 |
 |
> Seriously, I'm not enthusiastic about putting hexes on words, or issuing > arbitrary and unilateral dicta about which words are to be considered taboo > or "offensive." It's only a call for euphemism, which has been tried and > never works. More often than not it perpetuates or worsens the very problem > it was meant to ameliorate. A more constructive approach is to develop some > new words, and if they're indeed better than the old words, then they'll > catch on and be used. Happens all the time, and this is the natural way for > language to develop. > > pat sloane I have to agree with this approach. The desire that many in this discussion have expressed for "objective" terms for groups is probably impossible. Prof. Lloyd's little book Demystifying Mentalities analyses this problem quite usefully. Such terms as "gentiles" or "pagans" are reductive categories constructed by others in order to create a sense of difference, and always, it would appear, with a strongly ideological motivation in mind. Reducing one's opponents to a simplistic category like "pagans" strengthens one's own sense of identity and at the same time gives it exclusive status that automatically valorizes that identity. In reality, reducing the situation to "us" and "them" simplifies the situation at both ends of the equation. Rather than trying to get rid of all these ideological constructions, in the end it seems more valuable to me to try to understand why and how they occur and foster a critical perspective on them. Jim Bugslag PS I hope I haven't butchered Lloyd's ideas too badly here! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%