Seeds of Wisdom: "Be master of your petty annoyances and conserve your energies for the big, worthwhile things. It isn't the mountain ahead that wears you out - it's the grain of sand in your shoe." -- Robert Service, writer
I'm not politically correct. If you are using the letters P and C together, you'd better be talking about something that has a hard drive and RAM. If you're looking at me down your nose and speaking to me in a haughty tone about acceptable (to whom?) language, get away from me.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not insensitive (at least I try not to be). I'm mostly aware that certain terms are loaded bombs. I do my best to avoid dropping them, but I'm not going to bend myself into an advanced yoga position just to appease what some unknown person or organization has decided is the correct term du jour.
A few years back, when I was attempting to start my own business (long story), I belonged to the NJ Women Business Owners. When they held their annual convention in Atlantic City, I carpooled and roomed with the president of our local chapter. Every time I used the word "girl" - as in "I know this girl," or "This girl at work," she would say, "woman, you mean woman." Well, if I'd meant "woman," I would have said "woman." It got very annoying.
I'm not comfortable with "woman," when I'm talking about people I know. "Women" are strangers, and always older than me. They are someplace else, separate from me. I can't explain it - it's just a concept in my mind. I don't think of myself as "woman." I'm one of the "girls," no matter how old I get.
Another woman (definitely a "woman"<g>) who belonged to the same organization, used to speak of "gals" to avoid, I presume, the word, "girls." She would say, "a gal I know."
Sorry, in my mind a "gal" is someone who wears a cowboy hat, boots and a fringed vest. Dale Evens was a "gal" - not me.
The problem is that we girls/gals/women have no nomenclature equivalent to "guys" - a friendly word that implies camaraderie. I use the word, "girls" in that sense, even though in meaning it's more equal to "boys." But men use "boys," with no negative connotation - "one of the boys," and "old boy network." Why can't we use "girls" in the same way?
Another thing that bothers me about "politically correct" terms is that they change with the seasons. What was correct yesterday, is now incorrect. What was incorrect last year, is now correct. How can these terms have meaning or imply respect, if they change with the capriciousness of hemline length?
When my mother was growing up, those people whose skin is brown or black, and whose ancestors most likely came from Africa (or more likely were kidnapped from Africa) were politely called "colored." I'm quite sure this term was not at all satisfactory to those who were called this, but at the time it was "politically correct."
When I was growing up, these people were referred to as "Negroes." Probably a more apt description since it is a race term, but I suspect it was too close to that other word, which I won't mention because it is legitimately an emotion-loaded word bomb.
IIRC there was a time in the late 60's early 70's when the term "Afro-American," came into use, but it was short-lived and then replaced with "Black."
At the initial transition I wasn't really comfortable with the term, "Black." It wasn't really an apt description in my mind. Not all people of that ancestry, have black skin, or even dark skin. It seemed a misnomer. But it became accepted, and "politically correct."
James Brown sang, "Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm proud!" That became an anthem and I became more comfortable with it because now the term had an association with pride. But I also came to learn that not all people of that race were equally happy with it.
At work (previous job), I spoke with a guy from Jamaica. I asked him why he had come to work on Martin Luther King's birthday when all the other workers of his race had taken off. He told me, I'm not Black."
Took me a moment to register this because his skin tone was very black, indeed. Seeing my puzzled expression he added, "I'm Jamaican." He identified with his country of origin rather than his race, and I found that very interesting. I thought it was somewhat profound, a very freeing notion.
Over the last few years, there has been another shift. Those who I had come to think of as "Blacks," or "Black Americans" - as some preferred - began to adopt the hyphen. They joined the ranks of "Italian-Americans," "Irish-Americans," "Polish-Americans" and now it seems that they prefer to be called "African-Americans."
Does that make me an, "English-Irish-German-Scots-Norwegian-American" or an "Anglo and something else-American?" Have we gone too far with this referral to ancestry syndrome? Why can't we all simply be Americans and stop at that? Why do we feel this need to sub-categorize ourselves?
Speaking of Americans, we then come to "Native Americans." Sorry, I don't get this. I understand why those descended from the original people who were here when the Europeans arrived don't want to be referred to as "Indians." That, after all, was a genuine misnomer.
Columbus was searching for a shorter route to India, didn't realize that there was a whole other huge land mass in the way, and thought he'd landed in India. He thought he was dealing with "Indians," as in those people who live in India. I can understand the confusion, but I can also understand why the people indigenous to this continent rejected the term.
The invading ones didn't give them much choice over the next few centuries. They were Iroquois, and Sioux, and Algonquin, and Apache and Seminoles and Lenni-Lenape. All separate tribes with separate cultures bonded loosely by a respect for nature and the land, yet the upstart conquerors called them all "Indians," and had little respect for anything it seems. But today we lump all the various tribes of those remaining into one term, "Native Americans" - another misnomer.
My Webster's defines the word "native" variously as "belonging to a particular place by birth," and "one born or reared in a particular place." By those definitions, I am also a native American.
Calling those who can trace their ancestors back to this place from before Columbus (or Leif Erickson, if you are so inclined) "Native Americans," strips them of whatever pride in their tribal origins they have left. They are no longer Iroquois, or Sioux, or Algonquin, or Apache or Seminole or Lenni-Lenape, they are lumped together under the term "Native Americans" just like they were under the term "Indians." Same insult, different word.
If we are talking about pride, let them pick one that restores the pride we have taken away from them or call them simply Americans like everyone else who was born here no matter where they trace their ancestry to. Let us not continue to condemn them to terminology reservations as their forebears were to real time reservations.
I think back to my Jamaican co-worker and I think he has it partly right. We need to think less in group terms if we are ever to accept and understand one another.
As we take small steps into the 21st century and the 2nd Millennium, we need to stop grouping ourselves under racial, national and religious banners and start thinking of ourselves in a more global manner. We all have one thing in common - one common starting point - we are all human beings. Doesn't matter what color skin we have or what our national origins are. Doesn't matter what religion we subscribe to. We are all citizens of planet Earth.
Our earth is in danger now more than ever. We are using resources way too fast. We are pushing what is probably a natural climate shift too fast. Global warming? Another Ice Age? Pollution in vast amounts. Tampering with nature. Ignoring large areas of poverty and ignorance.
If we lose the earth, we may also lose ourselves as a species, and yet we quibble over "politically correct" terms. If we stop quibbling and start thinking of ourselves as people, human beings, perhaps we can put our collective minds to other uses. Like addressing global problems instead of nits.
I think we choose to deal with the nits because the nits appear easier to deal with. They are less threatening. Less overwhelming.
But we can only hide the nits under new names or pretend they no longer exist once we've renamed them, for so long. We can't really solve any problems with a fashionable name. If we forget about the nits, they will blend into the whole picture. But we have to see the whole picture, not just the nits.
We need to look at the forest and forget about the trees.
Posted by Cyberkat at March 9, 2002 12:34 PM