Version
COMMENTARY
ET CETERA
DISPATCHES
LISTS
FEATURES
CORRECTIONS
MAILBAG
REVIEWS NEUNER
OLEAR
RICHARDS
STERNE
MASTHEAD
CONTACT
SUBMIT
SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVES
WORDS' WORTH
PC jargon a game of musical chairs
At the Democratic National Committee winter meeting on February 2, newly elected chair Terry McAuliffe used the term "colored people" when he meant to say "people of color."
Democratic people of color jumped to his defense, claiming the faux pas was an innocent slip of the tongue.
The media reported the malapropism, but did not take McAuliffe to task. His acceptance speech, after all, was a rallying cry for "diverse candidates. Union members, women, Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, Gays and Lesbians -- we want you as candidates and we want you to run our campaigns." Not the sort of stuff you would hear Gov. Jim Gilmore spewing.
What if the same mistake had been made by, say, Orrin Hatch, or Trent Lott, or -- Heaven forfend -- John Ashcroft? The media would have had a field day.
"Racially insensitive," they would have called him, or, "not a supporter of civil rights." Not once, I bet, would any of the objective media members publicly question the inanity of the offense.
Too often, the issue of diversity in this country focuses on political correctness. We play musical chairs with the language, taking away words one by one until there are not enough left to express what we wish to express. And the remaining words are often clunky, nonsensical, or vague -- the PC lexicon teems with such words.
Those of us who wish to be culturally sensitive behave like Junger in Ursula K. LeGuin's sci-fi classic The Left Hand of Darkness -- socially forbidden to speak directly about anything.
Obviously, we all should treat one another with respect, regardless of skin color, religious belief, or Y-chromosome makeup. That I even have to include the preceding sentence in this column shows just how preposterous the situation has become.
Political correctness is well-intentioned propaganda. The goal, I suppose, is to end, or at least curtail, discrimination by demonstrating respect. But is saying "colored people" instead of "people of color" disrespectful? Has the NAACP changed its name to the NAABP (or, better yet, the NAAAAP)?
What's the difference between "colored people" and "people of color," anyway? On the face, both mean exactly the same thing -- "people who are not white." But the former was in widespread use before the civil rights movement and is therefore considered derogatory.
Which set up an onomastic conundrum. "Colored people," when you get right down to it, is a pretty good way to say "people who are not white" -- as civil rights leaders later realized by coining "people of color."
It's quite the linguistic problem. So many chairs taken away, there's no place to comfortably sit.
Take the word "chick." English is sorely lacking a colloquial word for "young woman," a feminine form of "guy." "Chick" is the closest we come, and while many young women accept the term, others find it offensive, presumably because the word's primary definition is "baby chicken."
But when we say "chick," is the intention to offend or to employ a less clunky expression than "young woman?" If the purpose is to insult, "female dog" is more effective than "baby chicken." And young women have little in common with baby chickens, just as young men have little in common with felonious British anarchists. Yet "guy" derives from Guy Fawkes, whose execution for treason is a national holiday in England.
One more chair we can no longer sit on.
"Oriental" is another taboo term -- unless you're describing a rug, that is. The word is the adjective form of "orient," a word dating from the 14th century that means "East." The term "Oriental," meaning "someone from the East," has been in use since Marco Polo. The Americas and Europe are collectively referred to as the West, and its culture as Western. Wherefore the 86-ing of "Oriental" from polite speech?
Its preferred substitute, "Asian," is overly vague. Whereas an Oriental is someone of Japanese, Chinese, or Korean descent (or some combination thereof), "Asian" means "someone from Asia," which is roughly half the people on the planet. Which doesn't really narrow it down. We might as well say "Terran."
The same is true of "African-American." White South Africans, Egyptians and other Arabs of the Maghreb, Cape Verdeans, and other non-blacks of African descent living in the U.S. are, by definition, African-Americans. Conversely, black Cubans and other Hispanics, Haitians, West Indians, and other blacks of non-African descent are NOT African-American. Yet the term is used as a synonym for "black."
When we're talking about black people and white people, we're talking about skin color. And if we're talking about skin color, let's talk about skin color. Let's not deflect the issue with a blanket term that doesn't make sense.
Some words have been commandeered, words like "gay" and "queer." The former is acceptable; the latter is not. Which makes sense. Better to be happy than odd. But the primary meaning of the word "queer" remains "differing in some odd way from what is usual or normal." And there are times when the primary definition is the one you wish to use. Unfortunately, we're no longer allowed to.
Another chair taken away (and "Deck the Halls" forever spoiled).
Then there is this business of groups using words that are considered derogatory to their own group.
Black men, for example, use the n-word among each other in place of the pronoun "he." The rap industry is particularly fond of the n-word; one of the seminal rap groups is N.W.A., an abbreviation non-blacks are socially forbidden to spell out. Yet when Quentin Tarantino uses the n-word in his films, he is villified by Denzel Washington for being racially insensitive.
I understand the power of language. I understand re-appropriating derogatory words. I understand that women can use the c-word, and blacks can use the n-word, and gays can name a radical advocacy group Queer Nation. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. If words are offensive to you, eliminate them from your vocabulary. Don't use them inclusively and then bristle when someone like Tarantino parrots your speech.
In George Orwell's 1984 the party leaders sought to quell dissidents by eliminating individualistic language from speech. The idea was that people cannot act if they cannot communicate. PC terminology, which only masquerades as progressive and liberal, is no different than what Orwell describes. We are removing words from the language, and by so doing, silencing many well-intentioned people who wish to engender harmony.
If we are afraid to say the wrong thing, we will avoid the topic. And it's a topic that needs to be addressed, openly, without fear of reprisal. Kids especially should be encouraged to speak their mind about race, sex, ethnicity, homosexuality, prejudice, and bias. How will they learn if we don't talk to them? And how can we talk to them if there aren't enough words to go around?
By Greg Olear
021301