3 ms·

Master has a history in English long before the Transatlantic slave trade. The original sense in English meant "teacher": https://www.etymonline.com/word/master

Master has a history in English long before the Transatlantic slave trade. The original sense in English meant "teacher": https://www.etymonline.com/word/master#etymonline_v_9692 https://www.etymonline.com/word/master#etymonline_v_9692 It is very disengenous (and Americentric) to suggest we should revise our language just because of one event. That's simply giving more ground to the wrongdoers. Slave owners only used the word because of its existing connotations, after all. Its ok to have a master copy, it is desirable to master your soul, someone might be of high station and therefore a master. Etc. It is a useful word. We shouldn't aim to limit the range of expression or accuracy of our words.

softwarebeware 5y ago
That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage. White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .
- trackflak 5y ago
  It's a good enough reason for me. My language is older than American slavery and it will probably outlive the memory of it; I am not American and I do not relate to the history at all. I won't surrender my language and speech to largely imagined grievances. My fear is just that, if I forbid certain words because of a rule that can be widely and arbitrarily applied, then I begin to surrender my thinking to outside arbitrary forces. It isn't worth it. And I'll take the bait. We avoid the N-word because it is a pejorative, intended to diminish its subject. But no one uses "Master" as a pejorative the same way they might use the infamous N-word. The word has a much longer history, wider scope of meaning and wasn't invented as a pejorative (rather it is a compliment!). It is very possible to use "Master" in a sense that it isn't possible to use the "N-word". Would you provide me with an objective definition of "problematic", and if I find other common words that meet that definition some point in the past, in any country between any group, will you stop using them?

softwarebeware 5y ago

That logic always seems to fall apart for me. Of course words have had different non-problematic uses over time, before and after a problematic usage. But that doesn't negate the fact that it does and did have a problematic usage. White people who want the ability to say the n-word often use a similar argument. ("It's only problematic [when/if]...") .

trackflak 5y ago
It's a good enough reason for me. My language is older than American slavery and it will probably outlive the memory of it; I am not American and I do not relate to the history at all. I won't surrender my language and speech to largely imagined grievances. My fear is just that, if I forbid certain words because of a rule that can be widely and arbitrarily applied, then I begin to surrender my thinking to outside arbitrary forces. It isn't worth it. And I'll take the bait. We avoid the N-word because it is a pejorative, intended to diminish its subject. But no one uses "Master" as a pejorative the same way they might use the infamous N-word. The word has a much longer history, wider scope of meaning and wasn't invented as a pejorative (rather it is a compliment!). It is very possible to use "Master" in a sense that it isn't possible to use the "N-word". Would you provide me with an objective definition of "problematic", and if I find other common words that meet that definition some point in the past, in any country between any group, will you stop using them?