#128 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday August 27)
Good morning,
NAMES
I am trying, seriously, not to foot-fault on the minefield of politically correct terminology. Try as I might, I can’t still get it right. Apparently, people no longer are homeless; they now are “houseless” (because wherever it is they live, it’s still their home) or “people without homes.” We’re doing better than vagrancy but, honestly, is this last step necessary? Sadly, I fear we are spending more time debating the correct terminology than solving the problem.
Then there are the words of James McWhorter:
"I heartily approve of the modern usage of 'they' ... I also like the call to replace 'slave' with 'enslaved person.' Slave can indeed imply a certain essence, as if it were a status inherent to some people. Enslaved person points up that the slavery is an imposed condition. The distinction matters given how central, sensitive, and urgent the discussion of slavery is in today’s America,.”
He goes on, "But according to counsel from Brandeis University’s Prevention, Advocacy & Resource Center, or PARC, considerate people must go further: Apparently, we must retire 'victim,' 'survivor,' 'trigger warning,' and 'African-American' too. We must do so, that is, if we seek to ignore some linguistic fundamentals while also engaging in distinctly callow sociological calisthenics. When we are to even 'consider' avoiding the word prisoner (try person who was incarcerated) or walk-in (because not all people can walk) and the phrase everything going on right now (I’ll leave you to find out what’s wrong with that one), we are being preached to by people on a quest to change reality through the performative policing of manners."
I get “Latino” and “Latina” (although I know that some would argue they are Hispanic or even Chicano. Whatever word they use to describe themselves is, of course, fine with me. But I can’t be blamed for choosing one that the individual I’m addressing hasn’t adopted (that said, one should try to follow their guidance, when known; although it can get confusing and sometimes there is a slip of the tongue). Then there’s the matter of trying to “de-gender” words. It seems unnecessary to constantly de-gender in all contexts. Is it an affront to non-binary people to refer to “Men” and “Women” or to provide an introduction to “Ladies and Gentlemen”? These seem simple and reasonable shorthand for addressing a room comprised 99%+ by these people. Again, we should use the words chosen by the person we’re addressing in the personal context, but must we in all contexts be required to acknowledge the myriad possibilities of gender. For common usage, absent a specific individual, can’t we use a shortcut? For the record, I have yet to meet someone (other than an EDI trainer) who uses the phrase “Latinx” in regular speech.
We need to spend more time seeking racial equity and less time policing each other on what we consider to be the correct pronouns to be used in the absence of specific direction of a person being addressed directly.
GOODBYE CLEVELAND INDIANS
While we’re at it, I’m sad to see the Cleveland Indians go the way of all flesh. The baseball team now will be known as the “Cleveland Guardians.” While this is the result of an exhaustive inquiry and much-debated resolution of the name, it feels to me like a name by committee or a name to be the least objectionable. The “Guardian” moniker apparently is a reference to two statues on a bridge of little import, largely unknown and not considered significant by most Clevelanders.
I’ll miss the Indians of Bob Feller and Bob Gibson. And while I respect that there are those Native Americans who objected to the name, I can’t really understand why naming a beloved representative of the city after the “Indians” (notwithstanding that the name derives from a European error in determining the true ethnicity of the Native Americans) is anything other than respectful. Sure I accept that logos with silly grinning caricatures are not okay. But the name itself? And if that’s not OK in our hyper-sensitive environment, what of the City of Indianapolis? Or the town of Shoshone? Or the State of Indiana?
Have a great day,
Glenn
Click here to subscribe to Musings.
From the archives: