In this thread, the word “miscegenation” was used in a neutral context. Some posters found the word offensive, others defended it as neutral, pointing to the dictionary meaning.
My contention (hey, it’s supposed to be a debate, right?) is that there are certain words which, because of their history, emotional baggage, past context, etc., ought to be avoided. Miscegenation, while arguably neutral insofar as dictionary meaning, crosses this line, as it has long been associated with the American brand of racism (and in fact, is an American coinage, as recounted here.) Yes, it’s not in the same class as a racial epithet, but I think that most people who know the word connect it with the anti-miscegenation laws of the 19th and 20th centuries, the KKK, and racism in general.
I disagree with you, John. The dictionary meaning clearly implies no offense. I understand that some neutral words can carry racial baggage but this word seems OK to use in my book.
By the way, I haven’t read the thread to which you’re referring and I didn’t read it on purpose. I wanted to comment on instances when the word is used as intended, not in an insulting fashion.
IMO a word should only be avoided if it is redundant, and then the question of which to avoid is arbitrary (if they mean the same thing, what matters which one is chosen?). All other words serve a purpose.
That purpose, no matter how many dictionaries are trotted out, are completely contextual. If I say, “Shit!!” it probably means I dropped a pencil or stubbed my toe or something equally mundane but irritating. Should my grandmother yell the same thing, it would indicate a serious matter.
Furthermore, instances of when I would use “Shit!!” change as well. Were I at work I would never yell it.
“Political Correctness” or what-have-you is simply a buzzword to use when you feel that your perception of language’s context is more appropriate than other person’s perception of context. But it is silly, IMO, to rule out any word in all contexts. Defeats the purpose of language, IMO.
It is just difficult to remember, sometimes, that you are the only one who thinks like you.
Would you or should you also avoid “anti-miscegenation”? If not then what does it mean if “miscegenation” is considered a non-word? IMHO this is all to do with PC (which is 92.5% bunk).
Also, why are we not giving up the words “slave” and “slavery”?
JuanitaTecj, you are correct that the dictionary meaning implies no offense. However, the particular word in question was coined during the Civil War, has been used consistently and nearly exclusively by groups against “race mixing”, and thus has connotations beyond the dictionary meaning.
erislover, my use of PC in the thread title referred back to the originating thread, where sensitivity to the word miscegenation was referred to as such. My contention is avoiding words with excessive emotional baggage is not political correctness, but rather common sense and common courtesy.
kniz, the only context in which I have ever seen/heard anti-miscegenation used is in reference to the now defunct (though, AFAIK, still on the books in some jurisdictions) laws banning interracial marriages. On the other hand, you can go to any of the plethora of racist web sites and be sure to find the word “miscegenation” being used today.
Here’s another example, then, of a word which once would have been considered strictly descriptive, but which today has connotations that make it otherwise. When a fundamentalist preacher decries homosexuality as sodomy, it is understood by all that this is a pejorative term for a practice that the user of the term finds abhorrent. The same is the case with miscegenation, in that when used today it not only sounds archaic, it also has more than a hint of racism associated with it.
Politically Correct speech is an attempt at sanitizing certain aspects of society, usually to avoid invoking unpleasant mental images.
“Fat Bitch” is much more descriptive than “Person of Size” as it were.
“Illegal Alien” – to the PC nazis, this is perjorative, judgemental, racist, etc etc ad nauseum ad infinitum while “Undocumented Immigrant” just sounds like they lost their wallet or something.
PC speech is a scourge and it’s important to never allow it to be used in ones presence without comment or clarification.
Tedster: I think “illegal alien” and “undocumented immigrant” are both fine and would probably use both or either depending on the context ( or not ).
But I guess I must be “PC”, because I wouldn’t conceive of using “fat bitch” and “person of size” as synonyms. Actually I wouldn’t say either one - The second because it is an unwieldy phrase, the first because it is a straight insult.
What is it about fat people that automatically makes them “bitches”? Just curious.
No, real “PC” speech is simply calling people what they like to be called. It’s also called common courtesy and politeness. If I were an overweight woman, I don’t think I’d be particularly flattered by the moniker “fat bitch.”
Listen, Political Correctness has been so lambasted and misunderstood that there are actually people who think “gravitationally challenged” and “vertically challenged” are real PC prescriptions for the words “overweight” and “short.”
This is not the case. Yet the same folk who criticize PC seem to disregard such military doublespeak as “collateral damage” or corporate doublespeak like “down-sizing.”
PC is about being polite. Corporate and military euphamisms are far more insidious, yet few seem to heckle at them as they do at political correctness.
Well, “undocumented immigrant” sounds a hell of a lot more euphemistic to me. Undocumented immigrant seems to imply that this particular immigant got here by legitamate means but the paperwork got lost.
On the other hand, “illegal alien” conjures up images of hostile sentient beings from outer space who in addition to wanting to do harm to humans, entered the country in violation of the laws thereof.
In conclusion, they are both loaded language IMHO.
As the person who started this thread can I point out that I am not American, have no idea of the etymology or history of the word and only know it from its use in a Brian Lumley novel where it refers to hybridisation betwen humans and space monsters.
It’s incredibly PC to ask someone to explain there actions for using a neutral word that is offensive in your culture only.
And for some reason I find it ironic that such an attempt at PC censorship should result from American cultural insensitivity an an asumption of American values worldwide.
“Fat bitch” is a stupid, provocative example. “Bitch” has never been anything but a derogatory term for a human female.
“Fat person” would be a more appropriate parallel to “person of size.”
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re fat, you’re fat. Yeah - you shouldn’t get called an insulting term by people (pig/guts/whatever) but “fat” is a legitimate adjective, and if you are fat you are fat. It doesn’t mean there is anything inherently wrong or immoral in being fat. “Fat” means someone with a noticeably large amount of extra fat on their body. Such a person would also a person of “size” but (even assuming that to mean big size) that could also refer to someone of large frame, or an extremely bulkily muscular person.
That’s fair enough Blake. The mistake in that thread by those who got offended was probably a) assuming you were American and b) assuming that the word had the same connotation elsewhere that in does in the States. I’ll be honest and say that I, at least, never considered the possibility that it might be used neutrally in some other part of the world. I’m reasonably widely read and I’ve never seen it come up in anything but racist diatribes or apologia. However, I’ll acknowledge that my understanding may well have been mistaken - Nobody’s perfect ;).
I do think it would be reasonable of you to reflect on the fact that you now know that many do have an ugly association with that word and consider whether it is worth using. But I don’t think it rises to the level of an actual slur in this context and if you feel that it is the best term to describe your meaning, so be it. It still makes me wince a bit, but I can certainly live with it.
I’m still not convinced that refusing to call someone a “fat bitch” is PC, however.
But at what point does PC just become silly? I’ve heard (sorry no cites) of a small town where the officials must answer the phone “Heaven-o” because “Hello” has hell in it. I’ve also heard of an official who got slammed because he used the word “niggardly” in a speech, which is not a racial epithet but merely a synonym for stingy. Words are just words. It’s the connotation we associate with the words that cause the emotions. Would you rather be referred to as “skinny” or “slender?”
My problem with PC is that words that have no racial connotation at all (Some Spanish teacher got in trouble for writing the Spanish word for black on the chalkboard*)get banned from usage because of people’s ignorance.
*black in Spanish is “negro”
I think if you’re using language to communicate - and what else would you use it for - then what the hearer understands by the words you use is important. If you don’t already know that “miscegenation” is considered offensive by many poeple, you can’t be criticised for using it. But once it’s been pointed out to you, I don’t think you can go on using the word and defending its use by saying that it’s not offensive to you.
Other people shouldn’t assume that you know how they will receive the words they use (especially in an international forum such as this) and, if they consider a word offensive, they should probably point this out to you in terms which acknowledge that you don’t realise its offensiveness. Obviously if somebody calls you “a piece of shit” you can assume the offensiveness is intended but, if in doubt, assume it isn’t.
I’d have to say that I find it hard to conceive of an English speaker who doesn’t know that the word “bitch” may be received as offensive when applied to a woman.
Blake, may I ask, now that you know that “miscegenation” carries many unpleasant connotations for U.S. speakers of English, do you still feel that it is perfectly okay to use it, and any sensitivity to the word is PC oversensitivity?
In American English, the term “fanny” is a polite term, and the small carrying bags that can be strapped to your butt are called “fanny packs”. This would be a very impolite phrase in some other English-speaking countries, yet I as an American might use it innocently. Once the meaning is explained to me, it would be simple courtesy to avoid it in the future. Agreed?
I think the real question may be “At what point does the use of the term ‘PC’ just become silly?” I read about the town you mention above in Newsweek several years ago. I don’t know if the practice was ever really adopted, or if people still do it today, but I do know that it has nothing to do with “political correctness”. The town in question was a very conservative, religious town in rural Texas, and the townsfolk who objected to the “hell” in “hello” did so on the basis of their conservative Christian beliefs.
If memory serves, the local sherrif was quoted as saying, “What’s wrong with plain old ‘Howdy’?”
my partner has gotten a great deal of abuse from people over his use of the word ‘niggardly’ in a report he did for work. are we now so totally paranoid that we cant use words that even vaguely sound similiar to the N word?
after much explaining what it actually meant my partner still had to remove the word because according to his boss, ‘it makes it sound like black people are cheap and petty’
At what point would you assume the responsibilites of others to adjust to your sensibilites? For instance the words ‘fag’ and ‘faggot’ are, from what I understand, are commonly used terms in the non-American english language to describe ciggarettes, bundles of sticks, and even a disparaging term describing menial or servant labor.
IMO, the intentional identification of certain words with the most inulting context, especially if it is claimed otherwise by the one using it, is prejudice and hurtful and brings about the insult where none ever exhisted. It is keeping that insult alive and claiming more meaning than the actual definition that was intended. And for those that claim progressive for the elimination of the insult, actually supports regressive to keep that meaning alive.
[edit]
Sorry, didn’t mean you assuming responsibilites, but of others to assume the rsponsibilites of course. Grammar is my second language and im too old to be learned,
[/edit]
