Is the word pygmy offensive? I would like to hear the opinions of the great minds of the SDMB. I predict that in the next few years it will be put on the list of words that one should not use in polite conversation. This question was inspired by the observation of a Pygmy Nuthatch earlier this week. I suspect it will soon be renamed the Lesser Nuthatch or something similar.
That’s “Differently Equal Mental Health Facility”, thank you very much.
In certain cultures I do believe the word Pygmy is offensive. Like The Martian Colony of Zweebdoe or perhaps certain North american Yeti tribes. The Pygmy Hippopotamus has no opinion one way or another.
I do believe there is a song about “Short People”. Perhaps it will be deleted from the memory banks from anyone who’s ever heard it.
Seriously, this world is Nukin Futs. Perhaps we shouldn’t ask “what we CANNOT SAY?” instead ask, “what CAN WE SAY?”.
Thanks for your sagacious and deeply considered input. Perhaps you can get a a guest slot to perform your routine on the Fox News Comedy Hour.
“Pygmy” isn’t offensive to the degree that some other terms for people with diminutive stature, and it does have a technical meaning in zoology (referring to populations of animals capable of interbreeding with standard-sized animals of the same or adjacent species), but from an anthropological sense it is questionable at best, having been applied by European explorers and colonists to a wide range of African native populations with distinct ethnic heritage and phenotypical characteristics, and despite the fact that the word is not used by these populations to refer to themselves. (Pygmy has its roots in the Greek pygmaios.) “Pygmies” is also frequently used as an implied insult or to indicate someone of lower social stature or intelligence, which is exactly how the Batwa, M’benga, and Bambuti populations were portrayed in the British (and presumably Dutch and Belgian) press.
I suspect the use will continue in zoological circles for its technical accuracy divorce from the anthropological usage, but I would personally avoid its use in other contexts in the same way we generally avoid the term “Indian” to refer to Native American/First Nations people because of the baggage it carries and disregard for what remains of the distinct and diverse cultures of these people.
Stranger
We are a tall family. Except one.
Pygmy was her nickname.
Recently she divulged how it made her feel ‘less than’ and kinda hurt her feelings.
I agree, it’s going to be considered a pejorative term when applied to a person who has a ‘height impairment’.
Apparently the new release of Mary Poppins carries a warning due to use of the word Hottentot, which is de trop for similar reasons.
See
While I understand the term to be offensive, I don’t speak with any authority as all my understanding is second-hand. Can we summon @MrDibble? The perspective of a South African person of color is surely essential to this discussion.
Anyone who takes that song at face value is not listening closely.
Regardless of the roots of the word “pygmy”, which may be respectable enough, the use of the word over recent years has polluted it to the extent that it’s best to avoid it. I notice that what used to be called the “pygmy chimpanzee” is now invariably called the bonobo, and I suspect the name “pygmy hippopotamus” will go the same way.
I became acutely aware of the issue of nomenclature a few years ago when writing Lost Wonderland and included the story of Alize Espiridiona Cenda del Castillo , who went by the stage name of Chiquita. Back in her day (the early 20th century) and even in my youth she would invariably have been called a “midget” or a “dwarf”. I had to be careful to avoid using any such terms.
We should ask what the “pygmies” themselves think of the term:
Arguably the solution is to use their own name for them, as has been done with other ethnic groups (and short individuals), but then a lot of people don’t know who you’re talking about.
Not offensive. But that won’t stop some people from being offended by the word.
I’ve long thought of it as problematic and avoided the use. (In fact, I thought it already was universally regarded as deprecated nomenclature. ) Not that that’s difficult, as I don’t usually, or really ever, talk about that subject.
If by “next few years”, you mean “decades ago”. It was already known to be problematic back when I was in elementary school in the 80s.
Eh? I’m as closely related to the shorter people of Equatorial Africa (SPoEA) as you are, my opinion has no more weight than any non-SPoEA.
Having said that, SPoEA have themselves indicated they don’t like the term, so I’ve stopped using it entirely to refer to them, myself, the last few years. Even if the author/s of the paper that describes how they hate the term can’t bring themselves to do the same:
The one characteristic that is common to them all, regardless of their location or degree of acculturation, is their disdain for the term “pygmy”. Without exception, they prefer to be called by their appropriate ethnic name, such as Mbuti, Efe, Aka, Asua, and consider the term “pygmy” as pejorative.
I have no issue using it for other animals, where it’s an adjective.
Maybe, “bonopotamus”?
This raises a question. You mentioned one ethnic group of short statured rainforest dwelling peoples that have traditionally had the term “pygmy” applied to them. There are a number of other such groups - some come from nearby, in the Congo, and are related (or perhaps not; genetic evidence has given mixed results and research is ongoing); others come from further away, even outside of Africa.
Obviously when speaking of individual ethnic groups, it would be more appropriate to refer to them by their specific group name.
When speaking in a historical context, you could certainly reference the people who would have been called “pygmies” at the time.
But to what extent is the group, “people who live in the rainforest and are shorter on average”, actually representative of a genuine connected phenomenon?
It seems to me that the overarching category of “pygmy” is dubious at best. It seems more likely that there are a number of unconnected groups of people across the world’s tropical regions who, over tens of thousands of years, had the average height of their population decrease due to a number of environmental factors.
To better explain what I mean - there are a number of populations of people who are adapted to extreme heights. Tibetians, Ethiopians, Andeans, and other groups of people have real physiological differences that help them live on top of mountains, in lower oxygen environments than most humans. But we don’t invent a category called “Mountainfolk” and group all these different people with different adaptations into one intrinsic label (other than the descriptive group, “people who live on mountains” - but that notes what they all do in common, it doesn’t mean that they all are the same thing intrinsically).
As I understand it, the mechanism behind the short stature differs across these different groups of “pygmies”. So I think a lumping term for the group is not especially useful, because the grouping it describes is arbitrary, not a real signal of interconnectedness.
And similarly, while the “Mountainfolk” all have adaptations to living at higher altitude (and therefore with less oxygen), they don’t all have the same adaptations.
I’m sure you’re joking, but Bonobo was a local word for the animal, so maybe they will call the pygmy hippo by a local word.
I think the term fits the hippos better than bonobos, though. The “pygmy chimpanzee” paniscus is not actually very much smaller than Pan troglodytes, at least not compared to the pygmy hippo vs the full sized version.
In animal husbandry, it’s used often for goats. For sheep, horses and cattle the preferred term is miniature.
Speaking of insulting names…