Apparently the expression can be traced back, however circuitously, to India:
That said, I think this phrase provides an interesting counterpoint to something like “niggardly.” “Holy cow” likely originated as a way for British colonizers to trivialize the religion of the folks they were colonizing; but I’ve never heard anyone from India object to it, and a bit of cursory Googling suggests that Hindus who are bothered by it are vastly, vastly outnumbered by ones who think it’s a nothingbu–er, it’s a trivial concern.
Given these circumstances, I won’t worry about it.
Contrast that to “niggardly,” which 100% doesn’t have a racist etymology; but I know there are plenty of people of all races who will at the very least be irritated by my using the word. So I won’t use it.
The etymology and origin of terms are interesting, but ultimately beside the point: it’s the impact on modern audiences that matters.
Personally, as a social worker myself, I really wish people would stop trying to police language and focus instead on changing systems from the bottom up. I’m not talking about obviously prejudiced phrases like “Indian giver” but things like this where you really have to squint to see their point. Or worse, forcing language changes on people against their own self-professed identity. Was anyone really asking for this change?
The only issue I can pick out of “field work” has nothing to do with race per se, but maybe the idea that we, the social workers, leave this privileged space to go into a less privileged space like kids doing voluntourism. But even that’s a stretch.
I don’t really see the objection either , but while “practicum” might work as a replacement for “field placement” in a curriculum , it’s not going to be a replacement for “going into the field” or “field work” for people who are out of school and who need to distinguish their work in the office from their work in the community.
They don’t really give much reasoning, do they? I assume it’s something like, “field work” is what scientists call it when they go out and study animals in their natural habitats, so social workers calling what they do “field work” is like calling the people they’re helping animals.
I was thinking about this because there’s an old country band I like called Alabama. They have so many songs about picking cotton because that’s how they grew up. Their parents were cotton farmers in the South. But I bet some would take offense to any reference to cotton picking whatsoever.
My understanding of “indian giver” was that it dated back to the era where European Americans would trade the Native Americans out of their land and valuables, unfairly, receiving and not giving back or promising to give something and then failing to do so. The dishonest “giver” is not the Native American.
You should not give to the Indians how your ancestors did.
I understand the desire to retire the phrase but it might make more sense to replace it with a better version that more clearly points to the bad agent.
This is my reaction as well. In fact, I always thought « field work » was a term of approval : seeing how things really work, once you get out of the ivory tower, where all the abstract theorizing goes on.
Instead, adopt a Latin term? What happened to movements for more straight foreword English?
I’m really struggling to follow the reasoning here. If any word that has an association - regardless of specificity - with slavery is potentially triggering, doesn’t that imply that we must find new words for cotton, chains, whips, ships, etc.?
My understanding was that it was due to a cultural confusion, in which in at least some specific tribes it was normal to be given something that the giver wasn’t using at the moment, but then to go take it back when one needed it and the person it had been given to didn’t need it – in other words, the basis on which things were given was that they were to be given again in their turn, including back to the person who had them previously. The Europeans instead were going on the cultural tradition that a gift once given became the new owner’s entirely, and that expecting to take it back was horribly rude; and they either didn’t recognize a difference in cultural behavior, or more likely they were sure that their way was Right and so any other way was Wrong. So they used “Indian giver” to mean a person who went back on their promises, and whose gifts couldn’t be trusted.
Yeah, and I think a part of their reasoning has to do with immigrant history too. My early days of education were really doing a deep dive into the plight of the migrant farmworker, you know, the people who put food on our tables. But I think due to their location they are also worried “field work” might be triggering to migrant farmworkers.
But field work is honorable work. It’s not the work that is the problem, it’s the exploitation. I could maybe see an activist saying, “You think you’re doing field work? Why not come down here and do hard labor and get exposed to pesticides, that’s real field work!”
For some phrases associated with them, maybe. My own (very liberal) mother unreflectively used the comedic expression “cotton-pickin’ hands” (as in “get your cotton-pickin’ hands off me”, probably originating in a euphemism for “motherfuckin”) all her life. I’m quite sure she didn’t think of it as an unfeeling allusion to the plight of Black people in the South subjected to slavery and later quasi-serfdom, but I nonetheless stopped using it myself because, you know, bit squicky.
I also nowadays wouldn’t use phrases like “field hand”, “sell down the river”, or “pick a bale a day”. That seems to me pretty much a no-brainer in terms of refraining from turning somebody else’s traumatic history into my sassy slang.
Similarly, I appreciate the fact that German people don’t use “humorous” idioms like “to make somebody wear a yellow star” to refer to casual ostracism or shunning, or “send them off in the cattle cars” to mean deportation. I think a lot of Americans would find that pretty ewww.
The use of “field work” in the sense of direct community engagement for social scientists and social workers seems to me a lot less problematic than those other terms, but I also don’t mind using a different word for it. Whether or not something bothers me personally is not the decisive factor in whether or not it should be considered acceptable usage.