[WikiEN-l] Content, reason and the ArbCom

Thu Jun 23 00:11:33 UTC 2005

JAY JG wrote:

> Sigh.  Until 40 years ago or so the word "Colored" for 
> "African-American" was used near-universally in the United States, and 
> was seen as "neutral" as well.  Before that the neutral and 
> near-universally used term was "Negro".  They're now seen as 
> offensive, though I'm sure some older users of the terms see (or saw) 
> their replacements as "nonsense" and a "POV lobby".  Regardless, I 
> imagine that none of the members of this list would use those terms 
> today, and there are many other examples of this kind of thing (e.g. 
> "Mohammedan"->"Moslem"->"Muslim"). 

Despite the current fad for the term "African-American" neither the 
United Negro College Fund nor the National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People have seen fit to change the names of their 
organizations.  I avoid the term "African-American" because a person's 
citizenship is not apparent in his racial features, and I certainly 
would not want to offend a non-citizen by calling him "American".  To me 
there is something offensive about a herd instinct that requires me to 
change my terminology to suit the whims and fashions of the day.

> Language changes, and English probably changes faster than most other 
> languages; usages that were once thought neutral are now seen to 
> contain inherent bias.  This has happened with other terms in the 
> past, and may be happening with BC/AD today. 

Language change is more complex than that.  We learn our terminology at 
different times and different places.  Paramount is its need to continue 
as an effective means of communication.  These formerly neutral terms 
may still be neutral in another place, or with another segment of the 
same society, or in different circumstances.  "Assuming good faith" 
includes assuming that the person using a particular term does so 
without intent to offend.  Only the context of his words will show the 
difference.

Ec