Dear John, "Chairperson" implies that the Western European dominant white male patriarchal hegemonic preference for sitting on specific usually wood-hewn (and often extremely phallic) furniture items as opposed to the lotus pose, large cushions as found in middle eastern cultures, or the tracksuited parking-lot half-squat of Slavic cultures is associated with the wielding of power in a boardroom.... etc. etc. These people will never stop and never admit to the idea of a "true, clean, neutral term". As I think Douglas Murray put it recently "Dante had it wrong, there's always another circle."
Years ago, before Twitter and Instagram, I read an article about an antiracism initiative on campus that called for "naming, shaming, and reframing" racist attitudes and systems. It made sense at the time. In the intervening years, we seem to have stopped at the "shaming" segment without moving on to any kind of reframing or rebuilding. I suspect that "shaming" is just too easy and too much fun. No one wants to move beyond it to something more constructive. Work is hard, fingerpointing is easy.
“Person who lacks housing”, fairly neutral albeit wordy. I’ve heard the term “unhoused” being used, which to me makes it sound like they think of homeless people as stray animals.
Homeless = without home, nothing more. I don't buy the argument which frames this in terms of victimhood or volition in the first place. The ulterior meaning, the disparagement, is imaginary, it's simply not there.
@@larreye8451 As far as this audio transcriber can make out 'homeless' is the simplest, most accurate and neutral expression that we came to by no small evolutionary process. 'Homeless' was itself a genuine improvement on a lot of rather unkind pejorative terms (bum, derelict, vagrant etc). It changes nothing, certainly not for 'domicile challenged persons.'
I've spent over a decade living in cars, and calling me something other than homeless doesn't give me running water, electricity, and a comfortable bed to sleep in. If affordable housing was a thing, at least there would be fewer people being called homeless. A guy working at the Circle K I shop at works full-time and he's also living in his car. There are way too many people who work full-time and still can't afford a place to live. I hate euphemisms, just don't harass me for sitting in my car, minding my own business, and I'm fine.
I'm a simple man - whenever I see a new video with John McWhorter I click. (Which now gave me the first comment AND like to this video, but I'm sure others will follow in my bold footsteps)
"A'int". Here in the UK. It's informal, it's common, but considered 'incorrect' in formal speech. It is common in many dialects. It has no connection with any black British speech. My point maybe is that the policing of language doesn't always work across different countries and their own use of English.
“Ain’t” in the standard US English is also used for emphasis and not merely as a substitute for “am not”, “aren’t” or “isn’t” by Blacks and everyone else. Policing its use would be impoverishing the language
In my industry we have terms like "master branch" where you check in code to the master branch and "race condition" which means two variables are updating a value at different times and returning a different result each time. I got scared once, using the term "race condition" even though it is a real term used in computer science, when explaining something, to someone that isn't as computer science savvy, in fear that they may take it the wrong way, if catch my drift. When I was in the Army, and we need to jump off a truck, because of low battery or whatever, we would say "go get the slave cables". Again, a term everyone in the Army uses.
I am seeing what it used to be the “master” branch be named “main” - there was no need to changed it but in this case they found an OK, non ridiculous substitute
The want of people these days seems to be to swap the terms “master” and “slave” with “parent” and “child”… which, given that they’re intended as synonyms, is ironically almost more problematic for explicitly equating the two (I should hope) distinct social dynamics.
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Eli Wiesel "Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali “There is a huge difference between being tolerant and tolerating intolerance.” (Avaan Hirsi Ali) “I have seen great intolerance on the name of tolerance” Samuel Taylor Coleridge “The Paradox of Tolerance Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.” Karl Popper “The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently.” Harvey Fierstein
To be consistent, if it is 'correct' to use 'Afro-American' to describe those with a black skin, then 'Euro-American' should describe those with a white skin, instead of 'white'. Then we have 'people of colour'. So why not whites as 'people of no colour'? Conversely, as it is standard practice to call white people just 'whites', then why not blacks, blacks as once used to be the case?. If 'white is not a racist term, then why is 'black' so judged.?
The term "negro" seems to be having somewhat of a comeback, at least to those of the progressive far left. In a recent debate at MIT on the subject of DIE (diversity, inclusion, equity) debater Pamela Denise Long consistently used "negro" to differentiate black Americans who were descendants of slavery from other black African peoples who are not descendants from slaves. At least that was my understanding of her use of that term.
Ok so there was an agent involved in enslaving a person, but that agent was in most cases an African slave testing kingdom raiding a village in Africa. So if your point is to bring attention to the enslaving the agents, other Africans. then fine !
Found this talk and the discourse afterward enlightening and thought provoking without leaning into biased rhetoric one way or the other.... Until the last question. When the questioner and Dr. McWhorter engaged in the most unscientific demeaning and derisive language, ironically describing and simultaneously erasing the identity of not just trans men and non-binary folk, but intersex people, who make up a demonstrable 2-6% of the human population -including me. Disappointed. The glaring fatal error in logic that either failed to see was about as bright as a supernova; it is not a zero sum game. The same principles apply to women as apply to black people and all others who have been systematically oppressed: Dr. McWhorter's entire talk was about the pitfalls of the policing of language and at the very end fell into the very pit he warned about. He, himself observed that [paraphrasing] (some) people will perceive the extensions of the idea of using language in non-sexist ways (which is helpful to society) to "see slurs in as may ways of expression as we can." (which is harmful and more about the self) -The questioner is NEVER going to be referred to as a pregnant person; she is a woman and is, as Dr. McWhorter discussed inventing offence. Further, he states quite clearly that she is telling on herself here as in this case I submit that the term 'pregnant person' is not the issue, for no matter what word or term is chosen, this person's core belief structure will not change despite what you call a 'pregnant person' whom she believes 'diminishes women' -and isn't that her real issue? Not the language, but the existence of those she deems threatening to her. ...and sadly, Dr. McWhorter chuckled and gave her the equivalent of a verbal hand job which completely refuted his entire talk and wished us a good day. Do with this what you will.
What these language managing people and institutions get wrong is that language is not embodied/emotional/relational experience. Bottom-up experience. Changing thought or language is impotent to change a population. A population has to mature gradually over time with much struggle. A point that both sides of the isle seem to perennially deny or forget
One problem is overloading existing words with resonances not inherent to them. The selection of chromatically different persons to be the hereditary serfs means that in US history and history in the Americas , to say "slave" is to auditorily resuscitate the face-off which ended in African submission. Let's try instead of slave (f./m.)>>>bondwoman/bondsman! But if instead of saying "white woman", we said "white wench" or instead of (slightly violent -blunt) "black woman" we said "melanated miss" or "Negress" or "Africaness", you can see how shades of meaning or resonances 1/ reveal things about the attitude of the speaker and 2/could strike the ears/heart/dignity of the person thus referred to totally differently. "White actress">>>"pallid prostitute" , "black actress" >>>"sable starlet". We could go on infinitely, it--verbal and other violence, or euphemism for that matter--is like Pointillism in painting , each dot is tiny, but every dot contributes to the impression caused by the aggregate.
Not wanting to be pedantic, bondsman or bondswoman is archaic and the word has an entirely new contemporary meaning. I think the term is broader including in other contexts arrangements by which men and women sold or rented their bodies and labour. I am sure you do not mean to euphemise away the hideous suffering of black Africans stolen to the US to be brutally treated as slaves.The two words mean different things.Then your main point was very entertaining but your use of such exotic words, some not even plausible synonyms and some anachronisms, reasoning to extremes to raise a 'pointillist' vision whose lesson I simply don't understand, all seems to support the idea that words should be subject to individual needs rather than serving the whole as strictly utilitarian. If the word 'slave' riles so it should and we all should be similarly fretful over the word 'black,' but the simple fact is we all need both words to call a spade a spade.i guess I am wondering what it is you are about here.
@@hinteregions Thanks for your thoughtful response. I meant to say that words have shades of meaning such that I take issue with casting into the dustbin of history the meanings that the majority is unaware of. As for my use of exotic words, I want to affirm the rights of words to be exotic, to not be cancelled just because they are not the most used in common parlance.
@@mahaliagayle2618 Gracious of you, I rather thought 'confused.' I get where you are coming from. 'Forums' and 'fora' are both acceptable but 'fora' is considered antiquated - but not archaic. Who knows or cares in 2023? By now I think we can give up on many of our more interesting and beautiful specialist tools when most people cannot manage a stock phrase, never mind 'plain English' (I've always thought this was a dreadful term). The futility of this endless neurotic sanitising, bureaucratising and euphemising of our language is worse when the 'wisdom' is 'received' from jackasses who don't even know the meaning of the terms they are buggering up. People are confused on top of a rapidly burgeoning new ignorance. A while back one of my anit-woke crusader idols, last person you'd ever think, told me 'race' is part of an outmoded classification system. It isn't, it's common parlance and it's fine for biologists to talk now in terms of 'populations' because they have shared context, but we the laity can't make ourselves understood with 'population' when we are talking about race and of course if 'race' is now proscribed so too is 'racism.' Anti-population, selective population aversion, population challenged - not working for me 😁
It's not just language. They told us in teachers' college that students are upset when they get tests back with red ink all over them. Their solution? Use green ink. Didn't occur to them at all that the students might be upset at failing a test that has actual impact on their future academic and career paths. Students were upset at getting an 'F' on an exam. Solution? Use 'E' instead. Now it's 'R'. John is much more generous of spirit than I am; no matter how 'good' a place this idiocy is coming from, it's still idiocy. From a Marxian perspective, it's a difference between base and superstructure. Cultural norms, institutions, conventions of language, etc., are all formed by, moulded by, the actual material base of the way society is set up to produce wealth. If society were organised around human needs instead of the profits of a few, and if there were no profit in hyper-exploiting parts of humanity and then dividing us against each other to stop us from coming together to fight our exploitation, there would be no cultural stigma attached to nonsense differences among people. Stigma against the victims of a capitalist society who are made homeless (when six empty houses exist for every homeless person) is moot if you don't allow homelessness. But you need homelessness as a threat to coerce low-wage, high-exploitation labour out of people. Change the system, and the word 'homeless' won't be a sneer. The famous 'n'-word existed as an inoffensive, descriptive variant of the Latinate word for 'black' for almost two centuries before it was recorded as derogatory. What happened between its first recorded use in 1574 and its first sneering use by 1755? Slavery, in a word. The hyper-exploitation of Africans in the British Empire. England helped destabilise the Songhai Empire in the 1590s, leading to the widespread trade in slaves from West Africa. The use of the word in English changed to a sneer because 'white' people could see the degradation of 'black' people in everyday life. There was no derogatory use of the 'n'-word in English before that time because there was no *occasion* or *justification*, materially, for an attitude of condescension. Imagine a world in which 'black' people's lives were materially indistinguishable from everyone else's, where great gaps of wealth and opportunity and education and so forth just don't exist. If a 'white' person tried to use the 'n'-word in a derogatory, rather than just a descriptive, tone, would it have any real impact on the life of the object of condescension? If someone calls me a name but doesn't have any more power, wealth, or status than I do, what do I care? It has no structural power to hurt; all it would be is some guy, my equal, calling me a name. I can call him one back, or laugh it off, or whatever suits me. The word only has the power it does because we attach real, material, concrete subordination to it.
Fascists want and NEED to be normalized. Not listening to warnings about the growth of fascism is exactly the thing that helps them. McWharter could not be more wrong. “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Eli Wiesel "Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali “There is a huge difference between being tolerant and tolerating intolerance.” (Avaan Hirsi Ali) “I have seen great intolerance on the name of tolerance” Samuel Taylor Coleridge “The Paradox of Tolerance Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.” Karl Popper “The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently.” Harvey Fierstein
Acknowledging the natural progression of language is one thing, but we should not justify progression that stems primarily from illiteracy. People should be held to high linguistic standards.
I appreciate the topic of willfulness. Some people are trying to be offended for entertainment. Other people downplay legitimate, obvious offence. There is a middle ground where an actual debate can occur. I was surprised when John once said that we could retire the word "niggardly". But, I get it. It is not crazy to say that. Take down the Robert E Lee statue. Don't move the racist rock in Madison. Work for a reasonable middle space.
Why bother with the painstaking work of solving complicated problems? It could take years and involve cooperation with folks who we dont agree with. Policing language is a performative, easy, quick gratification. Fragmenting, paralyzing and sanctimonious though it may be... its so much more satisfying. Working on problems and changing language can go hand in hand. Unfortunately we are served the language project as a substitute for hard work. Sadly it may impede the very human writing, debate, thought and cooperation we need.
Dear John,
"Chairperson" implies that the Western European dominant white male patriarchal hegemonic preference for sitting on specific usually wood-hewn (and often extremely phallic) furniture items as opposed to the lotus pose, large cushions as found in middle eastern cultures, or the tracksuited parking-lot half-squat of Slavic cultures is associated with the wielding of power in a boardroom....
etc. etc.
These people will never stop and never admit to the idea of a "true, clean, neutral term". As I think Douglas Murray put it recently "Dante had it wrong, there's always another circle."
I love the analysis. There is a way to work through these issues that is not knee-jerk in either direction.
Years ago, before Twitter and Instagram, I read an article about an antiracism initiative on campus that called for "naming, shaming, and reframing" racist attitudes and systems. It made sense at the time. In the intervening years, we seem to have stopped at the "shaming" segment without moving on to any kind of reframing or rebuilding. I suspect that "shaming" is just too easy and too much fun. No one wants to move beyond it to something more constructive. Work is hard, fingerpointing is easy.
“Person who lacks housing”, fairly neutral albeit wordy. I’ve heard the term “unhoused” being used, which to me makes it sound like they think of homeless people as stray animals.
Homeless = without home, nothing more. I don't buy the argument which frames this in terms of victimhood or volition in the first place. The ulterior meaning, the disparagement, is imaginary, it's simply not there.
"Unhoused" also sounds like they've been displaced, as in a war.
What does it change to the fact?
@@larreye8451 As far as this audio transcriber can make out 'homeless' is the simplest, most accurate and neutral expression that we came to by no small evolutionary process. 'Homeless' was itself a genuine improvement on a lot of rather unkind pejorative terms (bum, derelict, vagrant etc). It changes nothing, certainly not for 'domicile challenged persons.'
I've spent over a decade living in cars, and calling me something other than homeless doesn't give me running water, electricity, and a comfortable bed to sleep in.
If affordable housing was a thing, at least there would be fewer people being called homeless. A guy working at the Circle K I shop at works full-time and he's also living in his car. There are way too many people who work full-time and still can't afford a place to live.
I hate euphemisms, just don't harass me for sitting in my car, minding my own business, and I'm fine.
WOW! This is a BRILLIANT presentation!
This is one incredibly smart, and amazingly lucid speaker.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Wonderful! Thank you
Thank you so much for sharing this ❤ man is a pioneer
Thank you for existing.
Amazing comment.
I'm a simple man - whenever I see a new video with John McWhorter I click.
(Which now gave me the first comment AND like to this video, but I'm sure others will follow in my bold footsteps)
"A'int". Here in the UK. It's informal, it's common, but considered 'incorrect' in formal speech. It is common in many dialects. It has no connection with any black British speech.
My point maybe is that the policing of language doesn't always work across different countries and their own use of English.
“Ain’t” in the standard US English is also used for emphasis and not merely as a substitute for “am not”, “aren’t” or “isn’t” by Blacks and everyone else. Policing its use would be impoverishing the language
This is art!
In my industry we have terms like "master branch" where you check in code to the master branch and "race condition" which means two variables are updating a value at different times and returning a different result each time. I got scared once, using the term "race condition" even though it is a real term used in computer science, when explaining something, to someone that isn't as computer science savvy, in fear that they may take it the wrong way, if catch my drift.
When I was in the Army, and we need to jump off a truck, because of low battery or whatever, we would say "go get the slave cables". Again, a term everyone in the Army uses.
I am seeing what it used to be the “master” branch be named “main” - there was no need to changed it but in this case they found an OK, non ridiculous substitute
The want of people these days seems to be to swap the terms “master” and “slave” with “parent” and “child”… which, given that they’re intended as synonyms, is ironically almost more problematic for explicitly equating the two (I should hope) distinct social dynamics.
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
Eli Wiesel
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
“There is a huge difference between being tolerant and tolerating intolerance.”
(Avaan Hirsi Ali)
“I have seen great intolerance on the name of tolerance”
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
“The Paradox of Tolerance
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
Karl Popper
“The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently.”
Harvey Fierstein
I dispute that the word police are 'well-intentioned'. The goal is power, not only over what is said, but what is thought. Hideous.
To be consistent, if it is 'correct' to use 'Afro-American' to describe those with a black skin, then 'Euro-American' should describe those with a white skin, instead of 'white'. Then we have 'people of colour'. So why not whites as 'people of no colour'? Conversely, as it is standard practice to call white people just 'whites', then why not blacks, blacks as once used to be the case?. If 'white is not a racist term, then why is 'black' so judged.?
The term "negro" seems to be having somewhat of a comeback, at least to those of the progressive far left. In a recent debate at MIT on the subject of DIE (diversity, inclusion, equity) debater Pamela Denise Long consistently used "negro" to differentiate black Americans who were descendants of slavery from other black African peoples who are not descendants from slaves. At least that was my understanding of her use of that term.
They really feel the pressure from african (and other PoC) immigrants who prove their whole bogus theory wrong.
Ok so there was an agent involved in enslaving a person, but that agent was in most cases an African slave testing kingdom raiding a village in Africa. So if your point is to bring attention to the enslaving the agents, other Africans. then fine !
Found this talk and the discourse afterward enlightening and thought provoking without leaning into biased rhetoric one way or the other.... Until the last question. When the questioner and Dr. McWhorter engaged in the most unscientific demeaning and derisive language, ironically describing and simultaneously erasing the identity of not just trans men and non-binary folk, but intersex people, who make up a demonstrable 2-6% of the human population -including me. Disappointed. The glaring fatal error in logic that either failed to see was about as bright as a supernova; it is not a zero sum game. The same principles apply to women as apply to black people and all others who have been systematically oppressed: Dr. McWhorter's entire talk was about the pitfalls of the policing of language and at the very end fell into the very pit he warned about. He, himself observed that [paraphrasing] (some) people will perceive the extensions of the idea of using language in non-sexist ways (which is helpful to society) to "see slurs in as may ways of expression as we can." (which is harmful and more about the self) -The questioner is NEVER going to be referred to as a pregnant person; she is a woman and is, as Dr. McWhorter discussed inventing offence. Further, he states quite clearly that she is telling on herself here as in this case I submit that the term 'pregnant person' is not the issue, for no matter what word or term is chosen, this person's core belief structure will not change despite what you call a 'pregnant person' whom she believes 'diminishes women' -and isn't that her real issue? Not the language, but the existence of those she deems threatening to her. ...and sadly, Dr. McWhorter chuckled and gave her the equivalent of a verbal hand job which completely refuted his entire talk and wished us a good day. Do with this what you will.
What these language managing people and institutions get wrong is that language is not embodied/emotional/relational experience. Bottom-up experience. Changing thought or language is impotent to change a population. A population has to mature gradually over time with much struggle. A point that both sides of the isle seem to perennially deny or forget
Everyone is a person , there is no need to use person such as worker 'person' or homeless' person' ... Most of these changes are not needed ...
One problem is overloading existing words with resonances not inherent to them. The selection of chromatically different persons to be the hereditary serfs means that in US history and history in the Americas , to say "slave" is to auditorily resuscitate the face-off which ended in African submission. Let's try instead of slave (f./m.)>>>bondwoman/bondsman! But if instead of saying "white woman", we said "white wench" or instead of (slightly violent -blunt) "black woman" we said "melanated miss" or "Negress" or "Africaness", you can see how shades of meaning or resonances 1/ reveal things about the attitude of the speaker and 2/could strike the ears/heart/dignity of the person thus referred to totally differently. "White actress">>>"pallid prostitute" , "black actress" >>>"sable starlet". We could go on infinitely, it--verbal and other violence, or euphemism for that matter--is like Pointillism in painting , each dot is tiny, but every dot contributes to the impression caused by the aggregate.
Not wanting to be pedantic, bondsman or bondswoman is archaic and the word has an entirely new contemporary meaning. I think the term is broader including in other contexts arrangements by which men and women sold or rented their bodies and labour. I am sure you do not mean to euphemise away the hideous suffering of black Africans stolen to the US to be brutally treated as slaves.The two words mean different things.Then your main point was very entertaining but your use of such exotic words, some not even plausible synonyms and some anachronisms, reasoning to extremes to raise a 'pointillist' vision whose lesson I simply don't understand, all seems to support the idea that words should be subject to individual needs rather than serving the whole as strictly utilitarian. If the word 'slave' riles so it should and we all should be similarly fretful over the word 'black,' but the simple fact is we all need both words to call a spade a spade.i guess I am wondering what it is you are about here.
@@hinteregions Thanks for your thoughtful response. I meant to say that words have shades of meaning such that I take issue with casting into the dustbin of history the meanings that the majority is unaware of. As for my use of exotic words, I want to affirm the rights of words to be exotic, to not be cancelled just because they are not the most used in common parlance.
@@mahaliagayle2618 Gracious of you, I rather thought 'confused.' I get where you are coming from. 'Forums' and 'fora' are both acceptable but 'fora' is considered antiquated - but not archaic. Who knows or cares in 2023? By now I think we can give up on many of our more interesting and beautiful specialist tools when most people cannot manage a stock phrase, never mind 'plain English' (I've always thought this was a dreadful term). The futility of this endless neurotic sanitising, bureaucratising and euphemising of our language is worse when the 'wisdom' is 'received' from jackasses who don't even know the meaning of the terms they are buggering up. People are confused on top of a rapidly burgeoning new ignorance. A while back one of my anit-woke crusader idols, last person you'd ever think, told me 'race' is part of an outmoded classification system. It isn't, it's common parlance and it's fine for biologists to talk now in terms of 'populations' because they have shared context, but we the laity can't make ourselves understood with 'population' when we are talking about race and of course if 'race' is now proscribed so too is 'racism.' Anti-population, selective population aversion, population challenged - not working for me 😁
This is madness. 1984 Newspeak is upon us.
What ever happened to "hobo"? "tramp"?
PREAAAAACH
It's not just language. They told us in teachers' college that students are upset when they get tests back with red ink all over them. Their solution? Use green ink. Didn't occur to them at all that the students might be upset at failing a test that has actual impact on their future academic and career paths. Students were upset at getting an 'F' on an exam. Solution? Use 'E' instead. Now it's 'R'. John is much more generous of spirit than I am; no matter how 'good' a place this idiocy is coming from, it's still idiocy. From a Marxian perspective, it's a difference between base and superstructure. Cultural norms, institutions, conventions of language, etc., are all formed by, moulded by, the actual material base of the way society is set up to produce wealth. If society were organised around human needs instead of the profits of a few, and if there were no profit in hyper-exploiting parts of humanity and then dividing us against each other to stop us from coming together to fight our exploitation, there would be no cultural stigma attached to nonsense differences among people. Stigma against the victims of a capitalist society who are made homeless (when six empty houses exist for every homeless person) is moot if you don't allow homelessness. But you need homelessness as a threat to coerce low-wage, high-exploitation labour out of people. Change the system, and the word 'homeless' won't be a sneer. The famous 'n'-word existed as an inoffensive, descriptive variant of the Latinate word for 'black' for almost two centuries before it was recorded as derogatory. What happened between its first recorded use in 1574 and its first sneering use by 1755? Slavery, in a word. The hyper-exploitation of Africans in the British Empire. England helped destabilise the Songhai Empire in the 1590s, leading to the widespread trade in slaves from West Africa. The use of the word in English changed to a sneer because 'white' people could see the degradation of 'black' people in everyday life. There was no derogatory use of the 'n'-word in English before that time because there was no *occasion* or *justification*, materially, for an attitude of condescension. Imagine a world in which 'black' people's lives were materially indistinguishable from everyone else's, where great gaps of wealth and opportunity and education and so forth just don't exist. If a 'white' person tried to use the 'n'-word in a derogatory, rather than just a descriptive, tone, would it have any real impact on the life of the object of condescension? If someone calls me a name but doesn't have any more power, wealth, or status than I do, what do I care? It has no structural power to hurt; all it would be is some guy, my equal, calling me a name. I can call him one back, or laugh it off, or whatever suits me. The word only has the power it does because we attach real, material, concrete subordination to it.
Fascists want and NEED to be normalized. Not listening to warnings about the growth of fascism is exactly the thing that helps them. McWharter could not be more wrong.
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
Eli Wiesel
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
“There is a huge difference between being tolerant and tolerating intolerance.”
(Avaan Hirsi Ali)
“I have seen great intolerance on the name of tolerance”
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
“The Paradox of Tolerance
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
Karl Popper
“The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently.”
Harvey Fierstein
Acknowledging the natural progression of language is one thing, but we should not justify progression that stems primarily from illiteracy. People should be held to high linguistic standards.
I appreciate the topic of willfulness. Some people are trying to be offended for entertainment. Other people downplay legitimate, obvious offence. There is a middle ground where an actual debate can occur. I was surprised when John once said that we could retire the word "niggardly". But, I get it. It is not crazy to say that. Take down the Robert E Lee statue. Don't move the racist rock in Madison. Work for a reasonable middle space.
Stop trying to reshape the English language; it's been here long before you activists.
Memo RIZE
Why bother with the painstaking work of solving complicated problems? It could take years and involve cooperation with folks who we dont agree with. Policing language is a performative, easy, quick gratification. Fragmenting, paralyzing and sanctimonious though it may be... its so much more satisfying. Working on problems and changing language can go hand in hand. Unfortunately we are served the language project as a substitute for hard work. Sadly it may impede the very human writing, debate, thought and cooperation we need.
Jig is up!!!!! Sounds racist