4 ms·
Many good points and I agree with all of them except for the last: it's probably not just a US problem although it's the most visible at the moment. Ironically
by linza 6y ago
Many good points and I agree with all of them except for the last: it's probably not just a US problem although it's the most visible at the moment.
Ironically to me, these efforts are to be more inclusive but I can't see any of that. I can see that the purpose is to evoke these discussions, and in that sense the effort to change the language is not pointless: by having these changes adopted the movement can point at successes to show it was taken seriously at least once.
We are at the opposite pendulum swing now.
- rich_sasha 6y agoI think the problem as posed, and the vocabulary being banished, are unique to the US, though of course racism and discrimination are not. If I think of other major racial or ethnic conflicts of the recent times (Israel/Palestine, Rohingya in Asia, Balkan genocides, Hutu vs Tutsi, antisemitism, tensions between “original” and “migrant” societies in Europe), none of them are covered by the language being banished here. Also, the immediate searching for racial undertones in any phrase seems to be a purely American thing.
- sebazzz 6y agoThe language is certainly English specific. We call our male teachers in primary "master" which happens also to be the same term as "master used for slave masters. This makes it also difficult for some people who don't speak English natively to navigate that linguistic minefield.