[WikiEN-l] Content, reason and the ArbCom

Thu Jun 23 15:27:56 UTC 2005

On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> 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.

These particular examples are not about "whims and fashions of the
day" but a people who have historically labeled in a derogatory manner
and who have no simple identification term attempting to find
something they can live with.

The two groups you named have names from the time they were created
and get a lot out of the fact that they are historic. On its own
printed matter the UCNF refers to its mission as supporting
"historically black" college and uses the term "African American" (no
hyphen). The NAACP also uses the term "African Americans." Just
because they keep historic names does not mean that they have not seen
it fit to change their overall terminology.

This is not about "herd instinct" in the slightest, and this is a
lousy example. One should in these cases, especially with issues which
have LONG histories of abuse, try to be a bit respectful. If using
your judgment to pick out the best term ("Black" and "African
American" and "people of Africa descent" are all known to be
acceptable as polite terms if used in good faith) based on the
definition of "polite" of the day (or, in this case, the last 20 years
or so) is too much for your brain to handle, I can't imagine how you
possibly get through the day. There is nothing that irritates me more
than people using the ridiculous excuse that they "can't keep up" or
"can't be expected to remember" or things like that with this
particular case when honestly there have been a total of only five or
six "changes" and the last one was twenty years ago. Hopefully you are
capable.

> 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.

We learn, and we continue to learn. Our language is not static, and
neither are we. This is not rocket science, don't act as if it is
truly difficult. If you want to insist on your own labelings and
terminology -- fine. But don't pretend it is difficult to keep track
of, unless you travel from country to country every different day of
the week.

FF