posted
Stepping back a way, I also heard about brainstorming being outlawed, but I was instructed to use the term ideas-storming. I was also told that I was hideously un-PC because I use the term chav. I have to put up with all of the offensive gay-bashing that never actually bothered me though.
quote:Trainee teachers are being told to avoid the word for fear of offending pupils with epilepsy. Instead they are being advised to use "word storm" or "thought shower".
However, charities working with epilepsy say "brainstorming" is not offensive. "We had several inquiries from teachers about it so we did a survey of our residential home," said Gemma Baxter from the National Society for Epilepsy.
"We also contacted people with epilepsy in the community and the overwhelming response was that 'brainstorming' implies no offence to people with epilepsy, and that any implication that the word is offensive to people with the condition is taking political correctness too far."
posted
[benway] I stand corrected over asiatic then. I'd generally assumed the terms 'asian' and 'south east asian' to be geo-centric, like 'black' could be 'african'. I meet and know plenty of black people, but wouldn't say that they were of African appearance - I'd say they were black, which removes the redundant historical element.
Posts: 7733
| IP: Logged
posted
yeah man I'm x ing all over the shop. Ok, by redundant, what I mean is that race and geography aren't neccesarily tied, and words like 'oriental', and 'south east asian' tie people into geography based on their genetic heritage.
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: yeah man I'm x ing all over the shop. Ok, by redundant, what I mean is that race and geography aren't neccesarily tied, and words like 'oriental', and 'south east asian' tie people into geography based on their genetic heritage.
Many ethnic groups though, in the US anyway, seem to take pride and place stock in identifying themselves according to their geographical origins -- Italian-American, Irish-American, Asian-American (meaning East Asia), African-American. Perhaps Americans (to offer a gross generalisation) have a greater sense of or need for history and heritage.
I thought "Oriental" was far more outdated and offensive than "South East Asian", primarily because "Oriental" is a term applied by the Occident to the mysterious, seductive, strange, dangerous land that isn't the same as 'us' -- it is a way of dividing up the world into self and other, and it was the West that did the categorising.
posted
of course, 'oriental' is a bad word. I know what you mean about national pride. But, 'east asian' could cover a massive number of nations, and it describes history rather than the present tense. You don't know the degree to which somebody identifies with their 'native' culture. Ideally, cultural heritage is a personal thing, and shouldn't be pre-supposed. As ben said, it's all about context. In terms of picking out somebody's physical features, asiatic works. If somebody is connected to korea, malaysia, china, japan, etc, then it's up to them to determine the degree to which they feel connected with that place, and it's not right for you to suppose the bond. What really bothers me is the degree to which we make assumptions of social and economic positioning based upon race.
posted
BUT I agree with you that 'oriental' is bad. It is a word to describe the 'other'. But if your grandparents were from South Korea, and both you and your parents were from the States, then really it's your perogative to identify with South Korea. I can't believe that people would identify with 'South East Asia' any more than they would 'Europe'. I guess I wouldn't be offended if I was hanging out in south east asia, and people saw me as European, but the issue here isn't really about how we view everybody else in the world, but rather, how we view the various members of our own society, however wide we feel that to be.
[ 16.02.2006, 18:06: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
quote:Originally posted by ben: Was the talk by a colleague or by an external consultant of some kind? A lot of these "guess what's pc now" things that get chucked around are culled from tabloids like the Daily Mail, which clearly rail at not being able to 'speak as they find' (ie. calling a black man 'boy' etc)
Being in a public body, appalling financese like "inputs and outputs" tend to be the chief irritant.
As I have a lot of shit to do, I can't read the rest of the thread, but just to reply to Ben.
I'm currently getting my stage2 in teacher training (certEd, here I come!) and it is indeed not a good thing to say, "Brain storming" any more... "Mind shower" or "Idea Soup" are now the 'right' things to say... So says our teacher.... Er I mean, 'facilitator' (not 'teachers' anymore either, don't'cha know?)....
Fucking PC shit! Right, off to promote strip joints and finish shopping carts for florists!
tata!
-------------------- Evil isn't what you've done, it's feeling bad about it afterwards... Yield to temptation. It may not pass your way again. Posts: 3793
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I had a vague idea that "coloured" was just a more genteel way of saying black, a bit like "sofa" instead of "settee". This is what happens when you're brought up in Dorset and have only seen about four real live black people by the age of 18. I have gathered since that it's a bit old-fashioned, but is it really that offensive?
In the states, 'colored' is probably only second to n***** in its offensiveness. Not advisable for use by whites unless you have a particular desire to have your cracker ass whooped.
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: You don't know the degree to which somebody identifies with their 'native' culture. Ideally, cultural heritage is a personal thing, and shouldn't be pre-supposed. As ben said, it's all about context. In terms of picking out somebody's physical features, asiatic works. If somebody is connected to korea, malaysia, china, japan, etc, then it's up to them to determine the degree to which they feel connected with that place, and it's not right for you to suppose the bond.
I know what you mean, but in practice what's the best way of negotiating this process of identifying people in terms of ethnicity?
Actually I was just trying to think of examples and perhaps it's not so difficult: if I wanted to know a colleague's ethnic/national identity for any reason, I could ask them (where is your family from... what's your cultural background... what do you 'identify as'"). Although perhaps even asking someone implies that they're "other", in that I'm saying they're different from the norm of white Englishness, and so have some heritage that needs to be specified: "you're dark-skinned, so what exotic background do you have?"
I suppose the best approach is still to ask the other person how they see themselves and what they call themselves, though... if such an occasion comes up when you have to describe them in ethnic terms, rather than by their name, their job title, their personality traits and all the other information you have about them that bears little relation to their ethnic background.
I wonder what it was I read when young that formed the vague impression that "coloured" was in some way politer? Perhaps because it has 1950s connotations of a time when you could go out without locking your door, and teenagers had more respect etc etc? I think I found the term "black" and especially "the blacks" quite blunt somehow, and "coloured" seemed gentler. Odd. If I'd thought about it a bit harder, and recognised it was something that would easily come out of my nan's mouth, I should have realised it was a no-no.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
not...
You reached over with your hand and knocked my Jap over
posted
Surely in broad terms it's just: Black White Asian Dunno look like a bit of a mixer
Posts: 4183
| IP: Logged
not...
You reached over with your hand and knocked my Jap over
posted
Actually I just copped out of that one there because I didn't know how to describe someone who is indian/pakistani in broad terms.
On CBB I heard Dennis Rodman describe the bird who shagged Sven as "persian" which I'd never heard before, *small-voice* ...maybe that is correct??
Posts: 4183
| IP: Logged
posted
"Persian" sounds nice and exotic, but it's the old name for Iran, and that Sven-shagger was born in Bangladesh. Maybe Rodman's got brain damage due to blood poisoning from all those sexxy tattoos.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
posted
Just a thought, but does the police classification race description classification, which is non-descript but to those in the know (IC1, Caucasian; IC2, Mediterranean; IC3, Black; IC4, Indian/Pakistani; IC5, Japanese/Chinese; IC6, Arab/Egyptian) also count as racist? I imagine that the numbering system was based on a pro rata basis when developed in the 50's (more white skinned than mediterranean skinned, moree mediterranean than black people) yet could this be construed as an racist due to the numbering?
I'm just wondering when something which was invented to avoid slurs is acccused of the very same thing due to the numbering? Shame really as if a more rememberable system could be agreed then all this this tip-toeing could be avoided.
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I wonder what it was I read when young that formed the vague impression that "coloured" was in some way politer?
I believe "coloured" was the approved term (by liberals and black people) for black people in the 1970s, but acceptable terms for black people changed regularly and dramatically over the 20th century: "Negro", "black", "Afro-American", "coloured", "African American" were all entirely OK (ie. officially not-racist) words to use at different times since the 1950s, I believe. I have the suspicion that "African American" has now been replaced but can't think of the newer suggestion.
quote:Originally posted by Waynster: Just a thought, but does the police classification race description classification, which is non-descript but to those in the know (IC1, Caucasian; IC2, Mediterranean; IC3, Black; IC4, Indian/Pakistani; IC5, Japanese/Chinese; IC6, Arab/Egyptian) also count as racist? I imagine that the numbering system was based on a pro rata basis when developed in the 50's (more white skinned than mediterranean skinned, moree mediterranean than black people) yet could this be construed as an racist due to the numbering?
I'm just wondering when something which was invented to avoid slurs is acccused of the very same thing due to the numbering? Shame really as if a more rememberable system could be agreed then all this this tip-toeing could be avoided.
What, we should refer to people as One, Three and so on? I think you'd need a lot of numbers (or perhaps decimals. or fractions!) to cover the diversity of ethnic heritage.
The use of IC1 for Caucasian is a bit like how in the DC Universe, when the superheroes discovered there was an alternate parallel world, they called it Earth-Two and named themselves Earth-One even though Earth-Two was 30 years older. Lol!
quote:Originally posted by Skalski: In many cases, it is the commonplace derogatory mis-usage of a word (see origins of 'nigger') that turns it into anathema.
Not sure about this one. The word "nigger" was used "neutrally" to refer to black people by white people -- ie. it wasn't thought of as, or intended as offensive -- but that neutral use was within a social structure whereby those white people thought they were inherently superior to the black people.
Are you sure about that, Kovacs, in all cases? It seems rather a generalisation to say that whenever a white person uses the term "nigger" that they are always being neutral.
I've heard the term used offensively more than once.
-------------------- May I recommend the donkey in the bus shelter with a baseball bat? Posts: 344
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Purple Monkey Dishwasher:
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by Skalski: In many cases, it is the commonplace derogatory mis-usage of a word (see origins of 'nigger') that turns it into anathema.
Not sure about this one. The word "nigger" was used "neutrally" to refer to black people by white people -- ie. it wasn't thought of as, or intended as offensive -- but that neutral use was within a social structure whereby those white people thought they were inherently superior to the black people.
Are you sure about that, Kovacs, in all cases? It seems rather a generalisation to say that whenever a white person uses the term "nigger" that they are always being neutral.
I've heard the term used offensively more than once.
I think Kovacs was talking about when the word first came into use rather than now.
Posts: 1583
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic