoon character that has almost nothing in common with the Roma caused it? Or will we learn from history for once and realize that as soon as the term gypsy is banished from the vernacular, the word Roma will take it’s place and all the same bigotry will remain.”
I wasn’t saying I did, in case that wasn’t clear. I was saying that was when I learned the word. And, because Esmerelda was cool, I thought of it as a good thing—albeit with a bit of romanticism of the exotic.
That said, I am now curious if it was considered offensive at the time, though. Both in the general (predominantly white) cultural zeitgeist and among Roma. Did the latter hate it like Natives hated Disney’s Pocahontas?
It sounds like you might have some knowledge in that area.
I can’t speak for every Roma - and as I said, I’m not culturally Roma like Kal or ZPG Zealot were, but yeah. At least some Roma find the whole Esmerelda thing problematic. Not just the Disney version, but the Victor Hugo thing in general. The fetishness of the other along with the stereotypes of Roma. Everything I know about Roma is that when it comes to sexuality and gender, they tend to highly conservative - think Orthodox Jews or Fundamentalist Muslims.
Polygamy and child marriages are not uncommon, they are insular and as you note they are pretty conservative without being nearly as regressive as the two you mentioned.
Native Americans is a lump term covering both those closely related and those that have lived a completely different cultural life. Think East Coast vs West Coast NA. You would think living in the same conditions they would be much the same. But one has the Western side of Europe and one has the Eastern side of the Asian areas in addition to Western Europe influences.
Or we’re all from Turtle Island which, depending on which folklore, is just the USA/Canada, just the Americas, or is the whole world.
Discrimination boils down to “Don’t like the “Other”.”
Yeah… me too. Mostly the fortune teller tropes, and the scarves/gold hoops sort of clothing, with horse drawn wagons. The term “gypsy” was typically used more in the sense of itinerant or going where your spirit moved you- unfettered, untethered, etc… or maybe a bit outside the law in more or less the same sense.
But as far as the actual people were concerned? Nearly total ignorance. I mean, we knew that there were Gypsies in Europe, but that was about it. Certainly nothing about prejudice against them or persecution of them ever came up- I think the assumption was that they sort of roamed around and told fortunes or something.
It was more than a little eye-opening to go visit Europe, and see how the Czech, Italian and Hungarian cops treated Roma beggars and Roma in general. I mean, seeing a Florentine cop just bodily drag some little old lady and heave her out of the main square in front of the Duomo startled the crap out of me. It also surprised me that the Roma looked very much Indian and stood out from the vast run of Europeans; I always had them pictured as the mythical fortune tellers, but they looked mostly like people from India. Which turns out to be mostly true, at a remove of several centuries, interestingly enough.
Let’s not overlook this. Discrimination against the Roma is not some long-ago thing, it’s still going on. The term “gypsy” isn’t used for some mythical group like leprechauns, it’s an ethnic slur in many parts of the world, and needs to be recognized as such.
But not so much in America, where people brag about being part Gypsy.
Just like “Indian”, which was getting toward a ethnic slur in America, but now people brag about it. But there are other terms for the same peoples that are no longer used in polite talk. “Redskins” is very marginal and problematic.
That does not mean that our Indian/Amerind/Native populations & peoples are not still sometimes discriminated against, of course.
Here in America, “Gypsy” is not generally a slur, but certainly context is key.
As I just argued in another thread, the term ‘gypsy’ is the word that another ethnic group in Britain uses to describe themselves. It’s not a slur to them.
The Roma object to being called gypsies because they are not gypsies. But the gypsies are.
We asked many members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities how they preferred to describe themselves. While some find the term “Gypsy” to be offensive, many stakeholders and witnesses were proud to associate themselves with this term and so we have decided that it is right and proper to use it, where appropriate, throughout the report.
In continental Europe, however, all groups with nomadic histories are categorised as “Roma”, a much broader term that, while it includes Gypsies and Irish Travellers, is not the way in which most British communities would identify themselves.
Of course, both groups have faced (and still face) terrible discrimination but it’s not because of the word ‘gypsy’.