When is it rude to call someone "articulate"?
leno...@yahoo.com
I agree with those who say the word should be used with caution, since
it all too often reveals racism in the speaker. However, I wonder why
we would use it to refer to an adult at all. Why not use it only with
regard to children and just call adults "eloquent" or "non-eloquent"?
That is, it's not always adults' fault when they're uneducated or
poorly read, so you don't want to think of them as children just
because of that. If you follow me.
Lenona.
nospam
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/articulate unless you mean to call
someone #19 a segmented invertebrate I'm not sure why it would be insulting
or racist. I'm very well-educated and well-read, but I am not an articulate
speaker (#3 & 4) off the cuff. I prefer to think things through choosing my
words with care.
leno...@yahoo.com
It's just that in the media, I've heard of well-spoken black people
complaining that they get called "articulate" all the time when similar
white people don't - it's just taken for granted for them. Also, in an
article about some black basketball player, the writer pointed out that
Larry Bird (white, for those who don't know) is not articulate - but
that most writers would not be so rude as to say that in so many words,
because it would make him sound like an uneducated child.
Or, as Vernon Jordan's book title quotes a white man as saying, "Vernon
Can Read!"
Lenona.
Ericka Kammerer
I don't know. In my experience, adults of all varieties
get called articulate rather frequently, and almost *no one* gets
called inarticulate. Calling someone inarticulate is always
negative. Calling someone articulate is almost always positive,
regardless of their race/culture/background. It's only iffy
if the context indicates that one is surprised or damning with
faint praise--which happens with *many* different words when
uttered by people with that sort of attitude.
I would disagree with the premise that articulate is
rarely used to describe white people, and also with the premise
that it is frequently used in a racist manner. In fact, I can't
even think of a situation I've heard personally where the word
was used in a way that could be construed as pejorative.
I'm sure that it is true that racism (and other forms
of discrimination) result in *many* words being used in reaction
to inappropriate stereotypes. The problem is not in the word
itself, but in the attitude with which it's used. Are we also
to get rid of "well-dressed" and "handsome" and "literate" and
"polite" and a whole bunch of other words because they can also
be used in this manner? Normally I'm foursquare in the camp of
socially constructed meaning, but in this case I don't think that
this particular usage has really embedded itself in the word.
So, yes, I think that one shouldn't call someone
articulate unless one really *means* it (i.e., not as a
shorthand for "Wow, look at the black man who can speak
grammatically correct English"), but I don't think there's
anything at all problematic about describing someone who
has a particular skill at verbalizing ideas as articulate,
regardless of the persons race, education, or background.
Best wishes,
Ericka
leno...@yahoo.com
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
> I don't know. In my experience, adults of all varieties
> get called articulate rather frequently,
Different environments, I guess. *I* don't hear that word used to refer
to adults of any color in my personal life - or if I have, I've
forgotten it.
> I don't think there's
> anything at all problematic about describing someone who
> has a particular skill at verbalizing ideas as articulate,
> regardless of the persons race, education, or background.
I just think there's a significant difference between "articulate" and
"eloquent" that's similar the one between "polite" and "noble." That
is, IMHO, adults don't get called eloquent unless they're well above
the average adult in speaking/writing skills. Whereas being articulate
is something to take for granted, though in children, you have to
measure it according to the child's grade year.
Lenona.
ZedBanty
leno...@yahoo.com says...
I don't quite understand your repeated reference to children. Children are
sometimes commented on as articulate, although in such comments adjustments are
made for age.
Not to be articulate is to be lacking in a skill, period. It doesn't
necessarily, or even often, mean to refer to an immature state.
ZedBanty
Ericka Kammerer
> I just think there's a significant difference between "articulate" and
> "eloquent" that's similar the one between "polite" and "noble." That
> is, IMHO, adults don't get called eloquent unless they're well above
> the average adult in speaking/writing skills. Whereas being articulate
> is something to take for granted, though in children, you have to
> measure it according to the child's grade year.
I can't say that matches up with my experience.
First, I hear the phrase "highly articulate" more often
than "articulate" alone, which indicates to me that when
people use it, they *are* indicating a particularly high
degree of this quality. Second, even "highly articulate"
and "eloquent" don't always mean the same thing. One has
to do with the fluidity of speech and the ability to
translate thoughts/feelings into words well, while the other
has to do more with the persuasiveness or emotional impact
of the words. So, personally, I wouldn't just substitute
"eloquent" everywhere I'd say "articulate" or "highly
articulate," even when using the meaning of "articulate"
that is closest to "eloquent."
Even with your analogy, I don't think it's
damning with faint praise to call an adult polite, and
I wouldn't substitute "noble" for every instance that
I might use "very polite."
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
> I don't quite understand your repeated reference to children. Children are
> sometimes commented on as articulate, although in such comments adjustments are
> made for age.
She's using a rather limited definition of "articulate"
as meaning "competent at speaking," so calling someone "articulate"
is sort of like calling someone ambulatory. I just disagree with
the idea that articulate is only used in that limited fashion.
> Not to be articulate is to be lacking in a skill, period. It doesn't
> necessarily, or even often, mean to refer to an immature state.
I would agree. In fact, saying someone was "inarticulate
with shock/grief/surprise" is hardly unusual, and almost always
refers to an adult who is, in fact, competent in other situations.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Userb3
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> I agree with those who say the word should be used with caution, since
> it all too often reveals racism in the speaker.
If so, one must see racism everywhere. Why would teh word articulate have
any racial value whatsoever?
> However, I wonder why
> we would use it to refer to an adult at all.
Perhaps because they were articulate.
> Why not use it only with
> regard to children and just call adults "eloquent" or "non-eloquent"?
Because articulate and eloquent are different words with different
meanings.
> That is, it's not always adults' fault when they're uneducated or
> poorly read, so you don't want to think of them as children just
> because of that. If you follow me.
I'm lost. If I were to introduce you to a friend and say "John, I'd like
you to meet lenona. I know her through AFMM, and she's one of the
wittiest and most articulate people in the group", why would anyone get
the idea I thought you were a child or uneducated, much less asessing
blame for such a thing?
--
Stem Cells Save Lives
http://www.missouricures.com/
http://www.mypartytoo.com/
Userb3
news:1163690915.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> It's just that in the media, I've heard of well-spoken black people
> complaining that they get called "articulate" all the time when
> similar white people don't - it's just taken for granted for them.
Then the problem isn't in the word, its in the context. The offended
people in question feel they are being damned with faint praise. Without
an actual example, its imposible to tell whether this is the case, or
whether they are in fact simply being complimented, and they're letting
their own biases alter the meaning. I've seen instances of each.
But this sort of thing happens with any groups that historicaly didn't
acheive a particular status or acomplishment for whatever reason. In some
circles, people still marvel that male nurses can be so compassionate and
female CEOs can be so authoritative. Whether this is naivete or snide
undermining depends on context and one's perspective.
Userb3
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>> I don't know. In my experience, adults of all varieties
>> get called articulate rather frequently,
>
> Different environments, I guess. *I* don't hear that word used to refer
> to adults of any color in my personal life - or if I have, I've
> forgotten it.
I hear it regularly in book reviews, descriptions of public speakers, and
occasionally in editors comments on my own work.
> I just think there's a significant difference between "articulate" and
> "eloquent" that's similar the one between "polite" and "noble."
In both cases, those are pairs of words that don't mean the same thing.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>I just think there's a significant difference between "articulate" and
>"eloquent" that's similar the one between "polite" and "noble." That
>is, IMHO, adults don't get called eloquent unless they're well above
>the average adult in speaking/writing skills. Whereas being articulate
>is something to take for granted, though in children, you have to
>measure it according to the child's grade year.
I have been a member of Toastmasters international. I most
definitely do not take being articulate for granted. Too many are
not. That said, it usually does not take nearly as much effort as
some think to remedy the matter.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
ZedBanty
>
>leno...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1163689179.926375.271050
>@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I agree with those who say the word should be used with caution, since
>> it all too often reveals racism in the speaker.
>
>If so, one must see racism everywhere. Why would teh word articulate have
>any racial value whatsoever?
>
Because (ironically), it's one of those stereotyped-racist statements "he's a
very articulate Black man", like "some of my best friends are...". Because for
awhile there *were* a lot of incidents where these phrases and very similar ones
typically were used in a condescending or self-lauditory way.
It's all a matter of context. But anti-racist advocacy in its extremes can get
as presumptious as racism, and a person who truly can state that some of their
best friends are of another ethnic/racial group sometimes has to beware that
statement even in a perfectly valid context.
ZedBanty
Userb3
news:ejihs...@drn.newsguy.com:
> It's all a matter of context.
This sums up the entire matter, IMHO.
Miss Elaine Eos
ZedBanty <ZedBant...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns987D7FB3686...@207.14.116.130>, Userb3 says...
> >leno...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1163689179.926375.271050
> >@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> >> I agree with those who say the word should be used with caution, since
> >> it all too often reveals racism in the speaker.
> >If so, one must see racism everywhere. Why would teh word articulate have
> >any racial value whatsoever?
> Because (ironically), it's one of those stereotyped-racist statements "he's a
> very articulate Black man", like "some of my best friends are...". Because
> for
> awhile there *were* a lot of incidents where these phrases and very similar
> ones typically were used in a condescending or self-lauditory way.
I have to confess that I've never heard that usage before.
At any rate, I have to go with the side of no, it's never rude to
compliment someone on being articulate.
It WOULD be rude to call attention to their race, or some other slight,
such as "you're very articulate, for a nincompoop", but the rudeness,
there, isn't in the word articulate.
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Karen Wheless
> > get called articulate rather frequently,
>
> Different environments, I guess. *I* don't hear that word used to refer
> to adults of any color in my personal life - or if I have, I've
> forgotten it.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's frequent, but I've heard it quite a bit,
in my career. I work in science, and it's not uncommon for scientists
to be inarticulate, especially when it comes to speaking about subjects
other than their particular specialty.
In job interview type situations, I've sometimes heard people called
"articulate" meaning "they can communicate clearly, speak about a
variety of topics and answer questions without getting tongue-tied".
However, I've also heard it used in another way, as sort of a "code". I
once dealt with a headhunter who was very talkative - I could barely get
a word in edgewise. In my conversations with him, I think I spoke two
or three sentences in total. And yet, when he set up an interview for
me, the interviewer said "Mr. X said you were so articulate!" All I
could think was "how could he know, he never stopped talking long enough
for me to say anything." But based on this, and a few other things, I
think "articulate" was a code for "speaks understandably without a heavy
accent". I've heard other recruiters use the term that way too - and
maybe that's one reason the term doesn't have a very good reputation.
Karen
Userb3
news:1hoywz0.1mn783mi6xlcgN%karenw...@bellsouth.net:
> But based on this, and a few other things, I
> think "articulate" was a code for "speaks understandably without a
> heavy accent". I've heard other recruiters use the term that way too
> - and maybe that's one reason the term doesn't have a very good
> reputation.
>
As an exercise, I just went to Google News and did a search for the word
articulate, and then went to my local newspaper's search engine to find
uses of the word in their coverage. Every instance I found where the
word was not the name of an organization or company seemed to be a
straightforward description of someone who was well spoken. I'd be
intrigued to see if anyone could cite a current usage that was
otherwise.
Miss Elaine Eos
Userb3 <use...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that the confusion here stems from the fact that some people use
a mild compliment and twist its meaning to some sort of negative, as
when implying "...but that's their only skill" or "...a bit surprising,
considering the source" type of things. It's not too difficult to
imagine how someone might use "articulate" in this way, but I don't
think that it makes the word rude or derogatory, only that can be bent
to nefarious purposes.
Imaging substituting "well spoken" for any of the negative uses of
articulate. "He's pretty well spoken, for someone from India" or "she's
quite well spoken; I always thought she was dumber than that." It's not
the "well spoken" part that is the insult.
And so with "articulate."
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>I think that the confusion here stems from the fact that some people use
>a mild compliment and twist its meaning to some sort of negative, as
>when implying "...but that's their only skill" or "...a bit surprising,
>considering the source" type of things. It's not too difficult to
>imagine how someone might use "articulate" in this way, but I don't
>think that it makes the word rude or derogatory, only that can be bent
>to nefarious purposes.
And since that is a general tactic, it can be used with many
words.
>Imaging substituting "well spoken" for any of the negative uses of
>articulate. "He's pretty well spoken, for someone from India" or "she's
>quite well spoken; I always thought she was dumber than that." It's not
>the "well spoken" part that is the insult.
>And so with "articulate."
"polite" could be twisted into "not having initiative" since
polite people are usually not in-your-face.
JoAnne Schmitz
Google News will have a lot of results where the writers are aware of
certain phrases that put their readers on edge, though.
I just went to Google Web and searched on the following:
"articulate black"
about 10,200 pages
"articulate white"
about 346 pages
Even given that white is often the default assumption when describing a
person, that seems like a lot of results for "articulate black."
If you look at the "articulate black" results you see things like "he
speaks so well!" and "Articulate a racial slur?"
-JoAnne
--
Userb3
news:004vl291as0g1d5po...@4ax.com:
> If you look at the "articulate black" results you see things like "he
> speaks so well!" and "Articulate a racial slur?"
When I did the same search, ("articulate black", with quotes in Google
News) I got a grand total of three references. One Barak Obama, one
Michael Steele, and one Barak Obama and Deval Patrick. Each of these men
is someone who is notable for being an accomplished speaker, and as a
group, they are notable for being a type of black politician we didn't
often see until the past several years. They're certainly a far cry from
the Jesse Jacksons and Charles Rangels who preceded them in politics.
Their predecessors were often eloquent and frequently persuasive, but
lacked the same ability to articulate themselves or present a
sophisticated persona that characterize Obama et al.
Used in this context, referring to them as articulate is similar to
referring to them as handsome and charismatic. These are simply qualities
they posess, and a large part of their appeal.
cardarch
He is not skillfull with words. I am facinated with people who are.
It seems to me that they sometimes really have nothing important to
say, its just interesting to listen to them get from one idea to the
next. Actaully 2 white women come to mind from my aquaintances. I
cannot understand how the word can have racist connotations. LOL
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>news:004vl291as0g1d5po...@4ax.com:
>
>> If you look at the "articulate black" results you see things like "he
>> speaks so well!" and "Articulate a racial slur?"
>
>When I did the same search, ("articulate black", with quotes in Google
>News) I got a grand total of three references.
Why did you clip out the part where I said that Google News results come
from news sources, who have editors who know better than to use that term?
Search for "hot pussy" on Google News and you won't find that either:
Google Web:
Results 1 - 10 of about 894,000 English pages for "hot pussy"
Google News:
Your search - "hot pussy" - did not match any documents.
You get similar results for "n*gg*r lover". This actually argues against
the use of "articulate" to describe a Black person in polite society
because it's a phrase that news outlets consciously avoid.
>One Barak Obama, one
>Michael Steele, and one Barak Obama and Deval Patrick. Each of these men
>is someone who is notable for being an accomplished speaker,
Really? While I would give you Obama, and I don't know anything about
Patrick, Michael Steele isn't a particularly brilliant orator. He's
solidly average.
So why describe him as articulate? Maybe because you can understand what
he says even if you don't live or work with Black people.
(edit from an earlier draft mistakenly posted only to Userb3: the "you"
here is the general "you" and does not refer to Userb3 personally.)
>and as a
>group, they are notable for being a type of black politician we didn't
>often see until the past several years. They're certainly a far cry from
>the Jesse Jacksons and Charles Rangels who preceded them in politics.
>Their predecessors were often eloquent and frequently persuasive, but
>lacked the same ability to articulate themselves or present a
>sophisticated persona that characterize Obama et al.
>
>Used in this context, referring to them as articulate is similar to
>referring to them as handsome and charismatic. These are simply qualities
>they posess, and a large part of their appeal.
The term has come to have a connotation that many of us are not aware of.
Being unaware of it, or saying that it shouldn't matter, doesn't make it
not matter.
-JoAnne
--
Userb3
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), Userb3 <use...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>>news:004vl291as0g1d5po...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> If you look at the "articulate black" results you see things like
>>> "he speaks so well!" and "Articulate a racial slur?"
>>
>>When I did the same search, ("articulate black", with quotes in Google
>>News) I got a grand total of three references.
>
> Why did you clip out the part where I said that Google News results
> come from news sources, who have editors who know better than to use
> that term?
I was specifically looking for widespread and common uses.
> Search for "hot pussy" on Google News and you won't find
> that either:
>
> Google Web:
> Results 1 - 10 of about 894,000 English pages for "hot pussy"
>
> Google News:
> Your search - "hot pussy" - did not match any documents.
>
> You get similar results for "n*gg*r lover". This actually argues
> against the use of "articulate" to describe a Black person in polite
> society because it's a phrase that news outlets consciously avoid.
Unlike the word "articulate", neither of your examples are ever likely
to appear in any polite conversation. Surely you aren't suggesting
thatthe word articulate is on a par with these phrases?
> Really? While I would give you Obama, and I don't know anything about
> Patrick, Michael Steele isn't a particularly brilliant orator. He's
> solidly average.
I have only a limited exposure to Steele, so perhaps that was
overreaching. That said, the interviews and ads I have seen gave me the
impression he was well educated and well spoken. I may have given him
the benefit of the doubt due to his sense of humor
(http://www.steeleformaryland.com/ideasVideo.htm) and his status as one
of a handful of outstanding blacks in the Republican party. If I've
overstated his qualifications, I apologize, but I certainly wasn't
implying that there was anything unusual about a well-spoken black man
or anything lacking in Steele.
> So why describe him as articulate? Maybe because you can understand
> what he says even if you don't live or work with Black people.
>
> (edit from an earlier draft mistakenly posted only to Userb3: the
> "you" here is the general "you" and does not refer to Userb3
> personally.)
While it is possible tp use the word articulate with racist
connotations, those connotations derive from the context of the usage,
not the word itself. I see no reason to assume racist intentions in the
absence of other indicators.
Indeed, I teh primary reason to describe these men as articulate was in
the next paragraph of my prior post:
>>Used in this context, referring to them as articulate is similar to
>>referring to them as handsome and charismatic. These are simply
>>qualities they posess, and a large part of their appeal.
>
>The term has come to have a connotation that many of us are not aware
>of.
That hasn't been established, IMHO.
>Being unaware of it, or saying that it shouldn't matter, doesn't make
>it not matter.
While the offended party gets to decide what is offensive, society gets
to judge whether that offense is reasonable and justified.
As an example, I can't simply decide the word "red" is clearly
derogatory because some people use it to insult rural residents as
rednecks. If someone comments that my hair or beard have reddish
highlights, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they
are describing my hair and beard. If I should choose to take offense
because they are "clearly" insulting my rural background or Southern
accent, the insult is likely entirely in my mind.
Defending the word "articulate" isn't like trying to defend the
confederate flag or severely outdated ethnic labels. The word is still
in overwhelimingly popular use as a compliment to people of all ages,
ethnicities, and backgrounds. Unless the context makes it otherwise,
racist connotations reside in the eye of the beholder. If we should take
the alternate route, and refrain from giving the benefit of the doubt, I
don't see how we avoid crippling the language.
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>news:kb54m2plimiul7dgi...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), Userb3 <use...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>>>news:004vl291as0g1d5po...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> If you look at the "articulate black" results you see things like
>>>> "he speaks so well!" and "Articulate a racial slur?"
>>>
>>>When I did the same search, ("articulate black", with quotes in Google
>>>News) I got a grand total of three references.
>>
>> Why did you clip out the part where I said that Google News results
>> come from news sources, who have editors who know better than to use
>> that term?
>
>I was specifically looking for widespread and common uses.
And the fact that the use is widespread around the net but not on news
sources didn't say something to you?
>> Search for "hot pussy" on Google News and you won't find
>> that either:
>>
>> Google Web:
>> Results 1 - 10 of about 894,000 English pages for "hot pussy"
>>
>> Google News:
>> Your search - "hot pussy" - did not match any documents.
>>
>> You get similar results for "n*gg*r lover". This actually argues
>> against the use of "articulate" to describe a Black person in polite
>> society because it's a phrase that news outlets consciously avoid.
>
>Unlike the word "articulate", neither of your examples are ever likely
>to appear in any polite conversation. Surely you aren't suggesting
>thatthe word articulate is on a par with these phrases?
I selected them because they are extreme examples of the kind of thing that
news sources don't use because people find them offensive.
>> Really? While I would give you Obama, and I don't know anything about
>> Patrick, Michael Steele isn't a particularly brilliant orator. He's
>> solidly average.
>
>I have only a limited exposure to Steele, so perhaps that was
>overreaching. That said, the interviews and ads I have seen gave me the
>impression he was well educated and well spoken. I may have given him
>the benefit of the doubt due to his sense of humor
>(http://www.steeleformaryland.com/ideasVideo.htm) and his status as one
>of a handful of outstanding blacks in the Republican party. If I've
>overstated his qualifications, I apologize, but I certainly wasn't
>implying that there was anything unusual about a well-spoken black man
>or anything lacking in Steele.
The unusual thing about these Black men is that there are only three listed
on Google News.
>> So why describe him as articulate? Maybe because you can understand
>> what he says even if you don't live or work with Black people.
>>
>> (edit from an earlier draft mistakenly posted only to Userb3: the
>> "you" here is the general "you" and does not refer to Userb3
>> personally.)
>
>While it is possible tp use the word articulate with racist
>connotations, those connotations derive from the context of the usage,
>not the word itself. I see no reason to assume racist intentions in the
>absence of other indicators.
I wouldn't assume racist intent. But I wouldn't assume no racist intent,
either.
The source of the insult is the idea that a Black man is articulate if he
speaks like a White man.
>Indeed, I teh primary reason to describe these men as articulate was in
>the next paragraph of my prior post:
>
>>>Used in this context, referring to them as articulate is similar to
>>>referring to them as handsome and charismatic. These are simply
>>>qualities they posess, and a large part of their appeal.
>>
>>The term has come to have a connotation that many of us are not aware
>>of.
>
>That hasn't been established, IMHO.
I think there are many hits for "articulate Black" on Google that will
establish that it is perceived that way, whether it is intended that way or
not. For example:
============
http://www.diversityinc.com/public/113.cfm
Bea Perdue was excited. She and her boss at a Fortune 500 company were
driving back to the office after a very successful meeting with a major
client. Perdue's boss showered her with compliments about how well she
handled the client and the presentation.
Then it came. Perdue's boss, a white man, said the one comment that strikes
like a punch in the stomach for black women.
"He commented on how articulate I had been in the presentation," recalls
Perdue, now executive director of the Johnetta B. Cole Global Diversity &
Inclusion Institute at Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.
Perdue, who is black, was the only woman at the company who managed major
accounts. "I asked if he had ever commented to my three peers [all white
men] that they were articulate and well-spoken ... He gasped."
Comments that reveal surprise at a black woman's intellect, question a
Latina's ability to control her emotions or an Asian-American woman's
aggressiveness remain all too frequent in corporate America. Moving up the
ladder requires the ability to respond to these offensive stereotypes in a
manner that educates the speaker and prevents further comments without
appearing hostile or unapproachable.
http://www.mixedmediawatch.com/2006/05/24/he-speaks-so-well/
I was watching CNN this morning and they were doing a story on the trial of
John Allen Muhammed, the man accused of sniper attacks in 2002. John Lee
Malvo is the young man who was allegedly his apprentice/partner in the
attacks, and I swear to god within a two-minute story, the word
“articulate” was used at least five times to describe him.
The man is 21 years old. He’s not a child. He wasn’t raised by wolves.
There’s no reason he wouldn’t be articulate. Why is this always a label
ascribed to young black men? I think it’s definitely one of those subtle
forms of racism: people basically expressing surprise at the fact that a
young black man knows how to form whole sentences and use multisyllabic
words.
http://txfx.net/2005/09/27/articulate-a-racial-slur/
Ed of “Captain Ed”? gets his barnacles in a bunch after I called him out
for describing Michael Steele as “articulate”?, a phrase known throughout
American history as a way to damn succesful blacks (and even though I don’t
like Steele, being Lt. Governor is an achievement) with faint praise - such
as “we expected him to sound like Buckwheat but he really surprised us”? .
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/10/what_a_nice_man_and_so_wellspo/
Lord. "Articulate" is indeed code for "doesn't SOUND like a n----r." Used
to hear that all the time, until even in Mississippi it sounded too
blatant.
===========
I think "well-spoken" is more of a hot button phrase, but both seem to get
used for people who aren't really highly verbally gifted -- just able to
communicate with others in a normal fashion.
>>Being unaware of it, or saying that it shouldn't matter, doesn't make
>>it not matter.
>
>While the offended party gets to decide what is offensive, society gets
>to judge whether that offense is reasonable and justified.
Society is made up partly of those people. If many of them are insulted,
then you're insulting them, whether the rest of society thinks so or not.
And as minorities, they are at a disadvantage in their "vote" on what is
offensive or not.
>As an example, I can't simply decide the word "red" is clearly
>derogatory because some people use it to insult rural residents as
>rednecks. If someone comments that my hair or beard have reddish
>highlights, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they
>are describing my hair and beard. If I should choose to take offense
>because they are "clearly" insulting my rural background or Southern
>accent, the insult is likely entirely in my mind.
I am not aware of any history of finding people with red hair or red in
their beards to be considered lower or lesser than other people. Or that
red hair is surprising to find in, say, a musician.
>Defending the word "articulate" isn't like trying to defend the
>confederate flag or severely outdated ethnic labels. The word is still
>in overwhelimingly popular use as a compliment to people of all ages,
>ethnicities, and backgrounds. Unless the context makes it otherwise,
>racist connotations reside in the eye of the beholder. If we should take
>the alternate route, and refrain from giving the benefit of the doubt, I
>don't see how we avoid crippling the language.
I don't assume a person is racist for using the word in association with a
Black person. Nevertheless, I don't use the word to describe Black people.
I also don't use the word "boy" or "girl" when referring to a young person
who is Black. I prefer to use "young man" or "young woman."
I don't feel particularly crippled (or disabled) by this.
-JoAnne
--
Userb3
> And the fact that the use is widespread around the net but not on news
> sources didn't say something to you?
The word is in widespread use in news stories. The phrase "articulate
black" isn't, but where used, appears to be used appropriately.
>>Unlike the word "articulate", neither of your examples are ever likely
>>to appear in any polite conversation. Surely you aren't suggesting
>>that the word articulate is on a par with these phrases?
>
> I selected them because they are extreme examples of the kind of thing
> that news sources don't use because people find them offensive.
But people and news sources alike regularly use the word articulate
without being offensive. If you could show the same for your examples,
they wuld be relevant.
>>While it is possible tp use the word articulate with racist
>>connotations, those connotations derive from the context of the usage,
>>not the word itself. I see no reason to assume racist intentions in
>>the absence of other indicators.
>
> I wouldn't assume racist intent. But I wouldn't assume no racist
> intent, either.
IMHO, etiquette requires us to extend the benefit of the doubt. I think
you should assume "no racist intent" for the same reason you should
sssume "no violent intent" when someone bumps into you on a sidewalk.
To my mind, walking around on the lookout for racist, sexist, whatever-
ist insults and finding them in ordinary conversation is a recipe for
living in your own personal hell. I'll pass, thanks.
>>>The term has come to have a connotation that many of us are not aware
>>>of.
>>
>>That hasn't been established, IMHO.
>
> I think there are many hits for "articulate Black" on Google that will
> establish that it is perceived that way, whether it is intended that
> way or not. For example:
I respectfully submit that between the fact that the word articulate is
often used to describe people of all ages and races and the fact that
there is some question in my mind about the legitimacy of some of your
examples that the word "articulate" is very far from posessing any racist
value in and of itself. While it can be used offensively, it is the
context that determines the racist intent.
> I think "well-spoken" is more of a hot button phrase, but both seem to
> get used for people who aren't really highly verbally gifted -- just
> able to communicate with others in a normal fashion.
Apparently you and I live in different universes. I regularly hear the
phrase "well spoken" used to describe speakers. It would never occur to
me to hear it as a hot button phrase.
>>>Being unaware of it, or saying that it shouldn't matter, doesn't make
>>>it not matter.
>>
>>While the offended party gets to decide what is offensive, society
>>gets to judge whether that offense is reasonable and justified.
>
> Society is made up partly of those people. If many of them are
> insulted, then you're insulting them, whether the rest of society
> thinks so or not. And as minorities, they are at a disadvantage in
> their "vote" on what is offensive or not.
>
>>As an example, I can't simply decide the word "red" is clearly
>>derogatory because some people use it to insult rural residents as
>>rednecks. If someone comments that my hair or beard have reddish
>>highlights, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume
>>they are describing my hair and beard. If I should choose to take
>>offense because they are "clearly" insulting my rural background or
>>Southern accent, the insult is likely entirely in my mind.
>
> I am not aware of any history of finding people with red hair or red
> in their beards to be considered lower or lesser than other people.
> Or that red hair is surprising to find in, say, a musician.
As you said, "Being unaware of it, or saying that it shouldn't matter,
doesn't make it not matter.
> I don't assume a person is racist for using the word in association
> with a Black person.
You've argued that the word itself has racist connotations. I see a
conflict.
> Nevertheless, I don't use the word to describe
> Black people.
Even if the very thing you want to comment on is that they are/were
articulate?
> I also don't use the word "boy" or "girl" when referring to a young
> person who is Black. I prefer to use "young man" or "young woman."
>
> I don't feel particularly crippled (or disabled) by this.
I'm fascinated. Obviously I have a different perspective on this.
leno...@yahoo.com
> I don't quite understand your repeated reference to children. Children are
> sometimes commented on as articulate, although in such comments adjustments are
> made for age.
>
> Not to be articulate is to be lacking in a skill, period. It doesn't
> necessarily, or even often, mean to refer to an immature state.
>
> ZedBanty
All I can do is repeat what I said - that where I come from,
"articulate" is NOT a word used in reference to adults. Only to
children who stand out for their age.
Lenona.
Userb3
@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> All I can do is repeat what I said - that where I come from,
> "articulate" is NOT a word used in reference to adults.
Where are you from?
Miss Elaine Eos
leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
> All I can do is repeat what I said - that where I come from,
> "articulate" is NOT a word used in reference to adults. Only to
> children who stand out for their age.
Out of curiosity, by what adjective do people refer to articulate adults
in your area?
Userb3
> All I can do is repeat what I said - that where I come from,
> "articulate" is NOT a word used in reference to adults. Only to
> children who stand out for their age.
Another couple of interesting exercises:
Search Google News for the following phrases:
articulate speaker
ariculate politician
articulate ceo
articulate leader
articulate speech
articulate witty
articulate handsome
articulate actor
articulate man
articulate woman
articulate minister
etc.
It seems to me that there are more than adequate examples to establish
"articulate" as a reasonably common descriptor of adults who are well
spoken.
Ericka Kammerer
I find that shocking. I hear it frequently, and
mostly in reference to white folks, meaning exactly the
sorts of things the dictionary says it means. I'm not
denying your experience, but it runs *very* contrary to
my own.
Best wishes,
Ericka
leno...@yahoo.com
Userb3 wrote:
> leno...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1164119382.344372.29280
> @j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > All I can do is repeat what I said - that where I come from,
> > "articulate" is NOT a word used in reference to adults.
>
> Where are you from?
Well, I've moved around a lot, so one way to describe it is "Eastern MA
+ NYC." Plus one Southern European country, but that was a very long
time ago.
Of course, even in one big city, you're likely to get very different
societies within a couple of miles. Speculate as you please.
Lenona.
leno...@yahoo.com
Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
> In article <1164119382....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > All I can do is repeat what I said - that where I come from,
> > "articulate" is NOT a word used in reference to adults. Only to
> > children who stand out for their age.
>
> Out of curiosity, by what adjective do people refer to articulate adults
> in your area?
No one regular adjective I can think of. At least a dozen, I'm sure.
Lenona.
ZedBanty
leno...@yahoo.com says...
This runs counter to my experience. I hear "articulate" applied to adults as a
matter of course, to those who can express their ideas well. Perhaps it's that
I live in a social milleau mostly populated by engineers. Possibly, this gets
to another stereotype! But I also live in a social milleau with a lot of kids,
and I have not noticed this applied specifically, or more, to children.
Just about everyone can talk - being articulate is quite a different thing.
ZedBanty
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>news:bi35m2h1q1nes6kj9...@4ax.com:
>
>> And the fact that the use is widespread around the net but not on news
>> sources didn't say something to you?
>
>The word is in widespread use in news stories. The phrase "articulate
>black" isn't, but where used, appears to be used appropriately.
It isn't used very often that way because saying a Black person is
articulate is, to some Blacks, an insult. I think professional news
writers generally know this; if they don't, they will be informed by their
editors or by readers.
>>>Unlike the word "articulate", neither of your examples are ever likely
>>>to appear in any polite conversation. Surely you aren't suggesting
>>>that the word articulate is on a par with these phrases?
>>
>> I selected them because they are extreme examples of the kind of thing
>> that news sources don't use because people find them offensive.
>
>But people and news sources alike regularly use the word articulate
>without being offensive. If you could show the same for your examples,
>they wuld be relevant.
Using it to describe a Black man, especially one who is not really an
especially outstanding orator, is perceived by some as an insult. I showed
you where this is discussed by Blacks and other minorities.
>>>While it is possible tp use the word articulate with racist
>>>connotations, those connotations derive from the context of the usage,
>>>not the word itself. I see no reason to assume racist intentions in
>>>the absence of other indicators.
>>
>> I wouldn't assume racist intent. But I wouldn't assume no racist
>> intent, either.
>
>IMHO, etiquette requires us to extend the benefit of the doubt.
It only requires us to *act* in accordance with the benefit of doubt.
Etiquette does not concern itself with what we think or how we feel.
And again, I am not saying that a person using the word or phrase is trying
to offend, trying to be racist. I am saying that a person hearing it may
think the speaker is racist because of history of use of the word or
phrase.
And therefore if you want to be inoffensive, you might want to avoid using
the word or phrase.
>I think
>you should assume "no racist intent" for the same reason you should
>sssume "no violent intent" when someone bumps into you on a sidewalk.
>
>To my mind, walking around on the lookout for racist, sexist, whatever-
>ist insults and finding them in ordinary conversation is a recipe for
>living in your own personal hell. I'll pass, thanks.
I'm not looking for racist, sexist or otherist insults everywhere. I am,
however, trying not to offend.
I didn't always know this was offensive. I learned at some point. By
learning what some people find offensive, I am better prepared not to
offend someone else unintentionally.
>>>>The term has come to have a connotation that many of us are not aware
>>>>of.
>>>
>>>That hasn't been established, IMHO.
>>
>> I think there are many hits for "articulate Black" on Google that will
>> establish that it is perceived that way, whether it is intended that
>> way or not. For example:
>
>I respectfully submit that between the fact that the word articulate is
>often used to describe people of all ages and races and the fact that
>there is some question in my mind about the legitimacy of some of your
>examples that the word "articulate" is very far from posessing any racist
>value in and of itself. While it can be used offensively, it is the
>context that determines the racist intent.
When used to describe a Black or minority person, the subject may perceive
an insult. In order to avoid that insult, I avoid the word.
>> I think "well-spoken" is more of a hot button phrase, but both seem to
>> get used for people who aren't really highly verbally gifted -- just
>> able to communicate with others in a normal fashion.
>
>Apparently you and I live in different universes. I regularly hear the
>phrase "well spoken" used to describe speakers. It would never occur to
>me to hear it as a hot button phrase.
You seem to repeatedly take what I say as me being offended and chide me
for being offended by it.
It is, instead, me trying not to offend. I am aware that a word or phrase
may offend and I therefore choose not to use it.
I am also aware that many people won't know they are offending others with
that usage.
You may decide that what I'm saying is either incorrect or inconsequential.
I'm just sharing what I have learned.
>>>>Being unaware of it, or saying that it shouldn't matter, doesn't make
>>>>it not matter.
>>>
>>>While the offended party gets to decide what is offensive, society
>>>gets to judge whether that offense is reasonable and justified.
>>
>> Society is made up partly of those people. If many of them are
>> insulted, then you're insulting them, whether the rest of society
>> thinks so or not. And as minorities, they are at a disadvantage in
>> their "vote" on what is offensive or not.
No comment here?
>>>As an example, I can't simply decide the word "red" is clearly
>>>derogatory because some people use it to insult rural residents as
>>>rednecks. If someone comments that my hair or beard have reddish
>>>highlights, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume
>>>they are describing my hair and beard. If I should choose to take
>>>offense because they are "clearly" insulting my rural background or
>>>Southern accent, the insult is likely entirely in my mind.
>>
>> I am not aware of any history of finding people with red hair or red
>> in their beards to be considered lower or lesser than other people.
>> Or that red hair is surprising to find in, say, a musician.
>
>As you said, "Being unaware of it, or saying that it shouldn't matter,
>doesn't make it not matter.
I thought your example was one you made up. If it is not, then I need to
learn more about the insult that people perceive in having someone note
that there is red in one's beard. Is there history? Can you point me to
examples of someone who was insulted by this kind of comment?
>> I don't assume a person is racist for using the word in association
>> with a Black person.
>
>You've argued that the word itself has racist connotations. I see a
>conflict.
No conflict. The connotation may well be unknown to the speaker.
>> Nevertheless, I don't use the word to describe
>> Black people.
>
>Even if the very thing you want to comment on is that they are/were
>articulate?
The problem with "articulate" is that it does not mean "super good at
communication." It means "able to communicate."
I would use a word that is more emphatic. Brilliant, perhaps. Eloquent.
I would shy away from using it to describe someone who is simply competent
at being understood.
The point is that Black speech patterns are still considered a sign of lack
of intelligence, and available for comment by non-Black people. Much like
the beauty or lack of beauty of a woman seems to be much more open to
comment than the good looks or lack thereof of a man, in similar
circumstances.
>> I also don't use the word "boy" or "girl" when referring to a young
>> person who is Black. I prefer to use "young man" or "young woman."
>>
>> I don't feel particularly crippled (or disabled) by this.
>
>I'm fascinated. Obviously I have a different perspective on this.
The point is, we don't get to choose what is offensive to someone else.
Arguing that something shouldn't offend another person doesn't get us
anywhere. And when many people find it offensive, it's something to avoid
in polite conversation.
This is not something I made up or never heard of before. Many people have
this view and it is unlikely that using the word will change their minds.
-JoAnne
--
ZedBanty
>
>On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:39:45 +0000 (UTC), Userb3 <use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>>news:bi35m2h1q1nes6kj9...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> And the fact that the use is widespread around the net but not on news
>>> sources didn't say something to you?
>>
>>The word is in widespread use in news stories. The phrase "articulate
>>black" isn't, but where used, appears to be used appropriately.
>
>It isn't used very often that way because saying a Black person is
>articulate is, to some Blacks, an insult. I think professional news
>writers generally know this; if they don't, they will be informed by their
>editors or by readers.
Context, context, context.
While a professional news writer may want to steer way clear of certain useages,
making extra margin for herself or himself, to keep his mail level down, at
least, there has to be a way to express that someone of *whatever* origin has
positive attributes. And people do describe others as "articulate" in contexts
where it is quite clear they mean that, nothing more, and would not have
refrained from commenting, or used different terms, if that person is White.
Indeed, you're coming very close to advocating that different terminology be
used according to ethnic background alone. Do you mean to do that?
ZedBanty
Ericka Kammerer
> The problem with "articulate" is that it does not mean "super good at
> communication." It means "able to communicate."
That's only one possible definition out of many. Any
reasonable dictionary will *also* list the definition you deny:
Main Entry: 1ar·tic·u·late
Pronunciation: är-'ti-ky&-l&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin articulatus jointed, past participle of articulare,
from articulus
1 c : expressing oneself readily, clearly, or effectively <an articulate
teacher>; also : expressed in this manner <an articulate argument>
ar?tic?u?late /adj., n. ?r?t?ky?l?t; v. ?r?t?ky??le?t/ Pronunciation
Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[adj., n. ahr-tik-yuh-lit; v.
ahr-tik-yuh-leyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective,
verb, -lat?ed, -lat?ing, noun
–adjective
3. using language easily and fluently; having facility with words: an
articulate speaker.
4. expressed, formulated, or presented with clarity and effectiveness:
an articulate thought.
ar·tic·u·late (är-tky-lt) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of
"articulate" [P]
adj.
3. Expressing oneself easily in clear and effective language: an
articulate speaker.
4. Characterized by the use of clear, expressive language: an
articulate essay.
So, while one can debate how particular speakers
intend to use the word, or how particular listeners interpret
the word, it is factually incorrect to say that "articulate"
does not mean "particularly skilled at communication in
words." It can, and often does, mean precisely that.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Userb3
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:39:45 +0000 (UTC), Userb3 <use...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>The word is in widespread use in news stories. The phrase "articulate
>>black" isn't, but where used, appears to be used appropriately.
>
> It isn't used very often that way because saying a Black person is
> articulate is, to some Blacks, an insult. I think professional news
> writers generally know this; if they don't, they will be informed by
> their editors or by readers.
My own experience and google show otherwise.
> And again, I am not saying that a person using the word or phrase is
> trying to offend, trying to be racist. I am saying that a person
> hearing it may think the speaker is racist because of history of use
> of the word or phrase.
>
> And therefore if you want to be inoffensive, you might want to avoid
> using the word or phrase.
By that logic, I'd have to avoid a whole host of perfectly useful words
because someone, somewhere might conceivably mistake my legitimate useage
for a racist/sexist/nationalist/whatever-ist slight.
>>To my mind, walking around on the lookout for racist, sexist,
>>whatever- ist insults and finding them in ordinary conversation is a
>>recipe for living in your own personal hell. I'll pass, thanks.
>
> I'm not looking for racist, sexist or otherist insults everywhere.
With all due respect, your logic would seem to indicate that that's the
only safe course of action.
> I am, however, trying not to offend.
I believe the best way to do that is to use accurate language, give
compliments when due, and generally give the impression that you judge
people on their merits, and not unrelated
ethnic/gender/religious/national/physical characteristics.
> I didn't always know this was offensive. I learned at some point. By
> learning what some people find offensive, I am better prepared not to
> offend someone else unintentionally.
The flip side is that by catering to those who are overly sensitive, we
hobble ourselves socially and linguistically.
>>> I think "well-spoken" is more of a hot button phrase, but both seem
>>> to get used for people who aren't really highly verbally gifted --
>>> just able to communicate with others in a normal fashion.
>>
>>Apparently you and I live in different universes. I regularly hear the
>>phrase "well spoken" used to describe speakers. It would never occur
>>to me to hear it as a hot button phrase.
>
> You seem to repeatedly take what I say as me being offended and chide
> me for being offended by it.
In this case, I was noting that I have never heard the phrase "well
spoken" as a hot button phrase. I've only heard it to mean "well spoken".
I wasn't chiding or assuming ofense.
>>>>>Being unaware of it, or saying that it shouldn't matter, doesn't
>>>>>make it not matter.
>>>>
>>>>While the offended party gets to decide what is offensive, society
>>>>gets to judge whether that offense is reasonable and justified.
>>>
>>> Society is made up partly of those people. If many of them are
>>> insulted, then you're insulting them, whether the rest of society
>>> thinks so or not. And as minorities, they are at a disadvantage in
>>> their "vote" on what is offensive or not.
>
> No comment here?
I thought anything I might say was covered elsewhere.
>>> I don't assume a person is racist for using the word in association
>>> with a Black person.
>>
>>You've argued that the word itself has racist connotations. I see a
>>conflict.
>
> No conflict. The connotation may well be unknown to the speaker.
And if the speaker is black?
>
>>> Nevertheless, I don't use the word to describe
>>> Black people.
>>
>>Even if the very thing you want to comment on is that they are/were
>>articulate?
>
> The problem with "articulate" is that it does not mean "super good at
> communication." It means "able to communicate."
It means a little more than that. Consider that our President is able to
communicate, but very few of us would refer to him as articulate. Indeed,
in common use, the word means a particular facility with words, or as the
American heritage Dictionary says, "Expressing oneself easily in clear
and effective language: an articulate speaker."
> I would use a word that is more emphatic. Brilliant, perhaps.
> Eloquent.
Although they refer to related concepts, those words aren't synonymous
with articulate.
> I would shy away from using it to describe someone who is
> simply competent at being understood.
But of course! That's not what we mean when we say articulate!
> The point is that Black speech patterns are still considered a sign of
> lack of intelligence, and available for comment by non-Black people.
That's not the point at all. if I should point out that Barak Obama is
far more articulate than George W. Bush, I am comparing two men for whom
public speaking is an essential skill. If someone should take that as a
comentary on "black speech patterns", then they are projecting their own
issue into something entirely unrelated.
> Much like the beauty or lack of beauty of a woman seems to be much
> more open to comment than the good looks or lack thereof of a man, in
> similar circumstances.
Would you suggest we should abandon the terms attractive, beautiful,
striking, and handsome, because the terms may be seen as loaded by some
people, or can we continue to use them where appropriate, trusing context
to make our meaning clear?
>>> I also don't use the word "boy" or "girl" when referring to a young
>>> person who is Black. I prefer to use "young man" or "young woman."
>>>
>>> I don't feel particularly crippled (or disabled) by this.
>>
>>I'm fascinated. Obviously I have a different perspective on this.
>
> The point is, we don't get to choose what is offensive to someone
> else.
We do get to choose what is reasonable.
> Arguing that something shouldn't offend another person doesn't
> get us anywhere. And when many people find it offensive, it's
> something to avoid in polite conversation.
Its that word "many" that gets you in trouble. I can assure you that
"many" jews find it offensive to be wished a merry christmas. However,
those among us who are more reasonable (and coincidentally, the vast
majority of us) recognize the goodwill behind such a gesture, and take no
offense. I wouldn't expect my christian friends to stop using the phrase
for fear of offending me, because taking offense would be unreasonable.
If, on the other hand, the phrase were far more widely seen as offensive,
you'd be justified in avoiding it when talking to jews. But we haven't
reached that critical level, so perfectly polite people may continue to
wish their friends a merry christmas (not that I wouldn't prefer a happy
holidays of happy chanukah, but I'm not taking offense at good will).
> This is not something I made up or never heard of before.
Far be it from me to suggest such.
> Many people
> have this view and it is unlikely that using the word will change
> their minds.
They have my sympathy
--
Let the Religious Right Form Their Own Party!
http://www.gopchoice.org/
http://www.mypartytoo.com/
http://www.realrepublicanmajority.org/
Miss Elaine Eos
leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Userb3 wrote:
> > leno...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1164119382.344372.29280
> > @j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > All I can do is repeat what I said - that where I come from,
> > > "articulate" is NOT a word used in reference to adults.
> >
> > Where are you from?
>
>
> Well, I've moved around a lot, so one way to describe it is "Eastern MA
> + NYC." Plus one Southern European country, but that was a very long
> time ago.
He's asking in the context of your statement "where I come from <such
and so is the case>".
Your answer to my question about how one refers to articulate adults was
similarly vague.
I'm genuinely curious on both accounts.
In what part of the English speaking world to people refer to articulate
adults using what typical turn of speech?
Thanks!
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>In article <c3f6m21thcfs898a0...@4ax.com>, JoAnne Schmitz says...
>>
>>On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:39:45 +0000 (UTC), Userb3 <use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>>>news:bi35m2h1q1nes6kj9...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> And the fact that the use is widespread around the net but not on news
>>>> sources didn't say something to you?
>>>
>>>The word is in widespread use in news stories. The phrase "articulate
>>>black" isn't, but where used, appears to be used appropriately.
>>
>>It isn't used very often that way because saying a Black person is
>>articulate is, to some Blacks, an insult. I think professional news
>>writers generally know this; if they don't, they will be informed by their
>>editors or by readers.
>
>Context, context, context.
>
>While a professional news writer may want to steer way clear of certain useages,
>making extra margin for herself or himself, to keep his mail level down, at
>least, there has to be a way to express that someone of *whatever* origin has
>positive attributes.
Of course. But it doesn't have to include words we now know might put some
people's teeth on edge.
>And people do describe others as "articulate" in contexts
>where it is quite clear they mean that, nothing more, and would not have
>refrained from commenting, or used different terms, if that person is White.
>
>Indeed, you're coming very close to advocating that different terminology be
>used according to ethnic background alone. Do you mean to do that?
Yes. Because the word is likely to be taken wrong, "articulate" is a word
I would avoid when describing a Black or minority person, or one whose
native language is not English.
I don't think this is outrageous. I don't think it's coddling anyone. I
don't think it's a big imposition on me to take this out of my vocabulary.
Y'all can do what you want, obviously. But knowing that this may offend
someone, I'd rather avoid it, myself.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>> Many people
>> have this view and it is unlikely that using the word will change
>> their minds.
>
>They have my sympathy
It doesn't sound like it.
I really didn't think it was controversial to suggest avoiding phrases that
many people say are offensive to them, whether we understand or agree on
why. I guess I was wrong.
-JoAnne
--
Userb3
>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>
>>> Many people
>>> have this view and it is unlikely that using the word will change
>>> their minds.
>>
>>They have my sympathy
>
> It doesn't sound like it.
>
> I really didn't think it was controversial to suggest avoiding phrases
> that many people say are offensive to them, whether we understand or
> agree on why. I guess I was wrong.
Perhaps the difference between us is that I give people credit for being
able to tell the diference between a genuine compliment (like the 375,000
references to Ed Bradley and articulate on Google) and the "damning with
faint praise" that we all agree is offensive. I believe most people are
able to discern the context in which a word is used, and my professional
and personal experience tell me no reasonable person takes offense at the
word articulate when used properly.
What is controversial is to suggest that we all become so hypersensitive
that we can't compliment each other for fear of causing offense.
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> >They have my sympathy
> It doesn't sound like it.
>
> I really didn't think it was controversial to suggest avoiding phrases that
> many people say are offensive to them, whether we understand or agree on
> why. I guess I was wrong.
Well that's an interesting point, isn't it. I mean, how many people
have to be offended by a word before we avoid using it? If it's just
one or two people, and we're pretty certain that they're misinterpeting
the meaning of the word (i.e., taking offense where it is neither
intended nor warranted), we typically try to educate them. This seems
to be the case in this thread.
However, if it's the majority of people we know (as one or two posters
suggest), then we tend to go with the flow. In this case, the offensive
interpretation seems to be a fairly localized phenomenon.
I would say, yes, in the circles in which it is known to offend, the
word is best avoided until education can be achieved. I also think that
it's important to attempt education, as articulate is a perfectly valid,
inoffensive word that should be usable, and having a small subculture
wherein it is offensive, while fine if confined to the group, can be
dangerous if any members come into contact with others -- something
increasingly more likely as communications channels become more and more
widespread.
Ericka Kammerer
What I think is problematic is that this is not
just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
care to come up with. So, it just seems obvious to me
that the solution can't be avoiding any word or phrase
with common, legitimate uses just because it is possible
to use the word in a way that someone might find offensive.
The offense here is in the construction, not in the word
itself. No one objects to actually *being* articulate.
They object to having people assume they can't speak
properly based on racial or other non-relevant characteristics.
It's simple enough to avoid doing the latter, if you've
any mind to do so, and it puts you in a situation where
when you call someone articulate, it's quite clear that
whatever their race, you actually mean that they are
particularly well-spoken. People understand this. Conversely,
if you really *do* mean to damn with faint praise,
people will also pick up on that regardless of what
words you use to do it. Simply striking the word
"articulate" from your vocabulary is neither necessary
nor sufficient to avoid giving offense.
Best wishes,
Ericka
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
>> In article <hhp7m2hpen45q4d45...@4ax.com>,
>> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> They have my sympathy
>>
>>> It doesn't sound like it.
>>>
>>> I really didn't think it was controversial to suggest avoiding phrases that
>>> many people say are offensive to them, whether we understand or agree on
>>> why. I guess I was wrong.
>>
>> Well that's an interesting point, isn't it. I mean, how many people
>> have to be offended by a word before we avoid using it? If it's just
>> one or two people, and we're pretty certain that they're misinterpeting
>> the meaning of the word (i.e., taking offense where it is neither
>> intended nor warranted), we typically try to educate them. This seems
>> to be the case in this thread.
>>
>> However, if it's the majority of people we know (as one or two posters
>> suggest), then we tend to go with the flow. In this case, the offensive
>> interpretation seems to be a fairly localized phenomenon.
Do you suggest a tyranny of the majority here?
The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically possible
for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that something is
offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far as getting their say?
I hope not.
>> I would say, yes, in the circles in which it is known to offend, the
>> word is best avoided until education can be achieved.
Educate them out of being offended? I would love to watch you do this.
>> I also think that
>> it's important to attempt education, as articulate is a perfectly valid,
>> inoffensive word that should be usable, and having a small subculture
>> wherein it is offensive, while fine if confined to the group, can be
>> dangerous if any members come into contact with others -- something
>> increasingly more likely as communications channels become more and more
>> widespread.
>
> What I think is problematic is that this is not
>just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
>damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
>associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
>care to come up with.
Where is your evidence for this? Not every adjective used to describe
people in a positive manner has the immediate emotional charge of
"articulate." Remember the "punch in the stomach" referred to in the
article I quoted about the Latina employee? Do you think they were making
that up, or that they find every complimentary word to be similarly
insulting?
In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
that charge it is situational, not historical.
In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
"well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
White person to describe a Black or minority person.
It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
hot water:
http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
This was a real situation. Some people were insulted. The person who used
the phrase did not mean to insult them. It was rather awkward for the
person who used it.
They all survived, but it could have been avoided had the phrase been
avoided.
It is a simple fact that dealing with people of a group who have a
historically difficult relationship with people of your own group can be
fraught with pitfalls. If the history is long, the problems may arise from
things that you are not aware of.
The best defense is to become aware of them, and not rationalize them away
as "part of the past" or "hypersensitivity."
>So, it just seems obvious to me
>that the solution can't be avoiding any word or phrase
>with common, legitimate uses just because it is possible
>to use the word in a way that someone might find offensive.
Since that's not what I'm advocating, I feel no responsibility to defend
that practice.
>The offense here is in the construction, not in the word
>itself. No one objects to actually *being* articulate.
>They object to having people assume they can't speak
>properly based on racial or other non-relevant characteristics.
>It's simple enough to avoid doing the latter, if you've
>any mind to do so, and it puts you in a situation where
>when you call someone articulate, it's quite clear that
>whatever their race, you actually mean that they are
>particularly well-spoken. People understand this. Conversely,
>if you really *do* mean to damn with faint praise,
>people will also pick up on that regardless of what
>words you use to do it. Simply striking the word
>"articulate" from your vocabulary is neither necessary
>nor sufficient to avoid giving offense.
It is prudent, if not legally necessary, to avoid using words and phrases
with historically negative implications.
I agree that it is not sufficient. But the "just reason it out and you'll
be fine" approach, ignoring history and culture, is not sufficient either.
-JoAnne
--
Userb3
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:36:36 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>> However, if it's the majority of people we know (as one or two
>>> posters suggest), then we tend to go with the flow. In this case,
>>> the offensive interpretation seems to be a fairly localized
>>> phenomenon.
>
> Do you suggest a tyranny of the majority here?
How very deToqueville of you!
> The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically
> possible for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that
> something is offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far as
> getting their say? I hope not.
Had I been making the argument that a majority of the population was
required, your argument might have gained traction. But that wasn't the
argument.
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> >> However, if it's the majority of people we know (as one or two posters
> >> suggest), then we tend to go with the flow. In this case, the offensive
> >> interpretation seems to be a fairly localized phenomenon.
> Do you suggest a tyranny of the majority here?
>
> The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically possible
> for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that something is
> offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far as getting their say?
> I hope not.
A global minority may still be a local majority. Surely you and your
friends & family & local society engage in some behaviour that is not
acceptable world-wide...?
(For me, we get to dress quite casually in the office, something unheard
of not-far East of here and nearly every other country.)
> >> I would say, yes, in the circles in which it is known to offend, the
> >> word is best avoided until education can be achieved.
> Educate them out of being offended? I would love to watch you do this.
I do very similar things on a regular basis. Teaching someone the
meaning of an uttered compliment is not such a difficult task, even if
they are in a hightened emotional state, having become offended by it.
> > What I think is problematic is that this is not
> >just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
> >damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
> >associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
> >care to come up with.
> Where is your evidence for this? Not every adjective used to describe
> people in a positive manner has the immediate emotional charge of
> "articulate."
Not in YOUR circles. In MY circles (and, it seems, those of most
readers of this group), "articulate" carries no emotional charge, except
the slightly nice feeling of having been complimented.
Similarly, "smart." One can say "gosh, you're smart!" as a compliment
or "...smarter than I expected" as an insult/faint-praise. This trick
works with nearly any adjective. In fact, I believe that the problem
some experience with "articulate" is that this usage has become common
place in their environment.
> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
I think most of us would continue to challenge this assertion. I
understand that it may be true in some small environments, but it is far
from universal.
> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
>
> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
> hot water:
>
> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
Same thing. The word "articulate" isn't the problem, here, it's the
implication of "...for <a member of a racial group of which I'd expect
much less>" that goes with the rest of the sentence.
Let me put it another way: no educated, articulate man would take
offense at being called articulate. Any who does is ignorant.
(How's THAT for offensive?! :)
> It is a simple fact that dealing with people of a group who have a
> historically difficult relationship with people of your own group can be
> fraught with pitfalls.
Not really. Some people will just be upset, no matter what you do or
don't do. These people spend a lot of time upset. There is no word you
can use or not use to help them, in this case.
> The best defense is to become aware of them, and not rationalize them away
> as "part of the past" or "hypersensitivity."
...Unless they're being hypersensitive, in which case it's a perfectly
valid explanation for their behavior.
To repeat: articulate is not an offensive adjective, regardless of the
number of people who are offended by it.
Ericka Kammerer
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:36:36 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> What I think is problematic is that this is not
>> just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
>> damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
>> associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
>> care to come up with.
>
> Where is your evidence for this? Not every adjective used to describe
> people in a positive manner has the immediate emotional charge of
> "articulate." Remember the "punch in the stomach" referred to in the
> article I quoted about the Latina employee? Do you think they were making
> that up, or that they find every complimentary word to be similarly
> insulting?
I think the punch in the stomach is from the realization
that someone assumed that one would not be competent at speech
based on one's appearance, not the use of the word "articulate"
itself. Similarly, people can, and have, used words like
"pretty," "educated," "intelligent," "polite," and a host
of other adjectives to damn with faint praise. When that happens,
it's just as offensive to the recipients, and they're just as
aware that it's happened.
> In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
> that charge it is situational, not historical.
How can you say that? Every one of the above adjectives,
and many more, have been used that way, and I don't see any
evidence whatsoever that "articulate" is used that way any
more frequently.
> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
So can other adjectives. And if somehow "articulate"
were miraculously eradicated from the language, there would
just be another code word used by people with racist expectations.
The problem is *NOT* the word. It's the attitude.
> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
Of course. No one is arguing that "articulate,"
as well as many other words, can't be used in a racist
way. The question is what to do about it. The answer
is simply that one reserves the use of the word to its
proper context. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that
if you heard someone wipe up the floor with their opponent
in a debate and congratulated them on their highly
articulate explication of the issues, they wouldn't
think you were expressing surprise at their ability
to speak at a 4th grade level (well, unless they
were kindergarteners, maybe). Conversely, I think
most people would raise their eyebrows if you were
amazed at how articulate they were after doing no
more than engaging in idle chit chat over coffee.
> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
> hot water:
>
> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
>
> This was a real situation. Some people were insulted. The person who used
> the phrase did not mean to insult them. It was rather awkward for the
> person who used it.
She doesn't link to her original text, so it's
hard to comment on her usage. It seems quite clear from
what she *did* say that when she herself described what
she meant, the panelists were, in fact, not insulted by
what she said. That leads me to believe that the manner in
which she used the word was unclear. And, as we all know,
there are differences between words used in face-to-face
conversation and the written word. One always has to be
more careful with the written word because losing the
body language means you lose a huge amount of the information.
My bet is that she wrote carelessly, in a way that left
it well open to the interpretation that she was expressing
surprise that the minority speakers had a reasonable command
of the English language. If that was the case, then you
could insert any synonym of "articulate" you like, and the
remark would still likely be interpreted as offensive. In
fact, you'll note that in the piece she seems to indicate
that "well spoken" would have been just as offensive. So,
again, it's the context more than the individual word.
> It is prudent, if not legally necessary, to avoid using words and phrases
> with historically negative implications.
>
> I agree that it is not sufficient. But the "just reason it out and you'll
> be fine" approach, ignoring history and culture, is not sufficient either.
It's good to be sensitive. I think the lesson, however,
is not that you can, or should, have a laundry list of common
words that must not be used with people of color. The lesson
is that to avoid appearing racist you should understand that
there is a sensitivity to damning with faint praise *regardless*
of the adjective in question and choose to speak carefully
so as to avoid the appearance of that behavior. Some might
choose not to use particular words. Others might choose to
speak so that the context clarifies the usage of the word.
You see discussion of this particular word because it has,
in fact, been used in racist ways. But there are lots of
other words used that way, and those usages are every bit as
offensive. You could manage to use a word in that way that
has *never* been used to damn with faint praise previously,
and that would be just as offensive too. Do you honestly
think that you could use some other word to damn with
faint praise and somehow it wouldn't have that "punch in
the gut" effect just because it wasn't an expected word
to use in that situation?
So, in fact, I think it *does* boil down to "reason
it out." It is only your ability to reason about your
intention and possible interpretations that allows you
to avoid this pitfall. That reasoning is based on an
understanding of history and culture. Without that, you
could be mightily offensive without ever using the word
"articulate."
Best wishes,
Ericka
ZedBanty
>
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:36:36 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
>>> In article <hhp7m2hpen45q4d45...@4ax.com>,
>>> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They have my sympathy
>>>
>>>> It doesn't sound like it.
>>>>
>>>> I really didn't think it was controversial to suggest avoiding phrases that
>>>> many people say are offensive to them, whether we understand or agree on
>>>> why. I guess I was wrong.
>>>
>>> Well that's an interesting point, isn't it. I mean, how many people
>>> have to be offended by a word before we avoid using it? If it's just
>>> one or two people, and we're pretty certain that they're misinterpeting
>>> the meaning of the word (i.e., taking offense where it is neither
>>> intended nor warranted), we typically try to educate them. This seems
>>> to be the case in this thread.
>>>
>>> However, if it's the majority of people we know (as one or two posters
>>> suggest), then we tend to go with the flow. In this case, the offensive
>>> interpretation seems to be a fairly localized phenomenon.
>
>Do you suggest a tyranny of the majority here?
>
>The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically possible
>for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that something is
>offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far as getting their say?
>I hope not.
What do you mean by "minority" here, though? Are you talking about a minority
ethnic group, meaning Blacks, as if they're monolithically in agreement? Or are
you talking about a minority opinion?
People can and do make the distinction between a term like "articulate" and its
poor past use in some contexts. Yes, IME, including Black Americans as well as
those here who speak English as a second language.
*Some* play the politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
than the tyranny of the majority.
Context. Context is the key.
ZedBanty
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>In article <er69m2dipd0hc2h0a...@4ax.com>, JoAnne Schmitz says...
>>
>>The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically possible
>>for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that something is
>>offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far as getting their say?
>>I hope not.
>
>What do you mean by "minority" here, though? Are you talking about a minority
>ethnic group, meaning Blacks, as if they're monolithically in agreement?
Clearly they are not monolithically in agreement, but even if they were,
they could not form a majority opinion of the general populace all by
themselves.
The math really isn't that hard.
>Or are
>you talking about a minority opinion?
>
>People can and do make the distinction between a term like "articulate" and its
>poor past
And present.
>use in some contexts. Yes, IME, including Black Americans as well as
>those here who speak English as a second language.
But rather than using a word that could be misinterpreted, I prefer to use
one that probably won't be.
Rather than using a word with historical freight, I choose to use one that
doesn't have that freight.
I really don't see what's so horrible or difficult about that.
>*Some* play the politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>than the tyranny of the majority.
So anyone who finds *themselves* wincing at such words is playing a game,
trying to make you feel bad, push you around, mess with you?
>Context. Context is the key.
I'm starting to feel a context here, and I'm not particulary pleased with
it.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:36:36 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> What I think is problematic is that this is not
>>> just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
>>> damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
>>> associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
>>> care to come up with.
>>
>> Where is your evidence for this? Not every adjective used to describe
>> people in a positive manner has the immediate emotional charge of
>> "articulate." Remember the "punch in the stomach" referred to in the
>> article I quoted about the Latina employee? Do you think they were making
>> that up, or that they find every complimentary word to be similarly
>> insulting?
>
> I think the punch in the stomach is from the realization
>that someone assumed that one would not be competent at speech
>based on one's appearance, not the use of the word "articulate"
>itself.
You have an odd way of reading the article, then. They specifically said
that it was THAT WORD.
>Similarly, people can, and have, used words like
>"pretty," "educated," "intelligent," "polite," and a host
>of other adjectives to damn with faint praise. When that happens,
>it's just as offensive to the recipients, and they're just as
>aware that it's happened.
But that is intentional. I am talking about unintentional but nevertheless
real offense.
If I were staging Animal Farm with some friends, one of whom is a Muslim,
and I said, you can play the pig, he might get offended. For cultural
reasons. Whether I knew or not.
He might be more offended the more knowledgeable I seemed to be. Surely I
should know that, culturally, pigs are offensive animals to Muslims.
>> In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
>> that charge it is situational, not historical.
>
> How can you say that? Every one of the above adjectives,
>and many more, have been used that way, and I don't see any
>evidence whatsoever that "articulate" is used that way any
>more frequently.
You didn't read any of the Google links I provided?
>> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
>> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
>> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
>
> So can other adjectives.
And you, of course, know which ones these are, right? Go on, name them.
>And if somehow "articulate"
>were miraculously eradicated from the language, there would
>just be another code word used by people with racist expectations.
How does that militate against avoiding "articulate"? We would then avoid
the new word if we were culturally sensitive.
I sense a "what do they want from us they want to control all our speech
and keep us from using all those great words we used to have like gay and
rainbow and well-spoken and articulate and frugal and niggardly. WHERE
WILL IT END! I AM SO OPPRESSED!"
I mean, really. They're just a few words.
>The problem is *NOT* the word. It's the attitude.
>
>> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
>
> Of course. No one is arguing that "articulate,"
>as well as many other words, can't be used in a racist
>way.
But you are arguing that they don't have racist baggage.
You can repeat it all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
>The question is what to do about it. The answer
>is simply that one reserves the use of the word to its
>proper context.
The answer is to avoid using it.
>I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that
>if you heard someone wipe up the floor with their opponent
>in a debate and congratulated them on their highly
>articulate explication of the issues, they wouldn't
>think you were expressing surprise at their ability
>to speak at a 4th grade level (well, unless they
>were kindergarteners, maybe). Conversely, I think
>most people would raise their eyebrows if you were
>amazed at how articulate they were after doing no
>more than engaging in idle chit chat over coffee.
And in a less clear-cut situation, the question would arise -- do you mean
articulate in an overpowering way, or articulate as in "he speaks well for
a foreigner"?
It is better to leave it alone.
I'm starting to see how you might be related to Eve. All those other
fruits, but you have to have that one, too.
>> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
>> hot water:
>>
>> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
>>
>> This was a real situation. Some people were insulted. The person who used
>> the phrase did not mean to insult them. It was rather awkward for the
>> person who used it.
>
> She doesn't link to her original text, so it's
>hard to comment on her usage. It seems quite clear from
>what she *did* say that when she herself described what
>she meant, the panelists were, in fact, not insulted by
>what she said.
Guh? Buh?
They were insulted. They were receptive, eventually, to an explanation and
apology.
>That leads me to believe that the manner in
>which she used the word was unclear. And, as we all know,
>there are differences between words used in face-to-face
>conversation and the written word. One always has to be
>more careful with the written word because losing the
>body language means you lose a huge amount of the information.
>My bet is that she wrote carelessly, in a way that left
>it well open to the interpretation that she was expressing
>surprise that the minority speakers had a reasonable command
>of the English language. If that was the case, then you
>could insert any synonym of "articulate" you like, and the
>remark would still likely be interpreted as offensive.
But not as automatically.
Because of the history of the word.
Yes, really.
>In
>fact, you'll note that in the piece she seems to indicate
>that "well spoken" would have been just as offensive.
YES. THAT WAS THE OTHER PHRASE I REFERRED TO.
>So,
>again, it's the context more than the individual word.
<bangs head on table>
No, it's those words and phrases.
>> It is prudent, if not legally necessary, to avoid using words and phrases
>> with historically negative implications.
>>
>> I agree that it is not sufficient. But the "just reason it out and you'll
>> be fine" approach, ignoring history and culture, is not sufficient either.
>
> It's good to be sensitive. I think the lesson, however,
>is not that you can, or should, have a laundry list of common
>words that must not be used with people of color.
Are you saying not to consider that some words might be offensive and be
careful using them, or avoid them? Ignore any cultural freight?
I hope not.
>The lesson
>is that to avoid appearing racist you should understand that
>there is a sensitivity to damning with faint praise *regardless*
>of the adjective in question and choose to speak carefully
>so as to avoid the appearance of that behavior.
That is necessary but not sufficient. You also need to know which words
and phrases are historically fraught with negative meaning to the audience
you are writing or speaking to.
>Some might
>choose not to use particular words. Others might choose to
>speak so that the context clarifies the usage of the word.
>You see discussion of this particular word because it has,
>in fact, been used in racist ways. But there are lots of
>other words used that way,
Really?
Again, give me a list. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>and those usages are every bit as
>offensive. You could manage to use a word in that way that
>has *never* been used to damn with faint praise previously,
>and that would be just as offensive too.
But in a different way.
>Do you honestly
>think that you could use some other word to damn with
>faint praise and somehow it wouldn't have that "punch in
>the gut" effect just because it wasn't an expected word
>to use in that situation?
No. The punch in the gut was a result of the word used.
Read the story again.
> So, in fact, I think it *does* boil down to "reason
>it out." It is only your ability to reason about your
>intention and possible interpretations that allows you
>to avoid this pitfall. That reasoning is based on an
>understanding of history and culture.
Whoa, you just said you should leave all of that out...right? No laundry
list of words to avoid or be careful about?
>Without that, you
>could be mightily offensive without ever using the word
>"articulate."
Yes. But you raise a false dilemma. You can be offensive with using the
word "articulate" if you don't know what you're doing.
-JoAnne
--
Userb3
> I sense a "what do they want from us they want to control all our
> speech and keep us from using all those great words we used to have
> like gay and rainbow and well-spoken and articulate and frugal and
> niggardly. WHERE WILL IT END! I AM SO OPPRESSED!"
Thats very telling.
Gene Wirchenko
>On 22 Nov 2006 16:29:28 -0800, ZedBanty <ZedBant...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
[snip]
>>*Some* play the politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
^^^^
>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>
>So anyone who finds *themselves* wincing at such words is playing a game,
^^^^^^
>trying to make you feel bad, push you around, mess with you?
These two words differ.
>>Context. Context is the key.
>
>I'm starting to feel a context here, and I'm not particulary pleased with
>it.
You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
People can get upset over many terms. To assume that a usage of
a potentially neutral word is automatically racist is looking for
offence. Getting upset over such is overreacting. There are more
useful approaches.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
JoAnne Schmitz
<Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>In article <er69m2dipd0hc2h0a...@4ax.com>,
> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>
>> >> However, if it's the majority of people we know (as one or two posters
>> >> suggest), then we tend to go with the flow. In this case, the offensive
>> >> interpretation seems to be a fairly localized phenomenon.
>
>> Do you suggest a tyranny of the majority here?
>>
>> The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically possible
>> for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that something is
>> offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far as getting their say?
>> I hope not.
>
>A global minority may still be a local majority. Surely you and your
>friends & family & local society engage in some behaviour that is not
>acceptable world-wide...?
Yes, my friends and I call each other names that would be unacceptable in
common conversation.
This is not the kind of minority I am speaking of.
>(For me, we get to dress quite casually in the office, something unheard
>of not-far East of here and nearly every other country.)
But it is not rude if it is the office's culture.
>> >> I would say, yes, in the circles in which it is known to offend, the
>> >> word is best avoided until education can be achieved.
>
>> Educate them out of being offended? I would love to watch you do this.
>
>I do very similar things on a regular basis. Teaching someone the
>meaning of an uttered compliment is not such a difficult task, even if
>they are in a hightened emotional state, having become offended by it.
Who do you do this to?
Are they people who have a cultural aversion to a particular word? Or just
people who don't know what the word means?
>> > What I think is problematic is that this is not
>> >just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
>> >damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
>> >associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
>> >care to come up with.
>
>> Where is your evidence for this? Not every adjective used to describe
>> people in a positive manner has the immediate emotional charge of
>> "articulate."
>
>Not in YOUR circles. In MY circles (and, it seems, those of most
>readers of this group), "articulate" carries no emotional charge, except
>the slightly nice feeling of having been complimented.
And that's great, that in your circles, it was not a commonplace for people
who have more money, power and social status than you to use that
particular phrase about people in your social, religious or ethnic group.
That doesn't mean that, for people in other circles, the word or phrase
doesn't raise hackles.
>Similarly, "smart." One can say "gosh, you're smart!" as a compliment
>or "...smarter than I expected" as an insult/faint-praise. This trick
>works with nearly any adjective.
This point has been hacked to death. I'm not talking about using just any
adjective as faint praise. I'm talking about words with historical
baggage.
>In fact, I believe that the problem
>some experience with "articulate" is that this usage has become common
>place in their environment.
>
>> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
>> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
>> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
>
>I think most of us would continue to challenge this assertion.
Do you have a degree in African American studies?
In order to salvage your position you seem to now be calling me either a
liar or poorly informed.
>I
>understand that it may be true in some small environments, but it is far
>from universal.
Good grief, I never said it was universal.
I said it is a problem among some people. And that, knowing this, it's no
great imposition to just *not use it*.
>> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
>>
>> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
>> hot water:
>>
>> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
>
>Same thing. The word "articulate" isn't the problem, here, it's the
>implication of "...for <a member of a racial group of which I'd expect
>much less>" that goes with the rest of the sentence.
And that is unspoken when that word is used.
You don't get it. I don't understand why not having known this before, you
can't just say, oh, I didn't know that before, I know it now, I can avoid
it now.
Instead this looks like it's become a game of "I can't see it so it's not
there."
>Let me put it another way: no educated, articulate man would take
>offense at being called articulate. Any who does is ignorant.
>
>(How's THAT for offensive?! :)
That you think it is within your purview to tell someone whether he or she
should be insulted by a historically loaded term, because you don't want to
believe it's loaded, and even if it were, they should be smart enough to be
educated out of being insulted, and they're stupid to feel anything but
gratitude to someone who uses a word they could have avoided had they given
the slightest damn about not insulting people?
It is deeply offensive. Even without the smiley.
>> It is a simple fact that dealing with people of a group who have a
>> historically difficult relationship with people of your own group can be
>> fraught with pitfalls.
>
>Not really. Some people will just be upset, no matter what you do or
>don't do. These people spend a lot of time upset. There is no word you
>can use or not use to help them, in this case.
So either someone is totally rational, never insulted by a term that is
historically loaded, or they are out to get you, out to be upset and march
around and look ignorant and stupid and make a big ruckus?
>> The best defense is to become aware of them, and not rationalize them away
>> as "part of the past" or "hypersensitivity."
>
>...Unless they're being hypersensitive, in which case it's a perfectly
>valid explanation for their behavior.
>
>To repeat: articulate is not an offensive adjective, regardless of the
>number of people who are offended by it.
Wow. That's quite some statement, in a manners newsgroup. What people
find offensive doesn't matter? How, pray tell, would we know if something
is offensive? Read the soul of the person making the seemingly offensive
statement?
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>news:er69m2dipd0hc2h0a...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:36:36 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>>> However, if it's the majority of people we know (as one or two
>>>> posters suggest), then we tend to go with the flow. In this case,
>>>> the offensive interpretation seems to be a fairly localized
>>>> phenomenon.
>>
>> Do you suggest a tyranny of the majority here?
>
>How very deToqueville of you!
How very not answering the question that is.
>> The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically
>> possible for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that
>> something is offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far as
>> getting their say? I hope not.
>
>Had I been making the argument that a majority of the population was
>required, your argument might have gained traction. But that wasn't the
>argument.
Even if you are requiring the majority of those in a social group, I don't
think you're right.
Which majority did *you* have in mind?
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>
>>On 22 Nov 2006 16:29:28 -0800, ZedBanty <ZedBant...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>*Some* play the politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
> ^^^^
>>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>>
>>So anyone who finds *themselves* wincing at such words is playing a game,
> ^^^^^^
>>trying to make you feel bad, push you around, mess with you?
>
> These two words differ.
>
>>>Context. Context is the key.
So why did you remove it?
The context was:
>People can and do make the distinction between a term like "articulate" and its
>poor past use in some contexts. Yes, IME, including Black Americans as well as
>those here who speak English as a second language. *Some* play the
>politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>than the tyranny of the majority.
In other words, a false dilemma: some people can and do make the
distinction, others play the politics of division.
Is there some other reading of making the distinction that I'm missing?
Was there some third group implied that I missed mention of?
Even if I know that you don't mean to be insulting when you use the phrase,
I know now that if you continue to use it, you are saying, in essence, to
hell with the way those people feel. They can just suck it up. I want to
use that phrase, that word, and I'll use it no matter what they think.
>>I'm starting to feel a context here, and I'm not particulary pleased with
>>it.
>
> You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
>share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
That is flamingly obvious.
> People can get upset over many terms. To assume that a usage of
>a potentially neutral word is automatically racist is looking for
>offence.
I'm not assuming that it's automatically racist. I realize for most
people, it is a matter of total innocence of any intention at all.
However, I think that, once you're told people react negatively to it, you
would just try not to use it. Like you wouldn't offer a Japanese tourist
berth 4.
>Getting upset over such is overreacting. There are more
>useful approaches.
Like what?
I keep having it explained to me that people might not know what they said
(I know this), that people can use any compliment as an insult (I know
this).
That doesn't cover this particular case -- when a word or phrase is
historically insulting to a group of people. And if the answer is, don't
pay any attention to it, ignore cultural reactions and meanings that aren't
already understood by the majority, then I think there's something wrong
with the answer.
And every time I say this, I get hit with all these stupid straw men, over
and over again, as if I think anyone saying hand me the vanilla should be
shot for insulting boring white people.
-JoAnne
--
ZedBanty
>
>On 22 Nov 2006 16:29:28 -0800, ZedBanty <ZedBant...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <er69m2dipd0hc2h0a...@4ax.com>, JoAnne Schmitz says...
>>>
>>>The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically possible
>>>for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that something is
>>>offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far as getting their say?
>>>I hope not.
>>
>>What do you mean by "minority" here, though? Are you talking about a minority
>>ethnic group, meaning Blacks, as if they're monolithically in agreement?
>
>Clearly they are not monolithically in agreement, but even if they were,
>they could not form a majority opinion of the general populace all by
>themselves.
>
>The math really isn't that hard.
This isn't about math. This is about conflation of two definitions of
"minority". I take it from your response referring to math that you mean
"minority" as in "minority opinion". But then, what other points of etiquette
would you have determined by minority opinion? (Actually, this has begun to
stray off topic - what would a maven like Miss Manners say about it?)
>
>>Or are
>>you talking about a minority opinion?
>>
>>People can and do make the distinction between a term like "articulate" and its
>>poor past
>
>And present.
Only if used in certain ways, certain contexts. A context which would apply to
just about any complimentary word.
>
>>use in some contexts. Yes, IME, including Black Americans as well as
>>those here who speak English as a second language.
>
>But rather than using a word that could be misinterpreted, I prefer to use
>one that probably won't be.
>
>Rather than using a word with historical freight, I choose to use one that
>doesn't have that freight.
>
>I really don't see what's so horrible or difficult about that.
You have that choice - no one is saying that that's horible or difficult.
Personally, since the problem is with *context* and not the word, I think it's
foolish and misdirected. If a person is using "articulate" or "healthy" or
"diligent" in a way that implies that the object of the adjective would normally
be unhealthy or badly spoken or careless because of their ethnicity, it's the
*attitude* which is the problem, not the adjective. Refusing therefore to speak
one of the adjectives is but a bandaid.
>
>>*Some* play the politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>
>So anyone who finds *themselves* wincing at such words is playing a game,
>trying to make you feel bad, push you around, mess with you?
I did not say "anyone". There is simple misunderstanding as well as advocacy.
>
>>Context. Context is the key.
>
>I'm starting to feel a context here, and I'm not particulary pleased with
>it.
>
That others disagree with you?
ZedBanty
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
You continue to assert that "articulate" carries historical racial
baggage, and cite you degree in African American studies (am I correct,
here? Or were you merely asking if *I* had one?) as some sort of proof
that you are an expert on this word.
You denounce others as "not getting it" because they will immediately
accept your point of view, nor allow you to remove from their vocabulary
a perfectly valid word.
You use a number of logical fallacies, including ad hominem, appeal to
authority, begging the question, jumping to conclusions, denying the
antecedent and a host of others to "prove" your point, and then feign
amazement that others aren't swayed by your arguments.
(For more on this, see <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html>)
The plain fact of the matter is this: "articulate" is not an offensive
word. In fact, it is the PREFERRED word to refer to someone who is well
spoken (also not offensive.) In addition, people who carry with them
the baggage that allows them to become offended by being called
articulate or well-spoken (in a sincere way -- as you point out, the
sarcastic or underhanded use is not part of this discussion) are being
overly sensitive.
While it may be polite to not REPEAT the term once one learns that they
are in the presence of such an overly sensitive person -- at least until
that person can be calmed and educated -- it is absurd to suggest that
everyone should merely drop this word from their vocabulary in order to
avoid the possibility of offending said person. If we did that, we
wouldn't talk AT ALL, given that there's probably someone out there who
will find offense at nearly anything you might say.
To attempt to turn this into a racial problem, and to label those who
use the word freely as somehow racist or racially insensitive is,
likewise, absurd. In fact, I would go so far as to say that to
compliment a black man differently than one would compliment a white man
is the racist act. Similarly, to hear a perfectly valid compliment and
interpret it as a racial slur -- THAT is the act of racism, not the
utterance of the compliment in the first place.
I implore you to set aside your dogma for a few minutes, and seriously
consider the possibility that you might be misinformed. To carry this
sort of sensitivity with one's self serves no purpose other than to
increase your personal unhappiness.
Best!
Miss Elaine Eos
Userb3 <use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
> news:7l7am21d9mns710vr...@4ax.com:
> > I sense a "what do they want from us they want to control all our
> > speech and keep us from using all those great words we used to have
> > like gay and rainbow and well-spoken and articulate and frugal and
> > niggardly. WHERE WILL IT END! I AM SO OPPRESSED!"
> Thats very telling.
Indeed.
Are there people who think that I shouldn't be using any one of those
words/phrases in my every day speech -- who are offended by my daily use
of those words and phrases?!
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> >You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
> >share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
> That is flamingly obvious.
Some of us find your characterization of us as "flaming" offensive --
loaded with historical baggage -- and would thank you to drop that word
from your vocabulary.
Userb3
>>> The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically
>>> possible for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that
>>> something is offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far
>>> as getting their say? I hope not.
>>
>>Had I been making the argument that a majority of the population was
>>required, your argument might have gained traction. But that wasn't
>>the argument.
>
> Even if you are requiring the majority of those in a social group, I
> don't think you're right.
>
> Which majority did *you* have in mind?
I don't believe I ever used the word majority, nor was that the operative
concept. I did, however point out that there is some critical mass required
to change a word's connotation, and as most of the posters in this thread
have argued, those who find the word articulate to be offensive in and of
itself haven't reached that critical mass.
Further, the word is still in widespread use as a compliment. You have yet
to account for the several thousand examples of writers referring to Ed
Bradley as articulate. Were all these writers giving offense? I'm certain
that they didn't mean, as you suggested, that Ed Bradley was simply'capable
of speech'.
At this point, it might be good to return to the original question:
Q: When is the word articulate offensive?
A: When it is used in an offensive manner, i.e. damning with faint praise.
ZedBanty
>
>
>At this point, it might be good to return to the original question:
>
>Q: When is the word articulate offensive?
>
>A: When it is used in an offensive manner, i.e. damning with faint praise.
>
Or when implying that the object, by virtue of some ethnicity, would normall not
be articulate.
Zed
ZedBanty
>
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:07:37 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>
>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 Nov 2006 16:29:28 -0800, ZedBanty <ZedBant...@newsguy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>*Some* play the politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>> ^^^^
>>>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>>>
>>>So anyone who finds *themselves* wincing at such words is playing a game,
>> ^^^^^^
>>>trying to make you feel bad, push you around, mess with you?
>>
>> These two words differ.
>>
>>>>Context. Context is the key.
>
>So why did you remove it?
>
>The context was:
>
>>People can and do make the distinction between a term like "articulate" and its
>>poor past use in some contexts. Yes, IME, including Black Americans as well as
>>those here who speak English as a second language. *Some* play the
>>politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>
>In other words, a false dilemma: some people can and do make the
>distinction, others play the politics of division.
You mean false *dichotomy*, and it isn't. There is no either-or in my
assertion.
>
>Is there some other reading of making the distinction that I'm missing?
>Was there some third group implied that I missed mention of?
>
>Even if I know that you don't mean to be insulting when you use the phrase,
>I know now that if you continue to use it, you are saying, in essence, to
>hell with the way those people feel. They can just suck it up. I want to
>use that phrase, that word, and I'll use it no matter what they think.
There's only so much one can do for someone who misinterprets one. Gentle
correction and/or education, sterring clear of the conflict in the future around
that person. This is no different from any similar problem.
I think that it's racist to presume that a person is unable to recognize context
based on their race, and you come very close to asserting that.
>
>>>I'm starting to feel a context here, and I'm not particulary pleased with
>>>it.
>>
>> You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
>>share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
>
>That is flamingly obvious.
Miss Elaine Eos handled this one beautifully. Can you recognize, after reading
her response, what a sticky linguistic world you advocate? If every adjective
ever used in an invective or implied insult is to be considered a stinking turd,
your shoes are now dirty.
>
>> People can get upset over many terms. To assume that a usage of
>>a potentially neutral word is automatically racist is looking for
>>offence.
>
>I'm not assuming that it's automatically racist. I realize for most
>people, it is a matter of total innocence of any intention at all.
>
>However, I think that, once you're told people react negatively to it, you
>would just try not to use it. Like you wouldn't offer a Japanese tourist
>berth 4.
>
>>Getting upset over such is overreacting. There are more
>>useful approaches.
>
>Like what?
>
>I keep having it explained to me that people might not know what they said
>(I know this), that people can use any compliment as an insult (I know
>this).
>
>That doesn't cover this particular case -- when a word or phrase is
>historically insulting to a group of people. And if the answer is, don't
>pay any attention to it, ignore cultural reactions and meanings that aren't
>already understood by the majority, then I think there's something wrong
>with the answer.
>
>And every time I say this, I get hit with all these stupid straw men, over
>and over again, as if I think anyone saying hand me the vanilla should be
>shot for insulting boring white people.
Joanne - you very simply do not have the credibility on this to assert that
"articulate" has been uniquely disgraced in this way and expect me to take you
at your word. And that's all you have to go on. Searches on this do _not_ show
special usage, your references point to context of use, it goes against my
experience (and, obviously, that of others), and finally, it simply does not
make sense.
Sorry, your dog don't hunt.
ZedBanty
Ericka Kammerer
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:03:35 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:36:36 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> What I think is problematic is that this is not
>>>> just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
>>>> damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
>>>> associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
>>>> care to come up with.
>>> Where is your evidence for this? Not every adjective used to describe
>>> people in a positive manner has the immediate emotional charge of
>>> "articulate." Remember the "punch in the stomach" referred to in the
>>> article I quoted about the Latina employee? Do you think they were making
>>> that up, or that they find every complimentary word to be similarly
>>> insulting?
I didn't see an article referring to a "punch in the
stomach" associated with a Latina employee.
>> I think the punch in the stomach is from the realization
>> that someone assumed that one would not be competent at speech
>> based on one's appearance, not the use of the word "articulate"
>> itself.
>
> You have an odd way of reading the article, then. They specifically said
> that it was THAT WORD.
If you're talking about the quote you gave that
mentioned a "punch in the stomach," that was referring
to a black woman, who was not the one who used the
phrase "punch in the stomach" anyway. What you quoted
the employee as saying was simply asking her boss if
he'd ever described her white, male peers in that way.
I rather suspect that he could have used any number of
other words to the same effect.
>> Similarly, people can, and have, used words like
>> "pretty," "educated," "intelligent," "polite," and a host
>> of other adjectives to damn with faint praise. When that happens,
>> it's just as offensive to the recipients, and they're just as
>> aware that it's happened.
>
> But that is intentional. I am talking about unintentional but nevertheless
> real offense.
And people could inadvertently give offense using
those words just as easily as with articulate, if it
wasn't clear that they weren't damning with faint praise.
> If I were staging Animal Farm with some friends, one of whom is a Muslim,
> and I said, you can play the pig, he might get offended. For cultural
> reasons. Whether I knew or not.
>
> He might be more offended the more knowledgeable I seemed to be. Surely I
> should know that, culturally, pigs are offensive animals to Muslims.
So, is your position that there should be no staging
of shows with pigs due to the possibility that some actors might
possibly be Muslim without your knowing it? I think that's
falling off the deep end.
>>> In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
>>> that charge it is situational, not historical.
>> How can you say that? Every one of the above adjectives,
>> and many more, have been used that way, and I don't see any
>> evidence whatsoever that "articulate" is used that way any
>> more frequently.
>
> You didn't read any of the Google links I provided?
A) The fact that "articulate" can be used in that
manner does not mean other words can't. B) Google
is not a complete and accurate record of all possible speech
patterns. C) Even when the information is out there,
it is extremely difficult to search out all possible
variations in phrases. That said, you can google up
examples of the above adjectives used that way as well.
>>> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
>>> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
>>> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
>> So can other adjectives.
>
> And you, of course, know which ones these are, right? Go on, name them.
Ummm, I believe I did. However, I would also add that
my *point* is that there *is* no list of words exhaustive enough
to avoid all the words that could be, and have been, used to give
offense in this way.
>> And if somehow "articulate"
>> were miraculously eradicated from the language, there would
>> just be another code word used by people with racist expectations.
>
> How does that militate against avoiding "articulate"? We would then avoid
> the new word if we were culturally sensitive.
It's a never-ending process, at that point. The only
thing that will end it is ending the offensive attitudes and
usage, and no amount of eliminating words will solve the problem.
I reject the idea that solving this problem is as simple as
avoiding a word. I repeat: avoiding the use of the word
"articulate" (in general, or in reference to people of color)
is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid giving offense.
The real solution is messier and more difficult, but worthwhile
in a way that removing all the words that have been used by
some to give offense is not.
> I sense a "what do they want from us they want to control all our speech
> and keep us from using all those great words we used to have like gay and
> rainbow and well-spoken and articulate and frugal and niggardly. WHERE
> WILL IT END! I AM SO OPPRESSED!"
I have never claimed to be oppressed. I have claimed
that you are barking up the wrong tree in tilting against
symptoms rather than root causes. When you work to solve
the root causes, the symptoms take care of themselves.
A world in which the word "articulate" is never used,
but people still assume that blacks can't speak well
is not acceptable. A world in which the word "articulate"
is used, but never to damn with faint praise is a much
more attractive outcome.
> I mean, really. They're just a few words.
>
>> The problem is *NOT* the word. It's the attitude.
>>
>>> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
>> Of course. No one is arguing that "articulate,"
>> as well as many other words, can't be used in a racist
>> way.
>
> But you are arguing that they don't have racist baggage.
I'm arguing that *MANY* words have racist baggage,
but that the offense is in the construction, not in the
word itself, with *very* few exceptions of words that
have become so associated with negative connotations that
they virtually no longer have a use outside those negative
connotations. "Articulate" and "well spoken" and "well
dressed" and "educated" and "polite" and many other words
are far from that point.
> You can repeat it all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
>
>> The question is what to do about it. The answer
>> is simply that one reserves the use of the word to its
>> proper context.
>
> The answer is to avoid using it.
Are you also striking these other words from your
vocabulary as well? If not, why not?
>> I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that
>> if you heard someone wipe up the floor with their opponent
>> in a debate and congratulated them on their highly
>> articulate explication of the issues, they wouldn't
>> think you were expressing surprise at their ability
>> to speak at a 4th grade level (well, unless they
>> were kindergarteners, maybe). Conversely, I think
>> most people would raise their eyebrows if you were
>> amazed at how articulate they were after doing no
>> more than engaging in idle chit chat over coffee.
>
> And in a less clear-cut situation, the question would arise -- do you mean
> articulate in an overpowering way, or articulate as in "he speaks well for
> a foreigner"?
>
> It is better to leave it alone.
>
> I'm starting to see how you might be related to Eve. All those other
> fruits, but you have to have that one, too.
The other fruits are just as tainted. That's what
you're failing to see. It is no less offensive to use the
other words. Pick any synonym for "articulate" and use it
in the same construction, and it's just as offensive. People
are smart enough to notice that they're being insulted
regardless.
>>> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
>>> hot water:
>>>
>>> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
>>>
>>> This was a real situation. Some people were insulted. The person who used
>>> the phrase did not mean to insult them. It was rather awkward for the
>>> person who used it.
>> She doesn't link to her original text, so it's
>> hard to comment on her usage. It seems quite clear from
>> what she *did* say that when she herself described what
>> she meant, the panelists were, in fact, not insulted by
>> what she said.
>
> Guh? Buh?
She made it quite clear that when she stood up
and explained that she meant that how they conducted
their panel set them head and shoulders above the other
panelists, they had no issue with her intent. One
presumes that if she had made that equally clear in her
initial posting, they would not have taken offense
initially. One might even say that her initial posting
was inarticulate.
>> It's good to be sensitive. I think the lesson, however,
>> is not that you can, or should, have a laundry list of common
>> words that must not be used with people of color.
>
> Are you saying not to consider that some words might be offensive and be
> careful using them, or avoid them? Ignore any cultural freight?
>
> I hope not.
>
>> The lesson
>> is that to avoid appearing racist you should understand that
>> there is a sensitivity to damning with faint praise *regardless*
>> of the adjective in question and choose to speak carefully
>> so as to avoid the appearance of that behavior.
>
> That is necessary but not sufficient. You also need to know which words
> and phrases are historically fraught with negative meaning to the audience
> you are writing or speaking to.
>
>> Some might
>> choose not to use particular words. Others might choose to
>> speak so that the context clarifies the usage of the word.
>> You see discussion of this particular word because it has,
>> in fact, been used in racist ways. But there are lots of
>> other words used that way,
>
> Really?
>
> Again, give me a list. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
I gave examples. There are many more, which is
precisely my point. You can find quite easily that
some of them have been used in the exact same way you
describe for "articulate." Others are not as easy to
google up, but are also used in that way.
Would you also contend that black scholars who
describe other blacks as "articulate" also don't know what
they're doing? Or is this one of those things where it's
okay to use the word if you are black, but not if you're not?
>> and those usages are every bit as
>> offensive. You could manage to use a word in that way that
>> has *never* been used to damn with faint praise previously,
>> and that would be just as offensive too.
>
> But in a different way.
Are you seriously suggesting that people are too
stupid to figure out when they're being insulted? People
occasionally take insult where none was intended, but
rarely fail to notice when they *are* being insulted.
>> Do you honestly
>> think that you could use some other word to damn with
>> faint praise and somehow it wouldn't have that "punch in
>> the gut" effect just because it wasn't an expected word
>> to use in that situation?
>
> No. The punch in the gut was a result of the word used.
>
> Read the story again.
I did. I disagree with your interpretation.
>> So, in fact, I think it *does* boil down to "reason
>> it out." It is only your ability to reason about your
>> intention and possible interpretations that allows you
>> to avoid this pitfall. That reasoning is based on an
>> understanding of history and culture.
>
> Whoa, you just said you should leave all of that out...right? No laundry
> list of words to avoid or be careful about?
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
>> Without that, you
>> could be mightily offensive without ever using the word
>> "articulate."
>
> Yes. But you raise a false dilemma. You can be offensive with using the
> word "articulate" if you don't know what you're doing.
I never claimed that you didn't need to understand
the history of oppression of various minorities or that you
didn't need to understand the particular issue of racism
expressed by damning with faint praise. I simply said that
there is no need to strike a word from your vocabulary that
has plenty of perfectly good uses simply because it is
possible to use it in a racist way. Someone who is aware
of the issue can take care to not to express wonderment
that a person of color can speak English, dress appropriately,
act according to appropriate social conventions, reason
well, not have a criminal record, live in a nice home,
or any of a zillion other offensive racial stereotypes.
If you are sensitive to that *issue*, and you are
articulate ;-), you can use whatever language seems
appropriate at the time to express the ideas you wish
to express. You will be taking care to ensure that
*whatever* words you're using, you are expressing a
genuine and deserved compliment rather than racist
surprise at someone's basic competence. This is
much more effective than simply avoiding a list of
perfectly good words.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
> But rather than using a word that could be misinterpreted, I prefer to use
> one that probably won't be.
>
> Rather than using a word with historical freight, I choose to use one that
> doesn't have that freight.
>
> I really don't see what's so horrible or difficult about that.
So, um, would you care to give an example of how
you could describe a black person as articulate in that
way that doesn't use the word "articulate" and isn't
open to misinterpretation?
Best wishes,
Ericka
Miss Elaine Eos
Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote:
Heck, I'd be happy to hear JoAnne describe ANYBODY (of any race)in a
positive way using ANY word that carries no baggage, history of abuse or
is open to misinterpretation...
Perhaps by seeing an example of this, the rest of us will be more
understanding of her POV.
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:36:36 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> What I think is problematic is that this is not
>>> just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
>>> damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
>>> associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
>>> care to come up with.
>>
>> Where is your evidence for this? Not every adjective used to describe
>> people in a positive manner has the immediate emotional charge of
>> "articulate." Remember the "punch in the stomach" referred to in the
>> article I quoted about the Latina employee? Do you think they were making
>> that up, or that they find every complimentary word to be similarly
>> insulting?
>
> I think the punch in the stomach is from the realization
>that someone assumed that one would not be competent at speech
>based on one's appearance, not the use of the word "articulate"
>itself.
So the person who wrote the article lied about that?
>Similarly, people can, and have, used words like
>"pretty," "educated," "intelligent," "polite," and a host
>of other adjectives to damn with faint praise. When that happens,
>it's just as offensive to the recipients, and they're just as
>aware that it's happened.
That doesn't erase the other offense, the one that depends on the
historical baggage the word or phrase carries.
>> In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
>> that charge it is situational, not historical.
>
> How can you say that? Every one of the above adjectives,
>and many more, have been used that way, and I don't see any
>evidence whatsoever that "articulate" is used that way any
>more frequently.
Ask a few Black friends, then. Or look at the Web links I have supplied.
>> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
>> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
>> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
>
> So can other adjectives. And if somehow "articulate"
>were miraculously eradicated from the language, there would
>just be another code word used by people with racist expectations.
>The problem is *NOT* the word. It's the attitude.
So if people don't use "n*gg*r" any more, they use "c**n" instead, then
"n*gg*r" wasn't an offensive word?
>> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
>
> Of course. No one is arguing that "articulate,"
>as well as many other words, can't be used in a racist
>way.
It is used in a racist way. Not can be, is. It isn't just a random stick
someone can use to hit you with. It's been fashioned into a club.
>The question is what to do about it. The answer
>is simply that one reserves the use of the word to its
>proper context. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that
>if you heard someone wipe up the floor with their opponent
>in a debate and congratulated them on their highly
>articulate explication of the issues, they wouldn't
>think you were expressing surprise at their ability
>to speak at a 4th grade level (well, unless they
>were kindergarteners, maybe). Conversely, I think
>most people would raise their eyebrows if you were
>amazed at how articulate they were after doing no
>more than engaging in idle chit chat over coffee.
Thanks for the lesson in what I've already been explaining.
>> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
>> hot water:
>>
>> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
>>
>> This was a real situation. Some people were insulted. The person who used
>> the phrase did not mean to insult them. It was rather awkward for the
>> person who used it.
>
> She doesn't link to her original text, so it's
>hard to comment on her usage. It seems quite clear from
>what she *did* say that when she herself described what
>she meant, the panelists were, in fact, not insulted by
>what she said.
Uh, no. They said they understood she meant no offense. That's different.
And who knows how many of the people she offended will not "get over it."
Will think she really did mean she had lower expectations of them than of
White people.
>That leads me to believe that the manner in
>which she used the word was unclear.
No, it was culturally ambiguous. To her it had no insulting meaning
attached to it. For them it did. She even realized, too late, that what
she said was insensitive.
>And, as we all know,
>there are differences between words used in face-to-face
>conversation and the written word. One always has to be
>more careful with the written word because losing the
>body language means you lose a huge amount of the information.
>My bet is that she wrote carelessly, in a way that left
>it well open to the interpretation that she was expressing
>surprise that the minority speakers had a reasonable command
>of the English language. If that was the case, then you
>could insert any synonym of "articulate" you like, and the
>remark would still likely be interpreted as offensive.
No.
You really have no clue as to the history of this, do you?
>In
>fact, you'll note that in the piece she seems to indicate
>that "well spoken" would have been just as offensive.
Yes, it is.
>So,
>again, it's the context more than the individual word.
No, those two are both offensive. And yet not every word is historically
offensive.
Is this hard to understand?
>> It is prudent, if not legally necessary, to avoid using words and phrases
>> with historically negative implications.
>>
>> I agree that it is not sufficient. But the "just reason it out and you'll
>> be fine" approach, ignoring history and culture, is not sufficient either.
>
> It's good to be sensitive. I think the lesson, however,
>is not that you can, or should, have a laundry list of common
>words that must not be used with people of color.
Actually it's a list of words and phrases you just avoid using, no matter
who is there, because they have taken on a connotation you wish to avoid.
>The lesson
>is that to avoid appearing racist you should understand that
>there is a sensitivity to damning with faint praise *regardless*
>of the adjective in question and choose to speak carefully
>so as to avoid the appearance of that behavior. >Some might
>choose not to use particular words. Others might choose to
>speak so that the context clarifies the usage of the word.
>You see discussion of this particular word because it has,
>in fact, been used in racist ways.
Some people here don't even believe that.
>But there are lots of
>other words used that way, and those usages are every bit as
>offensive. You could manage to use a word in that way that
>has *never* been used to damn with faint praise previously,
>and that would be just as offensive too.
We are discussing two ways (of many) that something can be perceived as
racially offensive. I am focusing on terms that were historically used in
an offensive manner.
I am not saying there isn't another way to be offensive. But it's not
really relevant to what I'm trying to get across, here.
>Do you honestly
>think that you could use some other word to damn with
>faint praise and somehow it wouldn't have that "punch in
>the gut" effect just because it wasn't an expected word
>to use in that situation?
> So, in fact, I think it *does* boil down to "reason
>it out." It is only your ability to reason about your
>intention and possible interpretations that allows you
>to avoid this pitfall. That reasoning is based on an
>understanding of history and culture. Without that, you
>could be mightily offensive without ever using the word
>"articulate."
Yes.
That doesn't erase the word's historical content and associations.
That doesn't mean using the word isn't offensive.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>news:c3lam2tjl2msmahen...@4ax.com:
>
>>>> The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically
>>>> possible for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that
>>>> something is offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far
>>>> as getting their say? I hope not.
>>>
>>>Had I been making the argument that a majority of the population was
>>>required, your argument might have gained traction. But that wasn't
>>>the argument.
>>
>> Even if you are requiring the majority of those in a social group, I
>> don't think you're right.
>>
>> Which majority did *you* have in mind?
>
>I don't believe I ever used the word majority, nor was that the operative
>concept. I did, however point out that there is some critical mass required
>to change a word's connotation, and as most of the posters in this thread
>have argued, those who find the word articulate to be offensive in and of
>itself haven't reached that critical mass.
>
>Further, the word is still in widespread use as a compliment. You have yet
>to account for the several thousand examples of writers referring to Ed
>Bradley as articulate. Were all these writers giving offense? I'm certain
>that they didn't mean, as you suggested, that Ed Bradley was simply'capable
>of speech'.
I didn't say that they intended to use the word as an insult. In fact I
have said more than once that many people are completely unaware of its
import.
>At this point, it might be good to return to the original question:
>
>Q: When is the word articulate offensive?
>
>A: When it is used in an offensive manner, i.e. damning with faint praise.
A: When used to describe an individual, especially a Black or minority
individual, it may be perceived as an insult, because it has historically
negative connotations. Avoid.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
<Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>In article <Xns9883EFB9143...@207.14.116.130>,
> Userb3 <use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>> news:7l7am21d9mns710vr...@4ax.com:
>> > I sense a "what do they want from us they want to control all our
>> > speech and keep us from using all those great words we used to have
>> > like gay and rainbow and well-spoken and articulate and frugal and
>> > niggardly. WHERE WILL IT END! I AM SO OPPRESSED!"
>
>> Thats very telling.
>
>Indeed.
>
>Are there people who think that I shouldn't be using any one of those
>words/phrases in my every day speech -- who are offended by my daily use
>of those words and phrases?!
Except for the last, no. But that is the cry of the "leave the language
alone you dirty nonstandard Americans".
They seem to think that by asking people not to use a couple of words, that
this means the goal is for every word to be controlled, thoughts
controlled, people locked into garments that hide their sex and race and
age and religion so we all interact as little cogs.
For the logic fans among us, it's the "slippery slope". If we bend on
this, then they'll want that, then the other, then we won't be able to say
anything.
I'm not asking for all adjectives to be banned, by custom or by law. I'm
asking you to consider that the word "articulate" and the phrase
"well-spoken" are historically used to damn with faint praise, may cause
Black and minority people to feel insulted, and therefore to just not use
them any more.
Is your vocabulary so stunted that two fewer words would really matter?
Go on, trot out the slippery slope again.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
So where is this middle ground you imply above? Why not answer here?
>>Even if I know that you don't mean to be insulting when you use the phrase,
>>I know now that if you continue to use it, you are saying, in essence, to
>>hell with the way those people feel. They can just suck it up. I want to
>>use that phrase, that word, and I'll use it no matter what they think.
>
>There's only so much one can do for someone who misinterprets one. Gentle
>correction and/or education, sterring clear of the conflict in the future around
>that person. This is no different from any similar problem.
>
>I think that it's racist to presume that a person is unable to recognize context
>based on their race, and you come very close to asserting that.
So you're almost calling me a racist. Interesting, as I haven't called
anyone here a racist.
Do you think that logic always trumps emotion? That when someone jokingly
and metaphorically refers to someone being lynched, or raped, for example,
that it is improper to have an emotional reaction to that? That we should
ignore such things in deciding whether something is polite or not?
I don't think that's a road I want to go down.
>>>>I'm starting to feel a context here, and I'm not particulary pleased with
>>>>it.
>>>
>>> You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
>>>share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
>>
>>That is flamingly obvious.
>
>Miss Elaine Eos handled this one beautifully. Can you recognize, after reading
>her response, what a sticky linguistic world you advocate? If every adjective
>ever used in an invective or implied insult is to be considered a stinking turd,
>your shoes are now dirty.
If false statement then anything goes (logic, you know).
I did not advocate considering every adjective ever used in an invective or
implied insult a stinking turd.
Or the many web pages I found?
Or the people I know who have said this to me?
All this means nothing? Maybe because *you* didn't know it before it was
discussed here?
>And that's all you have to go on. Searches on this do _not_ show
>special usage,
Yes, they do.
>your references point to context of use,
No, they do not, especially the "punch in the stomach" one.
>it goes against my
>experience (and, obviously, that of others),
Which is not a guarantee of its nonexistence by a long shot.
>and finally, it simply does not
>make sense.
That a phrase or word used historically to demean a group of people might
be offensive when used about those people, even if the speaker meant no
insult and was unaware of the context?
Makes sense to me.
>Sorry, your dog don't hunt.
All those invisible quail she's brought back, guess I'll be hungry tonight.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
<Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>In article <halam29ein7cdur0h...@4ax.com>,
> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>
>> >You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
>> >share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
>
>> That is flamingly obvious.
>
>Some of us find your characterization of us as "flaming" offensive --
>loaded with historical baggage -- and would thank you to drop that word
>from your vocabulary.
I apologize, and will do so.
-JoAnne
--
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> I'm not asking for all adjectives to be banned, by custom or by law. I'm
> asking you to consider that the word "articulate" and the phrase
> "well-spoken" are historically used to damn with faint praise, may cause
> Black and minority people to feel insulted, and therefore to just not use
> them any more.
I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone heard that.
What we're asking YOU to do is consider the possibility that your
request is silly, perpetrates racial hatred and, in general, is just
plain "out in la la land."
I realize that you're convinced otherwise, we're asking you to consider
the possibility -- to EXPAND your current education to include
information from sources with differing views.
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
[Uber3]
> >Q: When is the word articulate offensive?
> >
> >A: When it is used in an offensive manner, i.e. damning with faint praise.
> A: When used to describe an individual, especially a Black or minority
> individual, it may be perceived as an insult, because it has historically
> negative connotations. Avoid.
Your proposed answer doesn't answer the question. The question wasn't
"When might some person take offense to word-X?", it was "when it word-X
offensive?"
Uber's answer addresses the question. Yours attempts to twist it into a
racial war. Distastefully so, I might add.
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:07:21 -0800, Miss Elaine Eos
> <Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <Xns9883EFB9143...@207.14.116.130>,
> > Userb3 <use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
> >> news:7l7am21d9mns710vr...@4ax.com:
> >> > I sense a "what do they want from us they want to control all our
> >> > speech and keep us from using all those great words we used to have
> >> > like gay and rainbow and well-spoken and articulate and frugal and
> >> > niggardly. WHERE WILL IT END! I AM SO OPPRESSED!"
> >Are there people who think that I shouldn't be using any one of those
> >words/phrases in my every day speech -- who are offended by my daily use
> >of those words and phrases?!
> Except for the last, no.
There are people who think I shouldn't use the word "niggardly"?! I'm
going to go out on a limb and guess that these folks similarly claim
that the word is racially charged, confused by the fact that it contains
syllables that sound like "nigger".
(Niggardly is from the middle English nig, from the Scandinavian nygg,
meaning "stingy.")
The whole thought process behind this sort of thinking is entirely
asinine (but in a vaguely titillating way.)
Sorry, were those words too lewd?
If "beautiful" were the Elbonian word for "looks like a one-eyed pig",
it would STILL be silly to suggest that it's offensive to tell someone
(in America/English) that they are beautiful. It DOESN'T MATTER that
someone, somewhere, might take offense at it
T H E W O R D I S N O T O F F E N S I V E
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>In article <ve7am219u3gar8lep...@4ax.com>, JoAnne Schmitz says...
>>
>>On 22 Nov 2006 16:29:28 -0800, ZedBanty <ZedBant...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <er69m2dipd0hc2h0a...@4ax.com>, JoAnne Schmitz says...
>>>>
>>>>The problem I touched on with Userb3 is that it is not numerically possible
>>>>for a minority of people to form a majority opinion that something is
>>>>offensive. Minorities can simply go suck eggs so far as getting their say?
>>>>I hope not.
>>>
>>>What do you mean by "minority" here, though? Are you talking about a minority
>>>ethnic group, meaning Blacks, as if they're monolithically in agreement?
>>
>>Clearly they are not monolithically in agreement, but even if they were,
>>they could not form a majority opinion of the general populace all by
>>themselves.
>>
>>The math really isn't that hard.
>
>This isn't about math. This is about conflation of two definitions of
>"minority". I take it from your response referring to math that you mean
>"minority" as in "minority opinion". But then, what other points of etiquette
>would you have determined by minority opinion? (Actually, this has begun to
>stray off topic - what would a maven like Miss Manners say about it?)
Why do there have to be other points where a minority "rules"?
We're talking about something which is offensive to a minority of people,
but it is a minority who have experiences in common that makes the
otherwise innocuous words noxious.
>>>Or are
>>>you talking about a minority opinion?
>>>
>>>People can and do make the distinction between a term like "articulate" and its
>>>poor past
>>
>>And present.
>
>Only if used in certain ways, certain contexts. A context which would apply to
>just about any complimentary word.
Are you saying that it isn't used in that way now? Really? All the old
racists went to their reward? No one living today has reduced expectations
of Blacks and other minorities?
A stroll through soc.culture.african-american should disabuse you of this
notion pretty thoroughly.
>>>use in some contexts. Yes, IME, including Black Americans as well as
>>>those here who speak English as a second language.
>>
>>But rather than using a word that could be misinterpreted, I prefer to use
>>one that probably won't be.
>>
>>Rather than using a word with historical freight, I choose to use one that
>>doesn't have that freight.
>>
>>I really don't see what's so horrible or difficult about that.
>
>You have that choice - no one is saying that that's horible or difficult.
>Personally, since the problem is with *context* and not the word, I think it's
>foolish and misdirected.
The problem isn't just with context. No matter how many times people
"explain" to me that the word or phrase is only an insult if used as faint
praise, it still carries the faint praise stink even if used, unknowingly,
by a person who is unaware of its history, used sincerely and fulsomely.
Context is important. But don't be so selective. The context is this:
It is used to describe a Black or other minority person.
In living memory, and among some people even today, it is used to express
surprise that the person can communicate normally, or that the person
"sounds white."
It causes many Black and minority people to feel insulted.
In that context, don't use it.
>If a person is using "articulate" or "healthy" or
>"diligent"
Healthy and diligent do not have that history. At least, as far as I know.
>in a way that implies that the object of the adjective would normally
>be unhealthy or badly spoken or careless because of their ethnicity, it's the
>*attitude* which is the problem, not the adjective. Refusing therefore to speak
>one of the adjectives is but a bandaid.
Do you really want me to bring out the racial epithets, and say that a
child who knows no better is perfectly polite and should not be corrected
for using words he's heard older relatives use, in the face of those so
described?
Yes, that is an extreme example. It is about words we all know are
offensive. Unfortunately, we don't all know all the particulars of what is
offensive to people in other cultures and social groups. Learning these
things is useful information.
>>>*Some* play the politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>>
>>So anyone who finds *themselves* wincing at such words is playing a game,
>>trying to make you feel bad, push you around, mess with you?
>
>I did not say "anyone". There is simple misunderstanding as well as advocacy.
But they're always wrong to be insulted?
>>>Context. Context is the key.
>>
>>I'm starting to feel a context here, and I'm not particulary pleased with
>>it.
>
>That others disagree with you?
That others seem to think that an insult they don't perceive as an insult
must somehow not be an insult.
That others don't seem to want to believe that there's an insult they
didn't know about, perhaps.
That others seem to want to find an insult in someone being insulted by
something they said.
-JoAnne
--
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:10:53 -0800, Miss Elaine Eos
> <Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <halam29ein7cdur0h...@4ax.com>,
> > JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
> >> >share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
> >
> >> That is flamingly obvious.
> >
> >Some of us find your characterization of us as "flaming" offensive --
> >loaded with historical baggage -- and would thank you to drop that word
> >from your vocabulary.
>
> I apologize, and will do so.
I cannot help but think that someone as articulate as yourself is not,
now, feigning obtuseness.
But thanks for playing along, anyway :)
Gene Wirchenko
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:07:37 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>
>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 Nov 2006 16:29:28 -0800, ZedBanty <ZedBant...@newsguy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>*Some* play the politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>> ^^^^
>>>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>>>
>>>So anyone who finds *themselves* wincing at such words is playing a game,
>> ^^^^^^
>>>trying to make you feel bad, push you around, mess with you?
>>
>> These two words differ.
>>
>>>>Context. Context is the key.
>
>So why did you remove it?
Because it is understood in this discussion and if someone needs
torefer to it, he can go upthread and get it. That is how newsgroups
(the context of this discussion) work.
>The context was:
>
>>People can and do make the distinction between a term like "articulate" and its
>>poor past use in some contexts. Yes, IME, including Black Americans as well as
>>those here who speak English as a second language. *Some* play the
>>politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>
>In other words, a false dilemma: some people can and do make the
>distinction, others play the politics of division.
>
>Is there some other reading of making the distinction that I'm missing?
>Was there some third group implied that I missed mention of?
Probably.
>Even if I know that you don't mean to be insulting when you use the phrase,
>I know now that if you continue to use it, you are saying, in essence, to
>hell with the way those people feel. They can just suck it up. I want to
>use that phrase, that word, and I'll use it no matter what they think.
No, but the other side is that I am not to use a word no matter
what I think.
>>>I'm starting to feel a context here, and I'm not particulary pleased with
>>>it.
>>
>> You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
>>share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
>
>That is flamingly obvious.
You can be most disagreeable while agreeing.
>> People can get upset over many terms. To assume that a usage of
>>a potentially neutral word is automatically racist is looking for
>>offence.
>
>I'm not assuming that it's automatically racist. I realize for most
>people, it is a matter of total innocence of any intention at all.
>
>However, I think that, once you're told people react negatively to it, you
>would just try not to use it. Like you wouldn't offer a Japanese tourist
>berth 4.
Yes, once I am told. If I am not, then what?
>>Getting upset over such is overreacting. There are more
>>useful approaches.
>
>Like what?
Telling the person politely that the term he used is considered
insulting and suggesting an alternative.
>I keep having it explained to me that people might not know what they said
>(I know this), that people can use any compliment as an insult (I know
>this).
And do you agree?
>That doesn't cover this particular case -- when a word or phrase is
>historically insulting to a group of people. And if the answer is, don't
>pay any attention to it, ignore cultural reactions and meanings that aren't
>already understood by the majority, then I think there's something wrong
>with the answer.
And how would one know? I had never heard of "articulate" as
being insulting. I use the word to describe *myself*; I have for
years.
>And every time I say this, I get hit with all these stupid straw men, over
>and over again, as if I think anyone saying hand me the vanilla should be
>shot for insulting boring white people.
Nope. You keep clubbing us with the historical point.
Ericka Kammerer
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:03:35 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:36:36 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> What I think is problematic is that this is not
>>>> just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
>>>> damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
>>>> associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
>>>> care to come up with.
>>> Where is your evidence for this? Not every adjective used to describe
>>> people in a positive manner has the immediate emotional charge of
>>> "articulate." Remember the "punch in the stomach" referred to in the
>>> article I quoted about the Latina employee? Do you think they were making
>>> that up, or that they find every complimentary word to be similarly
>>> insulting?
>> I think the punch in the stomach is from the realization
>> that someone assumed that one would not be competent at speech
>> based on one's appearance, not the use of the word "articulate"
>> itself.
>
> So the person who wrote the article lied about that?
Please explain how you translate the writer's words
into meaning that "articulate" is the one and only word
that has this effect, and that it does so in every situation
in every possible use. I think you're reading a whole lot
into these things that are not in evidence.
>> Similarly, people can, and have, used words like
>> "pretty," "educated," "intelligent," "polite," and a host
>> of other adjectives to damn with faint praise. When that happens,
>> it's just as offensive to the recipients, and they're just as
>> aware that it's happened.
>
> That doesn't erase the other offense, the one that depends on the
> historical baggage the word or phrase carries.
And "articulate" is the only word that carries any of
this baggage?
>>> In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
>>> that charge it is situational, not historical.
>> How can you say that? Every one of the above adjectives,
>> and many more, have been used that way, and I don't see any
>> evidence whatsoever that "articulate" is used that way any
>> more frequently.
>
> Ask a few Black friends, then. Or look at the Web links I have supplied.
Your links say nothing about how no other words have
been used in this way. And frankly, since my black friends
use these words about both themselves, other black people,
and people of other races, it's a little hard to imagine
that they're highly offended by the use. Furthermore, my
black friends would be quick to point out other words that
are also used in this manner and would take offense at the
notion that they're too stupid to be able to discern when
they're being patronized, whatever the method.
>>> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
>>> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
>>> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
>> So can other adjectives. And if somehow "articulate"
>> were miraculously eradicated from the language, there would
>> just be another code word used by people with racist expectations.
>> The problem is *NOT* the word. It's the attitude.
>
> So if people don't use "n*gg*r" any more, they use "c**n" instead, then
> "n*gg*r" wasn't an offensive word?
You will note that we were discussing words that
have have plenty of positive usages as well, not the
extreme example you give. Also, you will note that I
made no claim parallel to the one you describe.
>>> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
>> Of course. No one is arguing that "articulate,"
>> as well as many other words, can't be used in a racist
>> way.
>
> It is used in a racist way. Not can be, is. It isn't just a random stick
> someone can use to hit you with. It's been fashioned into a club.
"Articulate" is often used in a non-offensive way,
even by black scholars to refer to other black people who
are particularly gifted in their use of words. It is *not*
a word that is always, or even mostly, offensive.
>> The question is what to do about it. The answer
>> is simply that one reserves the use of the word to its
>> proper context. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that
>> if you heard someone wipe up the floor with their opponent
>> in a debate and congratulated them on their highly
>> articulate explication of the issues, they wouldn't
>> think you were expressing surprise at their ability
>> to speak at a 4th grade level (well, unless they
>> were kindergarteners, maybe). Conversely, I think
>> most people would raise their eyebrows if you were
>> amazed at how articulate they were after doing no
>> more than engaging in idle chit chat over coffee.
>
> Thanks for the lesson in what I've already been explaining.
Care to explain, then, how it's inappropriate to
call a black person articulate when the word is used
*properly* to mean that the person has an unusually high
degree of facility with words and speech, rather than
insultingly to express surprise at a basic ability to
speak, if I've happened to express what you've been trying
to say?
>>> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
>>> hot water:
>>>
>>> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
>>>
>>> This was a real situation. Some people were insulted. The person who used
>>> the phrase did not mean to insult them. It was rather awkward for the
>>> person who used it.
>> She doesn't link to her original text, so it's
>> hard to comment on her usage. It seems quite clear from
>> what she *did* say that when she herself described what
>> she meant, the panelists were, in fact, not insulted by
>> what she said.
>
> Uh, no. They said they understood she meant no offense. That's different.
Care to quote exactly where it says that?
>
> And who knows how many of the people she offended will not "get over it."
> Will think she really did mean she had lower expectations of them than of
> White people.
>
>> That leads me to believe that the manner in
>> which she used the word was unclear.
>
> No, it was culturally ambiguous. To her it had no insulting meaning
> attached to it. For them it did. She even realized, too late, that what
> she said was insensitive.
You have some access to her original quote that
you'd like to share? Otherwise, how are you so sure about
what she said and how she said it?
>> And, as we all know,
>> there are differences between words used in face-to-face
>> conversation and the written word. One always has to be
>> more careful with the written word because losing the
>> body language means you lose a huge amount of the information.
>> My bet is that she wrote carelessly, in a way that left
>> it well open to the interpretation that she was expressing
>> surprise that the minority speakers had a reasonable command
>> of the English language. If that was the case, then you
>> could insert any synonym of "articulate" you like, and the
>> remark would still likely be interpreted as offensive.
>
> No.
>
> You really have no clue as to the history of this, do you?
You really have no clue *what* my background is
with this, do you? You just assume if I don't agree with
you that I must be clueless. Hmmm...making assumptions
about people....
>> In
>> fact, you'll note that in the piece she seems to indicate
>> that "well spoken" would have been just as offensive.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>> So,
>> again, it's the context more than the individual word.
>
> No, those two are both offensive. And yet not every word is historically
> offensive.
Odd, that. Perhaps it has something to do with
*how* the word is used, then.
> Is this hard to understand?
>
>>> It is prudent, if not legally necessary, to avoid using words and phrases
>>> with historically negative implications.
>>>
>>> I agree that it is not sufficient. But the "just reason it out and you'll
>>> be fine" approach, ignoring history and culture, is not sufficient either.
>> It's good to be sensitive. I think the lesson, however,
>> is not that you can, or should, have a laundry list of common
>> words that must not be used with people of color.
>
> Actually it's a list of words and phrases you just avoid using, no matter
> who is there, because they have taken on a connotation you wish to avoid.
>
>> The lesson
>> is that to avoid appearing racist you should understand that
>> there is a sensitivity to damning with faint praise *regardless*
>> of the adjective in question and choose to speak carefully
>> so as to avoid the appearance of that behavior. >Some might
>> choose not to use particular words. Others might choose to
>> speak so that the context clarifies the usage of the word.
>> You see discussion of this particular word because it has,
>> in fact, been used in racist ways.
>
> Some people here don't even believe that.
Who here has denied that "articulate" has been used,
or even is still sometimes used, to damn with faint praise?
I don't recall a single instance.
>> But there are lots of
>> other words used that way, and those usages are every bit as
>> offensive. You could manage to use a word in that way that
>> has *never* been used to damn with faint praise previously,
>> and that would be just as offensive too.
>
> We are discussing two ways (of many) that something can be perceived as
> racially offensive. I am focusing on terms that were historically used in
> an offensive manner.
But you are ignoring many other words and phrases that
have *also* been used in the same manner. Furthermore, you are
denying that people, including black people, have the ability
to figure out when they're being patronized and when they're
not.
> I am not saying there isn't another way to be offensive. But it's not
> really relevant to what I'm trying to get across, here.
I think it is. You are proposing a solution
that might possibly be effective if we were only talking
about a single word that had become overwhelmingly negative.
However, not only is the word not so overwhelmingly negative
that the very people one would expect to be most aware and
sensitive to its use (i.e., black scholars of African American
studies) have given it up, but also there are demonstrably
plenty of other words with similar baggage that also haven't
been given up and would have to be given up by your logic.
That, as far as I'm concerned, renders your solution highly
suspect.
>> Do you honestly
>> think that you could use some other word to damn with
>> faint praise and somehow it wouldn't have that "punch in
>> the gut" effect just because it wasn't an expected word
>> to use in that situation?
>> So, in fact, I think it *does* boil down to "reason
>> it out." It is only your ability to reason about your
>> intention and possible interpretations that allows you
>> to avoid this pitfall. That reasoning is based on an
>> understanding of history and culture. Without that, you
>> could be mightily offensive without ever using the word
>> "articulate."
>
> Yes.
>
> That doesn't erase the word's historical content and associations.
>
> That doesn't mean using the word isn't offensive.
Well, clearly it is *not* offensive in all cases,
or even in all cases where it is applied to people of
color. So, I find your conclusions over the top.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Userb3
> Ask a few Black friends, then. Or look at the Web links I have
> supplied.
And if we've already done that and still disagree?
> So if people don't use "n*gg*r" any more, they use "c**n" instead,
> then "n*gg*r" wasn't an offensive word?
Are you arguing that articulate is on a par with these words?
Userb3
>>Further, the word is still in widespread use as a compliment. You have
>>yet to account for the several thousand examples of writers referring
>>to Ed Bradley as articulate. Were all these writers giving offense?
>>I'm certain that they didn't mean, as you suggested, that Ed Bradley
>>was simply'capable of speech'.
>
> I didn't say that they intended to use the word as an insult. In fact
> I have said more than once that many people are completely unaware of
> its import.
You are suggesting that the international press, Ed Bradley's peers,
black writers, elected officials, et al are completely unaware that the
word articulate is offensive in and of itself? If all of those people are
under the impression that articulate is a perfectly acceptable word to
use to describe a black man who is, coincidentally a world reknowned
journalist and one of the first blacks to achieve national prominence in
his field, then can it really be as offensive as you suggest?
Userb3
> But that is the cry of the "leave the
> language alone you dirty nonstandard Americans".
Who, pray tell, is crying that?
JoAnne Schmitz
<Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>In article <49obm25pvva5gebnn...@4ax.com>,
> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>
> [Uber3]
>> >Q: When is the word articulate offensive?
>> >
>> >A: When it is used in an offensive manner, i.e. damning with faint praise.
>
>> A: When used to describe an individual, especially a Black or minority
>> individual, it may be perceived as an insult, because it has historically
>> negative connotations. Avoid.
>
>Your proposed answer doesn't answer the question. The question wasn't
>"When might some person take offense to word-X?", it was "when it word-X
>offensive?"
>
>Uber's answer addresses the question. Yours attempts to twist it into a
>racial war. Distastefully so, I might add.
Oh, yeah, you got me. There was no tension between races before I started
it.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>news:9vobm2thrr5pjk6te...@4ax.com:
>
>> But that is the cry of the "leave the
>> language alone you dirty nonstandard Americans".
>
>Who, pray tell, is crying that?
Again, a dip of the toes into soc.culture.african-american should give you
clue.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:03:35 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:36:36 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> What I think is problematic is that this is not
>>>>> just a phenomenon associated with "articulate." The
>>>>> damning with faint praise thing can be (and has been)
>>>>> associated with just about any positive adjective you'd
>>>>> care to come up with.
>>>> Where is your evidence for this? Not every adjective used to describe
>>>> people in a positive manner has the immediate emotional charge of
>>>> "articulate." Remember the "punch in the stomach" referred to in the
>>>> article I quoted about the Latina employee? Do you think they were making
>>>> that up, or that they find every complimentary word to be similarly
>>>> insulting?
>
> I didn't see an article referring to a "punch in the
>stomach" associated with a Latina employee.
Sorry, I misremembered the story as about a Latina employee, but it was
about a Black employee.
http://www.diversityinc.com/public/113.cfm
But I see now you are pretending to not know what I meant.
>>> I think the punch in the stomach is from the realization
>>> that someone assumed that one would not be competent at speech
>>> based on one's appearance, not the use of the word "articulate"
>>> itself.
>>
>> You have an odd way of reading the article, then. They specifically said
>> that it was THAT WORD.
>
> If you're talking about the quote you gave that
>mentioned a "punch in the stomach," that was referring
>to a black woman, who was not the one who used the
>phrase "punch in the stomach" anyway.
The story is in an article from DiversityInc. The author wrote,
"Perdue's boss, a white man, said the one comment that strikes like a punch
in the stomach for black women."
This makes it pretty clear that this ONE comment is offensive.
"I asked if he had ever commented to my three peers [all white men] that
they were articulate and well-spoken ... He gasped."
There they are, both of those phrases. I didn't have to do any
super-obscure, fancy Google-searches to find them -- just
articulate black offensive
as I recall.
>What you quoted
>the employee as saying was simply asking her boss if
>he'd ever described her white, male peers in that way.
And that he gasped in return. Acknowledging that this was a wrong thing to
do and he knows it and feels bad about it.
>I rather suspect that he could have used any number of
>other words to the same effect.
"the one comment that strikes like a punch in the stomach for black women"
means to you that there are a lot of others and there's nothing special
about this?
Good luck on the GREs.
>>> Similarly, people can, and have, used words like
>>> "pretty," "educated," "intelligent," "polite," and a host
>>> of other adjectives to damn with faint praise. When that happens,
>>> it's just as offensive to the recipients, and they're just as
>>> aware that it's happened.
>>
>> But that is intentional. I am talking about unintentional but nevertheless
>> real offense.
>
> And people could inadvertently give offense using
>those words just as easily as with articulate,
No. Because "articulate" and "well spoken" both carry a historical taint
of faint praise.
>if it
>wasn't clear that they weren't damning with faint praise.
>
>> If I were staging Animal Farm with some friends, one of whom is a Muslim,
>> and I said, you can play the pig, he might get offended. For cultural
>> reasons. Whether I knew or not.
>>
>> He might be more offended the more knowledgeable I seemed to be. Surely I
>> should know that, culturally, pigs are offensive animals to Muslims.
>
> So, is your position that there should be no staging
>of shows with pigs due to the possibility that some actors might
>possibly be Muslim without your knowing it?
No. Interesting misinterpretation, though.
Analogy is not identity. I wouldn't give a Japanese friend a gift on which
is prominently engraved the number 4.
>I think that's
>falling off the deep end.
Did you know that's another cultural insult? Asking Black people if they
can swim?
>>>> In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
>>>> that charge it is situational, not historical.
>>> How can you say that? Every one of the above adjectives,
>>> and many more, have been used that way, and I don't see any
>>> evidence whatsoever that "articulate" is used that way any
>>> more frequently.
>>
>> You didn't read any of the Google links I provided?
>
> A) The fact that "articulate" can be used in that
>manner does not mean other words can't. B) Google
>is not a complete and accurate record of all possible speech
>patterns. C) Even when the information is out there,
>it is extremely difficult to search out all possible
>variations in phrases. That said, you can google up
>examples of the above adjectives used that way as well.
And yet the fact remains that these words have historical associations.
All the theoretical "any word can be used that way" doesn't erase that.
>>>> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
>>>> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
>>>> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
>>> So can other adjectives.
>>
>> And you, of course, know which ones these are, right? Go on, name them.
>
> Ummm, I believe I did.
Sorry, I missed it. Unless it was the null set.
>However, I would also add that
>my *point* is that there *is* no list of words exhaustive enough
>to avoid all the words that could be, and have been, used to give
>offense in this way.
So there's no way to be safe? So just give up?
>>> And if somehow "articulate"
>>> were miraculously eradicated from the language, there would
>>> just be another code word used by people with racist expectations.
>>
>> How does that militate against avoiding "articulate"? We would then avoid
>> the new word if we were culturally sensitive.
>
> It's a never-ending process, at that point.
I doubt your hypothetical could ever occur.
First off, there are plenty of people who will keep it alive, as an insult.
So it won't disappear, just as many other cruder words will remain.
Remember, I'm not talking about legislation; I'm talking about polite
people refraining from using a few words and phrases.
And if it were to disappear, it is literally neverending only in the
context of neverending time, spreading the burden across millennia and
beyond.
Which makes it not much of an imposition on us mortals. At least, I'm not
feeling particularly overburdened by it.
>The only
>thing that will end it is ending the offensive attitudes and
>usage, and no amount of eliminating words will solve the problem.
I don't know where you got the idea that I felt this was a solution to all
racial problems.
I said I wouldn't use it because it might offend someone.
>I reject the idea that solving this problem is as simple as
>avoiding a word. I repeat: avoiding the use of the word
>"articulate" (in general, or in reference to people of color)
>is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid giving offense.
It is necessary, but not sufficient.
>The real solution is messier and more difficult, but worthwhile
>in a way that removing all the words that have been used by
>some to give offense is not.
I didn't say the word should be removed.
I said I wouldn't use it to describe a person. That it could be considered
offensive.
>> I sense a "what do they want from us they want to control all our speech
>> and keep us from using all those great words we used to have like gay and
>> rainbow and well-spoken and articulate and frugal and niggardly. WHERE
>> WILL IT END! I AM SO OPPRESSED!"
>
> I have never claimed to be oppressed. I have claimed
>that you are barking up the wrong tree in tilting against
>symptoms rather than root causes.
I am answering the question of the subject line. You are asking me why
this isn't solving all racial problems?
You thought that my answer to the subject line should be "when people are
free to see each other as human beings and are blind to race"?
Again with the false dilemma. Someone can avoid using these words and
phrases, and also work for peace, love and understanding in other ways.
Saying, "oh, that's not important, what's really important is getting to
nirvana," isn't a solution. Manners implies we do not live in nirvana, and
hence must get along with each other using rules rather than seeing into
each other's crystal pure hearts and souls to divine the god within.
I don't foresee nirvana in the next couple of years, but I have employee
reviews to write, people to meet, friends to make in that time. I'd rather
not complicate those by using words that might put someone off.
>When you work to solve
>the root causes, the symptoms take care of themselves.
Talk about neverending. I don't think I'll be waiting that long. At
least, I don't think I'll be breathing when we get there.
>A world in which the word "articulate" is never used,
>but people still assume that blacks can't speak well
>is not acceptable. A world in which the word "articulate"
>is used, but never to damn with faint praise is a much
>more attractive outcome.
And the future world is likely to be neither, so I'm not sure what the
point of your evaluation is.
>> I mean, really. They're just a few words.
>>
>>> The problem is *NOT* the word. It's the attitude.
>>>
>>>> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
>>> Of course. No one is arguing that "articulate,"
>>> as well as many other words, can't be used in a racist
>>> way.
>>
>> But you are arguing that they don't have racist baggage.
>
> I'm arguing that *MANY* words have racist baggage,
Other polite words that have racist baggage are:
[please fill in the blanks for me]
>but that the offense is in the construction, not in the
>word itself, with *very* few exceptions of words that
>have become so associated with negative connotations that
>they virtually no longer have a use outside those negative
>connotations. "Articulate" and "well spoken" and "well
>dressed" and "educated" and "polite" and many other words
>are far from that point.
Sez you.
>> You can repeat it all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
>>
>>> The question is what to do about it. The answer
>>> is simply that one reserves the use of the word to its
>>> proper context.
>>
>> The answer is to avoid using it.
>
> Are you also striking these other words from your
>vocabulary as well? If not, why not?
I'm not sure I agree with you as to which words are offensive and why.
Some of the above are situationally offensive, and one should be careful to
use those words where it really clearly applies.
That doesn't mean there aren't some words and phrases that have that extra
"zing" because of historical associations.
>>> I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that
>>> if you heard someone wipe up the floor with their opponent
>>> in a debate and congratulated them on their highly
>>> articulate explication of the issues, they wouldn't
>>> think you were expressing surprise at their ability
>>> to speak at a 4th grade level (well, unless they
>>> were kindergarteners, maybe). Conversely, I think
>>> most people would raise their eyebrows if you were
>>> amazed at how articulate they were after doing no
>>> more than engaging in idle chit chat over coffee.
>>
>> And in a less clear-cut situation, the question would arise -- do you mean
>> articulate in an overpowering way, or articulate as in "he speaks well for
>> a foreigner"?
>>
>> It is better to leave it alone.
>>
>> I'm starting to see how you might be related to Eve. All those other
>> fruits, but you have to have that one, too.
>
> The other fruits are just as tainted. That's what
>you're failing to see.
No, they are not. You almost admit this later.
>It is no less offensive to use the
>other words. Pick any synonym for "articulate" and use it
>in the same construction, and it's just as offensive. People
>are smart enough to notice that they're being insulted
>regardless.
But they have heard "well-spoken" and "articulate" as code words for "Black
person who speaks like a white person" so much, they do perceive, or
suspect, an immediate insult.
Really. I'm not kidding. I'm not making this up.
>>>> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
>>>> hot water:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
>>>>
>>>> This was a real situation. Some people were insulted. The person who used
>>>> the phrase did not mean to insult them. It was rather awkward for the
>>>> person who used it.
>>> She doesn't link to her original text, so it's
>>> hard to comment on her usage. It seems quite clear from
>>> what she *did* say that when she herself described what
>>> she meant, the panelists were, in fact, not insulted by
>>> what she said.
>>
>> Guh? Buh?
>
> She made it quite clear that when she stood up
>and explained that she meant that how they conducted
>their panel set them head and shoulders above the other
>panelists, they had no issue with her intent. One
>presumes that if she had made that equally clear in her
>initial posting, they would not have taken offense
>initially. One might even say that her initial posting
>was inarticulate.
That last I'll agree with -- she did not communicate effectively.
She used "articulate" to describe a group of people who had as a major
common bond that they are Black.
The negative reception she got isn't warning enough to you?
>>> It's good to be sensitive. I think the lesson, however,
>>> is not that you can, or should, have a laundry list of common
>>> words that must not be used with people of color.
>>
>> Are you saying not to consider that some words might be offensive and be
>> careful using them, or avoid them? Ignore any cultural freight?
>>
>> I hope not.
No answer here?
>>> The lesson
>>> is that to avoid appearing racist you should understand that
>>> there is a sensitivity to damning with faint praise *regardless*
>>> of the adjective in question and choose to speak carefully
>>> so as to avoid the appearance of that behavior.
>>
>> That is necessary but not sufficient. You also need to know which words
>> and phrases are historically fraught with negative meaning to the audience
>> you are writing or speaking to.
>>
>>> Some might
>>> choose not to use particular words. Others might choose to
>>> speak so that the context clarifies the usage of the word.
>>> You see discussion of this particular word because it has,
>>> in fact, been used in racist ways. But there are lots of
>>> other words used that way,
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Again, give me a list. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>
> I gave examples.
Of words that can be used as faint praise, to anyone. Not words that are
culturally offensive.
I'm thinking that may be because you aren't particularly aware of any words
and phrases that are culturally offensive yet don't have that charge in
your social and cultural group.
>There are many more, which is
>precisely my point. You can find quite easily that
>some of them have been used in the exact same way you
>describe for "articulate." Others are not as easy to
>google up, but are also used in that way.
> Would you also contend that black scholars who
>describe other blacks as "articulate" also don't know what
>they're doing? Or is this one of those things where it's
>okay to use the word if you are black, but not if you're not?
Oooh, I figured that would come up eventually.
The fact that a Black scholar is using the word, a person who is both Black
and educated, suggests he knows about the history and culture of the word.
Hence, yes, he is assumed to know about the offensive possibilities of the
word and to be using it correctly, as unmitigated praise.
A person like me, White, not a scholar, though educated, is not assumed to
know the history. Given the discussion here, it is clear that most do not
know the history.
That doesn't erase the history. That doesn't mean many people,
intelligent, educated people, might not take offense at it. So I choose
not to use it.
You all seem to think that I am:
Stupid and wrong for thinking there's something special about the word or
phrase in question.
Racist for thinking that Black people are stupid enough to be offended by
something said by someone who didn't mean offense. Divisive, trying to
make Black people offended by innocuous phrases.
Trying to find offense in every word everyone says.
Calling everyone who disagress with me a racist.
I've been posting here for several years. I don't think I've ever posted
before on not using a seemingly innocuous word or phrase because it might
be considered offensive. That's because there aren't a lot of those.
But "articulate" and "well spoken" are in that group.
I'm not sure why the assumption is that I spend a lot of time thinking
about this, that I think this is true of a lot of words. The evidence
isn't there.
Spending the time I have answering all these opposing posts isn't because
of a long-time fixation or crazed militant political correctness crusade.
It's fueled by a mix of astonishment and dismay that the feelings of people
who are offended by the usage are simply dismissed, and total denial of any
impact the history of the word or phrase on current usage.
>>> and those usages are every bit as
>>> offensive. You could manage to use a word in that way that
>>> has *never* been used to damn with faint praise previously,
>>> and that would be just as offensive too.
>>
>> But in a different way.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that people are too
>stupid to figure out when they're being insulted? People
>occasionally take insult where none was intended, but
>rarely fail to notice when they *are* being insulted.
If it were so easy, why would we have this newsgroup in the first place?
If it's easy to tell when you're being insulted, then there are no rules.
Just look into the soul of the person you're discoursing with.
>>> Do you honestly
>>> think that you could use some other word to damn with
>>> faint praise and somehow it wouldn't have that "punch in
>>> the gut" effect just because it wasn't an expected word
>>> to use in that situation?
>>
>> No. The punch in the gut was a result of the word used.
>>
>> Read the story again.
>
> I did. I disagree with your interpretation.
I don't think it's subtle.
"The one word"? That means any word would do?
>>> So, in fact, I think it *does* boil down to "reason
>>> it out." It is only your ability to reason about your
>>> intention and possible interpretations that allows you
>>> to avoid this pitfall. That reasoning is based on an
>>> understanding of history and culture.
>>
>> Whoa, you just said you should leave all of that out...right? No laundry
>> list of words to avoid or be careful about?
>
> I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Up to this point, you have been arguing that we should not have a laundry
list of words that a particular group or culture finds offensive.
Here you say that we reason offense out based on an understanding of
history and culture.
Whose history and culture are we going to use, to decide if a word or
phrase is offensive to Black people?
>>> Without that, you
>>> could be mightily offensive without ever using the word
>>> "articulate."
>>
>> Yes. But you raise a false dilemma. You can be offensive with using the
>> word "articulate" if you don't know what you're doing.
>
> I never claimed that you didn't need to understand
>the history of oppression of various minorities or that you
>didn't need to understand the particular issue of racism
>expressed by damning with faint praise. I simply said that
>there is no need to strike a word from your vocabulary that
>has plenty of perfectly good uses simply because it is
>possible to use it in a racist way.
Right.
But if it is historically used in that way and actually causes people to
wince when someone uses it, that's a clue right there that it isn't just
*possible* to use it in a racist way like any other adjective.
It is often used that way. As a code word, as a point of ignorance,
whatever.
And the polite solution is to just avoid it.
>Someone who is aware
>of the issue can take care to not to express wonderment
>that a person of color can speak English, dress appropriately,
>act according to appropriate social conventions, reason
>well, not have a criminal record, live in a nice home,
>or any of a zillion other offensive racial stereotypes.
>If you are sensitive to that *issue*, and you are
>articulate ;-), you can use whatever language seems
>appropriate at the time to express the ideas you wish
>to express.
The problem here is that what seems appropriate to you might grate on the
recipient's ears, because it's historically been used to damn with faint
praise.
>You will be taking care to ensure that
>*whatever* words you're using, you are expressing a
>genuine and deserved compliment rather than racist
>surprise at someone's basic competence. This is
>much more effective than simply avoiding a list of
>perfectly good words.
Again, you can only do one or the other, but not both?
Do both. Watch your attitude, and watch your vocabulary. Make yourself
aware of what the stereotypes and words and phrases are that are offensive
so you can avoid them.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>news:207am2djsrf77h1hp...@4ax.com:
>
>> Ask a few Black friends, then. Or look at the Web links I have
>> supplied.
>
>And if we've already done that and still disagree?
Then go on and use those words.
>> So if people don't use "n*gg*r" any more, they use "c**n" instead,
>> then "n*gg*r" wasn't an offensive word?
>
>Are you arguing that articulate is on a par with these words?
No.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
<Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>In article <m6pbm2d2q55j87qmk...@4ax.com>,
> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:10:53 -0800, Miss Elaine Eos
>> <Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <halam29ein7cdur0h...@4ax.com>,
>> > JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
>> >> >share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
>> >
>> >> That is flamingly obvious.
>> >
>> >Some of us find your characterization of us as "flaming" offensive --
>> >loaded with historical baggage -- and would thank you to drop that word
>> >from your vocabulary.
>>
>> I apologize, and will do so.
>
>I cannot help but think that someone as articulate as yourself is not,
>now, feigning obtuseness.
>
>But thanks for playing along, anyway :)
Others here have suggested that being offended by "articulate" or
"well-spoken" is a ploy, an attempt at racial division. That's a serious
accusation. So there's no way I'm going to make that accusation of you.
I assume you are saying your request was a game. I hope you're not
equating a real person taking real offense with a game of taking offense at
something you're not really offended by.
I think you're instead saying, "how do you know? where does it all end?
how can we decide whether to take it seriously when we've never heard it
before?" Others have answered this by saying, if we honor this request, it
will never end. I don't think that's true.
The point here is that, when you told me you were offended, I simply took
your word for it. If you are playing me for a fool, that is on you, not on
me. I am not so very hurt by it. I am able to live with it.
And if it's just you, then the effect will be narrow. Only the people you
play this game on will change their vocabularies. Few will notice that I
don't say "flamingly" any more; fewer still will assume there's a reason
for it.
It is not polite for me to grill you on why exactly you take offense,
"educate" you on why the word is not offensive because the dictionary
doesn't say so, pretend that your feelings don't count, or say that since
others of your group don't mind or use the word, or the issue is
controversial, that you should not be offended.
I don't try to argue you out of being offended. I honor your request.
It's that simple.
I don't think you were being malicious in your game, and I think it shed a
little light here where it seems most of the discussion centers on
majorities, dictionaries and selected counterexamples to prove that
everything's okay, we all know everything we need to know, don't change,
you're beautiful, anyone who tells us different is trying to mess with us.
-JoAnne
--
ZedBanty
Again! - this describes a problem in *use in context*. Rather explicitly.
From the referenced article:
_________
Comments that reveal surprise at a black woman's intellect, question a Latina's
ability to control her emotions or an Asian-American woman's aggressiveness
remain all too frequent in corporate America. Moving up the ladder requires the
ability to respond to these offensive stereotypes in a manner that educates the
speaker and prevents further comments without appearing hostile or
unapproachable.
_________
I see no list of verboten words relating to emotional control, or assertiveness,
let alone verbal expression, here. That wouldn't be the point of the article.
Furthermore, a search on the very word "articulate" inside this article, has, in
each case, the *context* of the use (i.e., "back-handed compliment") with it.
The rest of your response has in it many examples of jumping to conclusions and
polarized thinking (if it's not one, it must be a particular other), and ad
hominem innuendoes - I'll leave all that alone for now since this seems to be
your central piece of evidence.
ZedBanty
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:07:37 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>
>>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 22 Nov 2006 16:29:28 -0800, ZedBanty <ZedBant...@newsguy.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>*Some* play the politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>>> ^^^^
>>>>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>>>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>>>>
>>>>So anyone who finds *themselves* wincing at such words is playing a game,
>>> ^^^^^^
>>>>trying to make you feel bad, push you around, mess with you?
>>>
>>> These two words differ.
>>>
>>>>>Context. Context is the key.
>>
>>So why did you remove it?
>
> Because it is understood in this discussion and if someone needs
>torefer to it, he can go upthread and get it. That is how newsgroups
>(the context of this discussion) work.
No, I mean why did you remove the historical context.
>>The context was:
>>
>>>People can and do make the distinction between a term like "articulate" and its
>>>poor past use in some contexts. Yes, IME, including Black Americans as well as
>>>those here who speak English as a second language. *Some* play the
>>>politics of division, seeking to keep the culture wincing on the
>>>eggshells of their expectations. I care for the tyrrany of the few even less
>>>than the tyranny of the majority.
>>
>>In other words, a false dilemma: some people can and do make the
>>distinction, others play the politics of division.
>>
>>Is there some other reading of making the distinction that I'm missing?
>>Was there some third group implied that I missed mention of?
>
> Probably.
Explain.
>>Even if I know that you don't mean to be insulting when you use the phrase,
>>I know now that if you continue to use it, you are saying, in essence, to
>>hell with the way those people feel. They can just suck it up. I want to
>>use that phrase, that word, and I'll use it no matter what they think.
>
> No, but the other side is that I am not to use a word no matter
>what I think.
Because your thoughts and feelings on the matter are not the only factors
in what is polite.
>>>>I'm starting to feel a context here, and I'm not particulary pleased with
>>>>it.
>>>
>>> You have been rather forceful about your view. Some of us do not
>>>share it, nor do we feel apologetic about our differing views either.
>>
>>That is flamingly obvious.
>
> You can be most disagreeable while agreeing.
>
>>> People can get upset over many terms. To assume that a usage of
>>>a potentially neutral word is automatically racist is looking for
>>>offence.
>>
>>I'm not assuming that it's automatically racist. I realize for most
>>people, it is a matter of total innocence of any intention at all.
>>
>>However, I think that, once you're told people react negatively to it, you
>>would just try not to use it. Like you wouldn't offer a Japanese tourist
>>berth 4.
>
> Yes, once I am told. If I am not, then what?
But you have. What you do once you are informed is up to you.
I would advise not using the word or phrase.
>>>Getting upset over such is overreacting. There are more
>>>useful approaches.
>>
>>Like what?
>
> Telling the person politely that the term he used is considered
>insulting and suggesting an alternative.
That's how it started here.
Then I was told I was misinformed, lying, misrepresenting, trying to foment
racial hatred, and so on.
>>I keep having it explained to me that people might not know what they said
>>(I know this), that people can use any compliment as an insult (I know
>>this).
>
> And do you agree?
I said I know this. I agree.
I even made a point of using the word "innocent" to describe those who
didn't know the historical usage of the phrases. Rather than "ignorant"
which suggests they should have known, "innocent" suggests the person is
unintentionally unaware. I think many here fall into that category.
>>That doesn't cover this particular case -- when a word or phrase is
>>historically insulting to a group of people. And if the answer is, don't
>>pay any attention to it, ignore cultural reactions and meanings that aren't
>>already understood by the majority, then I think there's something wrong
>>with the answer.
>
> And how would one know? I had never heard of "articulate" as
>being insulting. I use the word to describe *myself*; I have for
>years.
By asking, as the original poster did, and listening to the answers.
>>And every time I say this, I get hit with all these stupid straw men, over
>>and over again, as if I think anyone saying hand me the vanilla should be
>>shot for insulting boring white people.
>
> Nope. You keep clubbing us with the historical point.
It seems it's not making much of a dent in some places.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
========
Then it came. Perdue's boss, a white man, said the one comment that strikes
like a punch in the stomach for black women.
"He commented on how articulate I had been in the presentation," recalls
Perdue, now executive director of the Johnetta B. Cole Global Diversity &
Inclusion Institute at Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.
Perdue, who is black, was the only woman at the company who managed major
accounts. "I asked if he had ever commented to my three peers [all white
men] that they were articulate and well-spoken ... He gasped."
=========
THE ONE COMMENT.
>and that it does so in every situation
>in every possible use.
I didn't say it does so in every situation.
Nevertheless, I would not use it. Because you can't know how the person is
going to react.
>I think you're reading a whole lot
>into these things that are not in evidence.
I think you're reading a whole lot of imperatives, generalizations, and
general craziness into what I wrote, which was that I wouldn't use
"articulate" or "well-spoken" because of their historical baggage.
Asking why, then saying, oh, <extreme version of your answer> is too
extreme.
>>> Similarly, people can, and have, used words like
>>> "pretty," "educated," "intelligent," "polite," and a host
>>> of other adjectives to damn with faint praise. When that happens,
>>> it's just as offensive to the recipients, and they're just as
>>> aware that it's happened.
>>
>> That doesn't erase the other offense, the one that depends on the
>> historical baggage the word or phrase carries.
>
> And "articulate" is the only word that carries any of
>this baggage?
Have you actually been here, reading the newsgroup?
>>>> In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
>>>> that charge it is situational, not historical.
>>> How can you say that? Every one of the above adjectives,
>>> and many more, have been used that way, and I don't see any
>>> evidence whatsoever that "articulate" is used that way any
>>> more frequently.
>>
>> Ask a few Black friends, then. Or look at the Web links I have supplied.
>
> Your links say nothing about how no other words have
>been used in this way.
And surely any article discussing this will have a list of the bad words
and the good words and a guarantee that no other words have ever been used
in this way ever ever ever ever even in East Nowhereland where only three
people live and they have their own triplets language that uses very
special seemingly inoffensive words to make fun of the visitors that come
every three years and have no idea they're being insulted.
>And frankly, since my black friends
>use these words about both themselves, other black people,
>and people of other races, it's a little hard to imagine
>that they're highly offended by the use.
They apparently are not.
That doesn't mean others are not, either.
Which is my entire point. I avoid using the word and phrase because it is
insulting to some people. And it is obvious we cannot predict who those
people are.
So we can either say, the heck with them, or we can say, let's make sure we
don't insult them, too.
>Furthermore, my
>black friends would be quick to point out other words that
>are also used in this manner and would take offense at the
>notion that they're too stupid to be able to discern when
>they're being patronized, whatever the method.
Since I didn't say they're too stupid to be able to discern when they're
being patronized, I'm not sure why you would include that in your defense.
>>>> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
>>>> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
>>>> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
>>> So can other adjectives. And if somehow "articulate"
>>> were miraculously eradicated from the language, there would
>>> just be another code word used by people with racist expectations.
>>> The problem is *NOT* the word. It's the attitude.
>>
>> So if people don't use "n*gg*r" any more, they use "c**n" instead, then
>> "n*gg*r" wasn't an offensive word?
>
> You will note that we were discussing words that
>have have plenty of positive usages as well, not the
>extreme example you give. Also, you will note that I
>made no claim parallel to the one you describe.
Ah, so it's okay
>>>> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
>>> Of course. No one is arguing that "articulate,"
>>> as well as many other words, can't be used in a racist
>>> way.
>>
>> It is used in a racist way. Not can be, is. It isn't just a random stick
>> someone can use to hit you with. It's been fashioned into a club.
>
> "Articulate" is often used in a non-offensive way,
>even by black scholars to refer to other black people who
>are particularly gifted in their use of words. It is *not*
>a word that is always, or even mostly, offensive.
Yet it is sometimes offensive. In ways that are not always dependent on
the immediate context of damning with faint praise.
So I don't use it.
>>> The question is what to do about it. The answer
>>> is simply that one reserves the use of the word to its
>>> proper context. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that
>>> if you heard someone wipe up the floor with their opponent
>>> in a debate and congratulated them on their highly
>>> articulate explication of the issues, they wouldn't
>>> think you were expressing surprise at their ability
>>> to speak at a 4th grade level (well, unless they
>>> were kindergarteners, maybe). Conversely, I think
>>> most people would raise their eyebrows if you were
>>> amazed at how articulate they were after doing no
>>> more than engaging in idle chit chat over coffee.
>>
>> Thanks for the lesson in what I've already been explaining.
>
> Care to explain, then, how it's inappropriate to
>call a black person articulate when the word is used
>*properly*
Pretending that a word is only used in its proper sense is a recipe for
disaster.
Pretending there are no implications beyond the dictionary definition of a
word is foolish and misguided.
>to mean that the person has an unusually high
>degree of facility with words and speech, rather than
>insultingly to express surprise at a basic ability to
>speak, if I've happened to express what you've been trying
>to say?
>
>>>> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
>>>> hot water:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
>>>>
>>>> This was a real situation. Some people were insulted. The person who used
>>>> the phrase did not mean to insult them. It was rather awkward for the
>>>> person who used it.
>>> She doesn't link to her original text, so it's
>>> hard to comment on her usage. It seems quite clear from
>>> what she *did* say that when she herself described what
>>> she meant, the panelists were, in fact, not insulted by
>>> what she said.
>>
>> Uh, no. They said they understood she meant no offense. That's different.
>
> Care to quote exactly where it says that?
Did you actually read this?
It clearly says they were insulted, and in fact were still feeling the
sting a year later:
"I went to the Blogging While Black panel and Lynn Johnson mentioned the
unfortunate comment I made last year (which I'm purposefully not linking)
where I misspoke and said that I was amazed at how articulate the panelists
were. I had meant in comparison to the other SXSW panelists because
disorganized notes, lack of focus, rambling tangents, ineffective
moderation essentially kept me blogging and checking email and
photoshopping images or knitting while people spoke. The BWB panel had me
keeping notes through the introductions and then for the first time during
the conference I closed my laptop and listened and laughed and enjoyed
myself and learned. I left the panel with a very "Yeah! There really should
have been more of this!" attitude. And then when I got home and checked to
see who had maybe linked me on Technorati.com and discovered some posts
lambasting me for being racist. I was confused until I reread my post and
thought to myself, "Oh hell no! I didn't just call a whole bunch of black
people well spoken!" But I did. And I apologized and tried my damnedest to
express my regret and explain my points to the folks who linked me (and to
any of their commenters who were patient enough to listen). And a dialogue
was created and I apologized and moved on. And then when preparations for
this year started up I was excited to see how everyone had changed or grown
or moved on since the previous year's panel.
"Well, things were going peachy and I was having a great time and was all
excited to ask my question (which I never got to ask) when Lynn Johnson
said "And some white woman had the gall to talk about how well-spoken I was
last year." I paled and turned beet red at the same time, but knew that I
had to stand up and admit that I was that fool who really should have known
better. There was cat-calling and snarky comments made by audience members,
but I knew I had to do it. Lynn called on me. I stood up and admitted I
was the fool and explained that what was meant to be a huge compliment came
off entirely wrong. People were a little stunned, especially the panelists,
but there were some jokes made and even though my stomach was queasy, my
knees were knocking, and my complexion was wan I felt good. I kinda felt
like maybe I made it easier for the guy who stood up and said "I'm a naive
white person, what can I do to help?" (the answer is link them, but I think
the footnote should be "And read them for a long time.")
"Afterward I was going to go introduce myself to Lynn and maybe George and
maybe even Tiffany Brown but I chickened out. These folks I'd looked
forward to meeting for a year were suddenly out of reach to me emotionally
even though they were right there. So I went back to the hotel and I calmed
down and I met up with my friends. Thankfully one of the panel attendees
came by and said "You impressed Lynn. You've got some balls." I was
grateful that she told me that, it changed my mood for the evening. I was
really afraid for a while that I had somehow severed any goodwill I may
have had with these panelists that I respect."
This doesn't sound like no one was offended.
It also doesn't sound like the person who used the term was let off easy.
In most social situations it's the reverse, because the person in the
majority can just roll over the feelings of the minority and not expect any
repercussions. In this case, it was serious.
>> And who knows how many of the people she offended will not "get over it."
>> Will think she really did mean she had lower expectations of them than of
>> White people.
>>
>>> That leads me to believe that the manner in
>>> which she used the word was unclear.
>>
>> No, it was culturally ambiguous. To her it had no insulting meaning
>> attached to it. For them it did. She even realized, too late, that what
>> she said was insensitive.
>
> You have some access to her original quote that
>you'd like to share? Otherwise, how are you so sure about
>what she said and how she said it?
I don't think it's possible to draw the conclusions you want me to, if you
read that whole post.
>>> And, as we all know,
>>> there are differences between words used in face-to-face
>>> conversation and the written word. One always has to be
>>> more careful with the written word because losing the
>>> body language means you lose a huge amount of the information.
>>> My bet is that she wrote carelessly, in a way that left
>>> it well open to the interpretation that she was expressing
>>> surprise that the minority speakers had a reasonable command
>>> of the English language. If that was the case, then you
>>> could insert any synonym of "articulate" you like, and the
>>> remark would still likely be interpreted as offensive.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You really have no clue as to the history of this, do you?
>
> You really have no clue *what* my background is
>with this, do you? You just assume if I don't agree with
>you that I must be clueless. Hmmm...making assumptions
>about people....
How can you have a clue as to the history of it, if you don't even know it
exists, and deny that it exists even after given evidence that it exists?
>>> In
>>> fact, you'll note that in the piece she seems to indicate
>>> that "well spoken" would have been just as offensive.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>> So,
>>> again, it's the context more than the individual word.
>>
>> No, those two are both offensive. And yet not every word is historically
>> offensive.
>
> Odd, that. Perhaps it has something to do with
>*how* the word is used, then.
How the word was used, also.
You really deny the effects of history?
>> Is this hard to understand?
>>
>>>> It is prudent, if not legally necessary, to avoid using words and phrases
>>>> with historically negative implications.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that it is not sufficient. But the "just reason it out and you'll
>>>> be fine" approach, ignoring history and culture, is not sufficient either.
>>> It's good to be sensitive. I think the lesson, however,
>>> is not that you can, or should, have a laundry list of common
>>> words that must not be used with people of color.
>>
>> Actually it's a list of words and phrases you just avoid using, no matter
>> who is there, because they have taken on a connotation you wish to avoid.
>>
>>> The lesson
>>> is that to avoid appearing racist you should understand that
>>> there is a sensitivity to damning with faint praise *regardless*
>>> of the adjective in question and choose to speak carefully
>>> so as to avoid the appearance of that behavior. >Some might
>>> choose not to use particular words. Others might choose to
>>> speak so that the context clarifies the usage of the word.
>>> You see discussion of this particular word because it has,
>>> in fact, been used in racist ways.
>>
>> Some people here don't even believe that.
>
> Who here has denied that "articulate" has been used,
>or even is still sometimes used, to damn with faint praise?
>I don't recall a single instance.
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
>>> But there are lots of
>>> other words used that way, and those usages are every bit as
>>> offensive. You could manage to use a word in that way that
>>> has *never* been used to damn with faint praise previously,
>>> and that would be just as offensive too.
>>
>> We are discussing two ways (of many) that something can be perceived as
>> racially offensive. I am focusing on terms that were historically used in
>> an offensive manner.
>
> But you are ignoring many other words and phrases that
>have *also* been used in the same manner.
And you are just about to list them here:
>Furthermore, you are
>denying that people, including black people, have the ability
>to figure out when they're being patronized and when they're
>not.
No.
There isn't always the time to figure out whether someone means something
in a racist way or not. There isn't always enough information.
And most importantly, it isn't possible for a person who reacts emotionally
to the word or phrase to un-feel that reaction.
If you've been raped, you might react negatively to the word "rape." If
someone used it in a jocular context it might cause you unpleasant
feelings, especially if the rape was recent or especially traumatic. Does
this mean no one can ever use the word? No. But it means that a wise
speaker will avoid it, knowing that it will take away from or even
obliterate her or his intended message.
>> I am not saying there isn't another way to be offensive. But it's not
>> really relevant to what I'm trying to get across, here.
>
> I think it is. You are proposing a solution
>that might possibly be effective if we were only talking
>about a single word that had become overwhelmingly negative.
It isn't hundreds of words. Probably not even dozens.
>However, not only is the word not so overwhelmingly negative
>that the very people one would expect to be most aware and
>sensitive to its use (i.e., black scholars of African American
>studies) have given it up, but also there are demonstrably
>plenty of other words with similar baggage that also haven't
>been given up and would have to be given up by your logic.
I'm still waiting for an enumeration of these, with some support as I have
given here, to the idea that they are historically offensive.
>That, as far as I'm concerned, renders your solution highly
>suspect.
If your antecedents are true, yes. You haven't shown them to be.
>>> Do you honestly
>>> think that you could use some other word to damn with
>>> faint praise and somehow it wouldn't have that "punch in
>>> the gut" effect just because it wasn't an expected word
>>> to use in that situation?
>>> So, in fact, I think it *does* boil down to "reason
>>> it out." It is only your ability to reason about your
>>> intention and possible interpretations that allows you
>>> to avoid this pitfall. That reasoning is based on an
>>> understanding of history and culture. Without that, you
>>> could be mightily offensive without ever using the word
>>> "articulate."
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> That doesn't erase the word's historical content and associations.
>>
>> That doesn't mean using the word isn't offensive.
>
> Well, clearly it is *not* offensive in all cases,
>or even in all cases where it is applied to people of
>color. So, I find your conclusions over the top.
I would not expect all people of any group to think alike. Are you
suggesting that that is what is required for you to stop using it? If we
can find one Black who isn't offended, you're home free?
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
and bounced back to me.
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 06:37:55 -0800, in alt.fan.miss-manners Miss Elaine Eos
wrote:
>In article <qf8am21uu989r5s6a...@4ax.com>,
> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>
>> >To repeat: articulate is not an offensive adjective, regardless of the
>> >number of people who are offended by it.
>>
>> Wow. That's quite some statement, in a manners newsgroup. What people
>> find offensive doesn't matter? How, pray tell, would we know if something
>> is offensive? Read the soul of the person making the seemingly offensive
>> statement?
>
>You continue to assert that "articulate" carries historical racial
>baggage, and cite you degree in African American studies (am I correct,
>here? Or were you merely asking if *I* had one?)
I was asking if you had one, as you seemed to be claiming enough
familiarity with the historical record to state quite confidently that this
historical racial baggage does not exist and cannot be found.
>as some sort of proof
>that you are an expert on this word.
>
>You denounce others as "not getting it" because they will immediately
>accept your point of view, nor allow you to remove from their vocabulary
>a perfectly valid word.
They seem to be rejecting it out of hand. It seems convenient to do so
rather than try to remember what some intentionally annoying people want us
to do to further water down our increasingly impoverished,
politically-correctness-savaged language.
At least, that's the impression I'm getting. More and more as this debate
goes on.
>You use a number of logical fallacies, including ad hominem, appeal to
>authority, begging the question, jumping to conclusions, denying the
>antecedent and a host of others to "prove" your point, and then feign
>amazement that others aren't swayed by your arguments.
>
>(For more on this, see <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html>)
I could be considered somewhat of an authority on the fallacies, having
tutored logic for several years. You can claim I've been using them, but
you have yet to elucidate a single one.
>The plain fact of the matter is this: "articulate" is not an offensive
>word. In fact, it is the PREFERRED word to refer to someone who is well
>spoken (also not offensive.) In addition, people who carry with them
>the baggage that allows them to become offended by being called
>articulate or well-spoken (in a sincere way -- as you point out, the
>sarcastic or underhanded use is not part of this discussion) are being
>overly sensitive.
It must be nice in that little bubble.
>While it may be polite to not REPEAT the term once one learns that they
>are in the presence of such an overly sensitive person -- at least until
>that person can be calmed and educated -- it is absurd to suggest that
>everyone should merely drop this word from their vocabulary in order to
>avoid the possibility of offending said person.
Why is it absurd to avoid a word that causes offense, a word or phrase that
has been used deliberately offensively or in a belittling manner for
decades?
>If we did that, we
>wouldn't talk AT ALL, given that there's probably someone out there who
>will find offense at nearly anything you might say.
Oh, and by the way -- here is your fallacy. Assuming that my saying that a
few words and phrases that have historical baggage should be avoided means
that I think every word that might offend anyone anywhere should be removed
from our vocabularies.
This word. This phrase. Both raise hackles. So don't use them if you
don't want to offend people.
I'm not talking about every word that anyone might not like because their
uncle used it once in a conversation that left a bad taste in their mouths.
I'm not talking about legislation or suspension of freedom of speech.
Politeness includes avoiding doing or saying things you are legally and
physically capable of doing.
>To attempt to turn this into a racial problem, and to label those who
>use the word freely as somehow racist or racially insensitive
Oh my. Please show me where I said this. I have repeatedly said that the
ones who use these phrases are mostly innocent of any intention to offend.
It already is a racial problem. I haven't made anything.
When told there is a problem with a word or phrase, as you and the others
in this discussion have, and then to ignore it as "irrelevant" or
"nonexistent" or to tell me I am "mistaken," takes on a quality of
insensitivity, racial or otherwise.
And suggests a certain ostrich-like posture.
Interesting how you perceive me calling others racist, by the way. I
haven't done that anywhere in my posts.
>is,
>likewise, absurd. In fact, I would go so far as to say that to
>compliment a black man differently than one would compliment a white man
>is the racist act. Similarly, to hear a perfectly valid compliment and
>interpret it as a racial slur -- THAT is the act of racism, not the
>utterance of the compliment in the first place.
>
>I implore you to set aside your dogma for a few minutes, and seriously
>consider the possibility that you might be misinformed.
Again I ask for your degree in A-A studies, or American History, or
something that would enable you to say with such confidence that the word
and phrase have no meaning beyond what you think it has.
>To carry this
>sort of sensitivity with one's self serves no purpose other than to
>increase your personal unhappiness.
To continue to ignore what other people think of your poor choice of words
may make you happy, but it doesn't do a lot for those you blithely insult.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>news:49obm25pvva5gebnn...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Further, the word is still in widespread use as a compliment. You have
>>>yet to account for the several thousand examples of writers referring
>>>to Ed Bradley as articulate. Were all these writers giving offense?
>>>I'm certain that they didn't mean, as you suggested, that Ed Bradley
>>>was simply'capable of speech'.
>>
>> I didn't say that they intended to use the word as an insult. In fact
>> I have said more than once that many people are completely unaware of
>> its import.
>
>You are suggesting that the international press, Ed Bradley's peers,
>black writers, elected officials, et al are completely unaware that the
>word articulate is offensive in and of itself? If all of those people are
>under the impression that articulate is a perfectly acceptable word to
>use to describe a black man who is, coincidentally a world reknowned
>journalist and one of the first blacks to achieve national prominence in
>his field, then can it really be as offensive as you suggest?
His command of language is so extraordinary that it is probably less likely
that anyone who knows about him to think it's being used as faint praise.
This is not the situation with, for example, the punch-in-the-stomach
woman.
Nevertheless, language is complex. When in doubt, if you wish to be
polite, avoid a possible insult. You cannot know what is going to offend
someone, and knowing this might offend someone, you have a choice. There
are plenty of other words available.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
<Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>In article <9vobm2thrr5pjk6te...@4ax.com>,
> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:07:21 -0800, Miss Elaine Eos
>> <Misc@*your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <Xns9883EFB9143...@207.14.116.130>,
>> > Userb3 <use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote in
>> >> news:7l7am21d9mns710vr...@4ax.com:
>> >> > I sense a "what do they want from us they want to control all our
>> >> > speech and keep us from using all those great words we used to have
>> >> > like gay and rainbow and well-spoken and articulate and frugal and
>> >> > niggardly. WHERE WILL IT END! I AM SO OPPRESSED!"
>
>> >Are there people who think that I shouldn't be using any one of those
>> >words/phrases in my every day speech -- who are offended by my daily use
>> >of those words and phrases?!
>
>> Except for the last, no.
>
>There are people who think I shouldn't use the word "niggardly"?! I'm
>going to go out on a limb and guess that these folks similarly claim
>that the word is racially charged, confused by the fact that it contains
>syllables that sound like "nigger".
>
>(Niggardly is from the middle English nig, from the Scandinavian nygg,
>meaning "stingy.")
It's not an academic question.
Some people who aren't familiar with the word will shut their ears at the
moment you use it. You will have lost them.
Is this concept foreign to you? That you don't always have control over
your audience? That you might not get a second chance to explain and
educate your audience into what you think they should feel?
Because, believe you me, there are people out there who would get quite a
charge out of standing in front of a crowd of Black people and using
"niggardly" repeatedly to see their reactions. They'd be even more excited
to "educate" them on the real meaning of the word, using it over and over.
I recommend to you Lenny Bruce on the word "cocksucker." Or Milton
Erickson on "quoting" i.e. "you turkeys!", though there are no hits on
Google so unless you have a copy of I think _Frogs Into Princes_ you're
probably not going to be able to read about it to see the parallel.
>The whole thought process behind this sort of thinking is entirely
>asinine (but in a vaguely titillating way.)
>
>Sorry, were those words too lewd?
No, but calling my thought process asinine is insulting.
>If "beautiful" were the Elbonian word for "looks like a one-eyed pig",
>it would STILL be silly to suggest that it's offensive to tell someone
>(in America/English) that they are beautiful. It DOESN'T MATTER that
>someone, somewhere, might take offense at it
Again with the obscure pretended theoretical insult being equivalent to a
real one. It isn't.
It matters that people all over the place do take offense at "well spoken"
and "articulate."
> T H E W O R D I S N O T O F F E N S I V E
Caps and spaces don't make it any more true.
-JoAnne
--
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>
>> But rather than using a word that could be misinterpreted, I prefer to use
>> one that probably won't be.
>>
>> Rather than using a word with historical freight, I choose to use one that
>> doesn't have that freight.
>>
>> I really don't see what's so horrible or difficult about that.
>
> So, um, would you care to give an example of how
>you could describe a black person as articulate in that
>way that doesn't use the word "articulate" and isn't
>open to misinterpretation?
I didn't say I could make it so no one would ever misinterpret you. There
is no list of words with a guarantee, "if you use these, you will never be
misunderstood, no one will ever be insulted, if they are they are the
victim of asinine thought processes."
Do you claim you are unable to come up with a statement on your own without
using the word "articulate"? May I suggest a thesaurus?
Or rephrase to state what the person did rather than what he is like?
-JoAnne
--
Ericka Kammerer
Hmmm...so you've gone from saying one shouldn't ever
use the word "articulate" when referring to persons of color
to suggesting that one should simply be careful to use it only
in situations where it's clearly a compliment rather than those
where it's possible to interpret it as damning with faint praise.
My goodness, that sounds a lot like what everyone else has been
saying.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
No, in fact I quite clearly below made a (correct)
assumption about what you meant and commented from there.
Snide remark required?
>>>> I think the punch in the stomach is from the realization
>>>> that someone assumed that one would not be competent at speech
>>>> based on one's appearance, not the use of the word "articulate"
>>>> itself.
>>> You have an odd way of reading the article, then. They specifically said
>>> that it was THAT WORD.
>> If you're talking about the quote you gave that
>> mentioned a "punch in the stomach," that was referring
>> to a black woman, who was not the one who used the
>> phrase "punch in the stomach" anyway.
>
> The story is in an article from DiversityInc. The author wrote,
>
> "Perdue's boss, a white man, said the one comment that strikes like a punch
> in the stomach for black women."
Right--in other words, just as I said, it was not the
black woman who used the phrase "punch in the stomach." It
was the author of the article.
> This makes it pretty clear that this ONE comment is offensive.
Or at least that is the writer's interpretation--
which may or may not accurately represent the entirety of
the subject's impression.
> "I asked if he had ever commented to my three peers [all white men] that
> they were articulate and well-spoken ... He gasped."
>
> There they are, both of those phrases. I didn't have to do any
> super-obscure, fancy Google-searches to find them -- just
>
> articulate black offensive
>
> as I recall.
Okay, feel free to google around for some of the other
words/phrases I gave. The examples are out there, though it's
more difficult to weed out the irrelevant hits.
>> What you quoted
>> the employee as saying was simply asking her boss if
>> he'd ever described her white, male peers in that way.
>
> And that he gasped in return. Acknowledging that this was a wrong thing to
> do and he knows it and feels bad about it.
Or maybe he was just surprised at being called on
something, or shocked that something he thought was fine
and complimentary was taken negatively. You're awfully
free with your interpretation here.
>> I rather suspect that he could have used any number of
>> other words to the same effect.
>
> "the one comment that strikes like a punch in the stomach for black women"
> means to you that there are a lot of others and there's nothing special
> about this?
Again, that's one person's interpretation (and not even
the subject of the article's words). A few anecdotes don't make
for comprehensive research, especially given how easy it is to
find counter examples. For one, check out Lawrence Jackson, the
eminent black biographer of Ralph Ellison.
> Good luck on the GREs.
Been there, done that, thanks very much. Again with
the snide comments? Just because you're miffed I don't happen
to agree with you?
>>>> Similarly, people can, and have, used words like
>>>> "pretty," "educated," "intelligent," "polite," and a host
>>>> of other adjectives to damn with faint praise. When that happens,
>>>> it's just as offensive to the recipients, and they're just as
>>>> aware that it's happened.
>>> But that is intentional. I am talking about unintentional but nevertheless
>>> real offense.
>> And people could inadvertently give offense using
>> those words just as easily as with articulate,
>
> No. Because "articulate" and "well spoken" both carry a historical taint
> of faint praise.
And where's your proof that no other words have this
same issue, or that this taint is so pervasive that there
is near universal agreement that the words are unusable?
You've provided nothing of the sort.
>> if it
>> wasn't clear that they weren't damning with faint praise.
>>
>>> If I were staging Animal Farm with some friends, one of whom is a Muslim,
>>> and I said, you can play the pig, he might get offended. For cultural
>>> reasons. Whether I knew or not.
>>>
>>> He might be more offended the more knowledgeable I seemed to be. Surely I
>>> should know that, culturally, pigs are offensive animals to Muslims.
>> So, is your position that there should be no staging
>> of shows with pigs due to the possibility that some actors might
>> possibly be Muslim without your knowing it?
>
> No. Interesting misinterpretation, though.
Perhaps you'd care to clarify, then?
> Analogy is not identity. I wouldn't give a Japanese friend a gift on which
> is prominently engraved the number 4.
>
>> I think that's
>> falling off the deep end.
>
> Did you know that's another cultural insult? Asking Black people if they
> can swim?
Oh, now you're really around the bend. Or would you
care to declare that phrase off limits too? Frankly, my black
friends are metaphorically rolling in the aisle at this point.
>>>>> In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
>>>>> that charge it is situational, not historical.
>>>> How can you say that? Every one of the above adjectives,
>>>> and many more, have been used that way, and I don't see any
>>>> evidence whatsoever that "articulate" is used that way any
>>>> more frequently.
>>> You didn't read any of the Google links I provided?
>> A) The fact that "articulate" can be used in that
>> manner does not mean other words can't. B) Google
>> is not a complete and accurate record of all possible speech
>> patterns. C) Even when the information is out there,
>> it is extremely difficult to search out all possible
>> variations in phrases. That said, you can google up
>> examples of the above adjectives used that way as well.
>
> And yet the fact remains that these words have historical associations.
Sure. That doesn't mean that those associates are
the be-all and end-all with respect to the meaning of those
words, even in among people of color.
> All the theoretical "any word can be used that way" doesn't erase that.
No one claims that it does. It simply means that your
proposed strategy for avoiding offense is woefully inadequate,
as well as unnecessarily restrictive.
>>>>> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
>>>>> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
>>>>> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
>>>> So can other adjectives.
>>> And you, of course, know which ones these are, right? Go on, name them.
>> Ummm, I believe I did.
>
> Sorry, I missed it. Unless it was the null set.
Go back and look, then.
>> However, I would also add that
>> my *point* is that there *is* no list of words exhaustive enough
>> to avoid all the words that could be, and have been, used to give
>> offense in this way.
>
> So there's no way to be safe? So just give up?
No. I shall say it yet again: one must be sensitive
to the root cause, not the symptom, and make decisions about
what to say in accordance with that understanding. Calling
a person of color articulate in a situation where one could
be interpreted as expressing a racist expectation is bad.
Calling a person of color articulate in a situation where
such a misunderstanding is unlikely is fine. Applying such
a strategy has the additional benefit of keeping you safe
even when it's a different word or concept you're about to
use in a way that might express a racist expectation. And,
in fact, such a strategy works quite well.
>>>> And if somehow "articulate"
>>>> were miraculously eradicated from the language, there would
>>>> just be another code word used by people with racist expectations.
>>> How does that militate against avoiding "articulate"? We would then avoid
>>> the new word if we were culturally sensitive.
>> It's a never-ending process, at that point.
>
> I doubt your hypothetical could ever occur.
>
> First off, there are plenty of people who will keep it alive, as an insult.
> So it won't disappear, just as many other cruder words will remain.
> Remember, I'm not talking about legislation; I'm talking about polite
> people refraining from using a few words and phrases.
>
> And if it were to disappear, it is literally neverending only in the
> context of neverending time, spreading the burden across millennia and
> beyond.
Huh? If you feel comfortable thinking that you can
simply eliminate "articulate" and "well spoken" from your
vocabulary and be miraculously free from the risk of insult,
be my guest. Personally, I think it's a weak strategy.
> Which makes it not much of an imposition on us mortals. At least, I'm not
> feeling particularly overburdened by it.
And you're free to choose how you wish to speak.
>
>> The only
>> thing that will end it is ending the offensive attitudes and
>> usage, and no amount of eliminating words will solve the problem.
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that I felt this was a solution to all
> racial problems.
It won't even solve the specific problem you cite.
> I said I wouldn't use it because it might offend someone.
>
>> I reject the idea that solving this problem is as simple as
>> avoiding a word. I repeat: avoiding the use of the word
>> "articulate" (in general, or in reference to people of color)
>> is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid giving offense.
>
> It is necessary, but not sufficient.
And clearly I disagree. If you don't have new arguments
to bring to the table, I suppose we'll just have to agree to
disagree. No doubt we'll both feel comfortable with our
decisions.
>> The real solution is messier and more difficult, but worthwhile
>> in a way that removing all the words that have been used by
>> some to give offense is not.
>
> I didn't say the word should be removed.
>
> I said I wouldn't use it to describe a person. That it could be considered
> offensive.
Oh pardon me for not splitting hairs. You clearly
suggested removing one of it's main usages, at least with a
a large proportion of the population, though not all
usages.
>>> I sense a "what do they want from us they want to control all our speech
>>> and keep us from using all those great words we used to have like gay and
>>> rainbow and well-spoken and articulate and frugal and niggardly. WHERE
>>> WILL IT END! I AM SO OPPRESSED!"
>> I have never claimed to be oppressed. I have claimed
>> that you are barking up the wrong tree in tilting against
>> symptoms rather than root causes.
>
> I am answering the question of the subject line. You are asking me why
> this isn't solving all racial problems?
No. I'm saying that your proposed solution to the
problem of possible offending people of color is insufficient
because it solves only one instance of a more general problem.
> You thought that my answer to the subject line should be "when people are
> free to see each other as human beings and are blind to race"?
No. Never said that, nor meant that, nor implied that.
>> A world in which the word "articulate" is never used,
>> but people still assume that blacks can't speak well
>> is not acceptable. A world in which the word "articulate"
>> is used, but never to damn with faint praise is a much
>> more attractive outcome.
>
> And the future world is likely to be neither, so I'm not sure what the
> point of your evaluation is.
Really? I disagree.
>>> But you are arguing that they don't have racist baggage.
>> I'm arguing that *MANY* words have racist baggage,
>
> Other polite words that have racist baggage are:
>
> [please fill in the blanks for me]
You know, I gave at least half a dozen. Feel free to read my
previous messages.
>> but that the offense is in the construction, not in the
>> word itself, with *very* few exceptions of words that
>> have become so associated with negative connotations that
>> they virtually no longer have a use outside those negative
>> connotations. "Articulate" and "well spoken" and "well
>> dressed" and "educated" and "polite" and many other words
>> are far from that point.
>
> Sez you.
Yep. Got any evidence beyond a couple of anecdotes
to the contrary?
>>>> I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that
>>>> if you heard someone wipe up the floor with their opponent
>>>> in a debate and congratulated them on their highly
>>>> articulate explication of the issues, they wouldn't
>>>> think you were expressing surprise at their ability
>>>> to speak at a 4th grade level (well, unless they
>>>> were kindergarteners, maybe). Conversely, I think
>>>> most people would raise their eyebrows if you were
>>>> amazed at how articulate they were after doing no
>>>> more than engaging in idle chit chat over coffee.
>>> And in a less clear-cut situation, the question would arise -- do you mean
>>> articulate in an overpowering way, or articulate as in "he speaks well for
>>> a foreigner"?
>>>
>>> It is better to leave it alone.
>>>
>>> I'm starting to see how you might be related to Eve. All those other
>>> fruits, but you have to have that one, too.
>> The other fruits are just as tainted. That's what
>> you're failing to see.
>
> No, they are not. You almost admit this later.
Where? Because I certainly didn't mean to.
Again, you have access to her original quote so that
you can show how she phrased things so that it was clear she
wasn't damning with faint praise and yet they took offense
anyway? Because if you don't, I fail to see how you've got
a leg to stand on. No one has argued that the words *can't*
be used offensively, only that it can be used *unoffensively*.
So far, you've offered no proof in this case that the original
comment they found offensive *wasn't* something easily
misinterpreted as damning with faint praise. In fact, all
of the examples you've given have been examples where the
speaker was either intending to damn with faint praise or
where it was easy to misinterpret it that way. And when
others have given examples where the word was used in a
way that clearly *wasn't* damning with faint praise, you're
quick to handwave it away as some sort of special case. So,
have you got an example where it clearly wasn't damning with
faint praise, but offense was taken anyway? Seems to me
that's a necessary part of your argument, since no one here
has claimed that using it to damn with faint praise is
an acceptable or inoffensive usage.
>>>> It's good to be sensitive. I think the lesson, however,
>>>> is not that you can, or should, have a laundry list of common
>>>> words that must not be used with people of color.
>>> Are you saying not to consider that some words might be offensive and be
>>> careful using them, or avoid them? Ignore any cultural freight?
>>>
>>> I hope not.
>
> No answer here?
I've answered that question repeatedly. It seemed
pointless to take up more space answering it again.
>>>> The lesson
>>>> is that to avoid appearing racist you should understand that
>>>> there is a sensitivity to damning with faint praise *regardless*
>>>> of the adjective in question and choose to speak carefully
>>>> so as to avoid the appearance of that behavior.
>>> That is necessary but not sufficient. You also need to know which words
>>> and phrases are historically fraught with negative meaning to the audience
>>> you are writing or speaking to.
>>>
>>>> Some might
>>>> choose not to use particular words. Others might choose to
>>>> speak so that the context clarifies the usage of the word.
>>>> You see discussion of this particular word because it has,
>>>> in fact, been used in racist ways. But there are lots of
>>>> other words used that way,
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> Again, give me a list. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>> I gave examples.
>
> Of words that can be used as faint praise, to anyone. Not words that are
> culturally offensive.
Hmmm...so because you believe articulate to be offensive
in all cases, we should to, but because you believe these other
words aren't offensive and have no baggage, we should believe
that too? Again, where's your evidence?
> I'm thinking that may be because you aren't particularly aware of any words
> and phrases that are culturally offensive yet don't have that charge in
> your social and cultural group.
Huh? I'm aware of plenty of usages that are offensive,
and I've listed them.
>> There are many more, which is
>> precisely my point. You can find quite easily that
>> some of them have been used in the exact same way you
>> describe for "articulate." Others are not as easy to
>> google up, but are also used in that way.
>> Would you also contend that black scholars who
>> describe other blacks as "articulate" also don't know what
>> they're doing? Or is this one of those things where it's
>> okay to use the word if you are black, but not if you're not?
>
> Oooh, I figured that would come up eventually.
>
> The fact that a Black scholar is using the word, a person who is both Black
> and educated, suggests he knows about the history and culture of the word.
> Hence, yes, he is assumed to know about the offensive possibilities of the
> word and to be using it correctly, as unmitigated praise.
Ahhh, so this is some sort of secret knowledge that
only people of color can reason out, but us poor white folk
are incapable of reasoning about intent and clarity of
expression in order to differentiate between damning with
faint praise and a genuine compliment? Hogwash.
> Spending the time I have answering all these opposing posts isn't because
> of a long-time fixation or crazed militant political correctness crusade.
> It's fueled by a mix of astonishment and dismay that the feelings of people
> who are offended by the usage are simply dismissed, and total denial of any
> impact the history of the word or phrase on current usage.
I think you've just got your dander up and are adamant
that everyone else capitulate completely to your position, or
else you're declaring them 100 percent wrong. You're free to
do that, of course, but it's not likely to win people over to
your perspective. And, in fact, you've come close to
admitting that in fact, it *is* the context that really matters.
You just think the rest of us aren't to be trusted to determine
the appropriate context.
>>>> and those usages are every bit as
>>>> offensive. You could manage to use a word in that way that
>>>> has *never* been used to damn with faint praise previously,
>>>> and that would be just as offensive too.
>>> But in a different way.
>> Are you seriously suggesting that people are too
>> stupid to figure out when they're being insulted? People
>> occasionally take insult where none was intended, but
>> rarely fail to notice when they *are* being insulted.
>
> If it were so easy, why would we have this newsgroup in the first place?
> If it's easy to tell when you're being insulted, then there are no rules.
> Just look into the soul of the person you're discoursing with.
That doesn't logically follow at all.
> Up to this point, you have been arguing that we should not have a laundry
> list of words that a particular group or culture finds offensive.
>
> Here you say that we reason offense out based on an understanding of
> history and culture.
>
> Whose history and culture are we going to use, to decide if a word or
> phrase is offensive to Black people?
I think we can safely say we'd use the same history
and culture that you keep extolling here.
>>>> Without that, you
>>>> could be mightily offensive without ever using the word
>>>> "articulate."
>>> Yes. But you raise a false dilemma. You can be offensive with using the
>>> word "articulate" if you don't know what you're doing.
>> I never claimed that you didn't need to understand
>> the history of oppression of various minorities or that you
>> didn't need to understand the particular issue of racism
>> expressed by damning with faint praise. I simply said that
>> there is no need to strike a word from your vocabulary that
>> has plenty of perfectly good uses simply because it is
>> possible to use it in a racist way.
>
> Right.
>
> But if it is historically used in that way and actually causes people to
> wince when someone uses it, that's a clue right there that it isn't just
> *possible* to use it in a racist way like any other adjective.
>
> It is often used that way. As a code word, as a point of ignorance,
> whatever.
>
> And the polite solution is to just avoid it.
I disagree. A perfectly polite solution is to avoid
it *in situations where it could be misinterpreted as an
offensive usage*.
>> Someone who is aware
>> of the issue can take care to not to express wonderment
>> that a person of color can speak English, dress appropriately,
>> act according to appropriate social conventions, reason
>> well, not have a criminal record, live in a nice home,
>> or any of a zillion other offensive racial stereotypes.
>> If you are sensitive to that *issue*, and you are
>> articulate ;-), you can use whatever language seems
>> appropriate at the time to express the ideas you wish
>> to express.
>
> The problem here is that what seems appropriate to you might grate on the
> recipient's ears, because it's historically been used to damn with faint
> praise.
I give people a lot more credit than that. I think
that people are quite capable both of using the word in a
sensitive fashion and of understanding a sensitively expressed
compliment when they hear one.
>> You will be taking care to ensure that
>> *whatever* words you're using, you are expressing a
>> genuine and deserved compliment rather than racist
>> surprise at someone's basic competence. This is
>> much more effective than simply avoiding a list of
>> perfectly good words.
>
> Again, you can only do one or the other, but not both?
You can do whatever you want.
> Do both. Watch your attitude, and watch your vocabulary. Make yourself
> aware of what the stereotypes and words and phrases are that are offensive
> so you can avoid them.
You have said nothing to convince me that it is
required to completely avoid the word, and none of the
people of color I've asked in the last day have thought
it necessary (or even advisable) to do so either. So,
frankly, I'm going to take their word on the matter,
unless you have a more persuasive argument you haven't
advanced yet.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> >While it may be polite to not REPEAT the term once one learns that they
> >are in the presence of such an overly sensitive person -- at least until
> >that person can be calmed and educated -- it is absurd to suggest that
> >everyone should merely drop this word from their vocabulary in order to
> >avoid the possibility of offending said person.
> Why is it absurd to avoid a word that causes offense, a word or phrase that
> has been used deliberately offensively or in a belittling manner for
> decades?
Because there is no word that does not meet the criteria you describe.
(You say you tutored logic?!) To follow this line of thinking, no one
would be able to speak at all, for fear of offending some
overly-sensitive person (or quite small group of people), somewhere.
Funny, too, that you describe those of us who find "articulate" to be an
acceptable compliment as living in "a bubble", but refuse to acknowledge
the fact that you are in a teeny-tiny minority.
It is difficult to comprehend what confusion of thought could lead to
such a willful blindness.
Miss Elaine Eos
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> >The whole thought process behind this sort of thinking is entirely
> >asinine (but in a vaguely titillating way.)
> >
> >Sorry, were those words too lewd?
>
> No, but calling my thought process asinine is insulting.
You're changing the subject. The thought process is STILL asinine.
> > T H E W O R D I S N O T O F F E N S I V E
> Caps and spaces don't make it any more true.
Nor does your repeated assertion that "articulate" is an insult or a
racial slur diminish the falsity of said assertion.
Ericka Kammerer
You're taking that construct literally? I think
that's over the top. I think that was a bit of literary
hyperbole. Clearly, there are other comments and words
that are offensive.
>> and that it does so in every situation
>> in every possible use.
>
> I didn't say it does so in every situation.
But you are claiming that the word must be avoided,
at least when using it to describe people of color, which
certainly implies that at least within the context of the
using it to describe people of color, the insult is so
universal that the word can't be used. That's close enough.
> Nevertheless, I would not use it. Because you can't know how the person is
> going to react.
There are a lot of things that people might react
negatively to, including a lot that have some cultural
history.
>> I think you're reading a whole lot
>> into these things that are not in evidence.
>
> I think you're reading a whole lot of imperatives, generalizations, and
> general craziness into what I wrote, which was that I wouldn't use
> "articulate" or "well-spoken" because of their historical baggage.
I think you're confusing my remarks with those of
others, and also over-generalizing other's remarks. Furthermore,
if you think I am reacting to some argument other than the
one you have clearly made, you are mistaken. I'm not tilting
at windmills here. While you certainly have the right to
refrain from using whatever words you feel like avoiding,
I flat out disagree with your assertion that it is essential
to avoid using the words "articulate" or "well spoken" to
describe people of color in all situations. That's what
I've argued against. Pure and simple.
>>>> Similarly, people can, and have, used words like
>>>> "pretty," "educated," "intelligent," "polite," and a host
>>>> of other adjectives to damn with faint praise. When that happens,
>>>> it's just as offensive to the recipients, and they're just as
>>>> aware that it's happened.
>>> That doesn't erase the other offense, the one that depends on the
>>> historical baggage the word or phrase carries.
>> And "articulate" is the only word that carries any of
>> this baggage?
>
> Have you actually been here, reading the newsgroup?
Um...yeah. Your point?
>>>>> In fact, most positive adjectives do not have that impact. When they get
>>>>> that charge it is situational, not historical.
>>>> How can you say that? Every one of the above adjectives,
>>>> and many more, have been used that way, and I don't see any
>>>> evidence whatsoever that "articulate" is used that way any
>>>> more frequently.
>>> Ask a few Black friends, then. Or look at the Web links I have supplied.
>> Your links say nothing about how no other words have
>> been used in this way.
>
> And surely any article discussing this will have a list of the bad words
> and the good words and a guarantee that no other words have ever been used
> in this way ever ever ever ever even in East Nowhereland where only three
> people live and they have their own triplets language that uses very
> special seemingly inoffensive words to make fun of the visitors that come
> every three years and have no idea they're being insulted.
You haven't posted even *one* cite that goes beyond
anecdote. You certainly haven't referred to anything that
claims to be a comprehensive look at the more general
phenomena of damning people of color with faint praise,
nor have you claimed to have done any searches that would
likely have resulted in such a result. So, I ask you again,
since you are railing against the notion that this isn't
part of a slippery slope, where is your evidence that, in
fact, there aren't several other words/phrases that would
need to be removed under the very same arguments you're using
here?
>> And frankly, since my black friends
>> use these words about both themselves, other black people,
>> and people of other races, it's a little hard to imagine
>> that they're highly offended by the use.
>
> They apparently are not.
>
> That doesn't mean others are not, either.
So....again, where's your evidence that goes beyond
anecdote. You're not convinced by my anecdotes and I'm not
convinced by yours. Do you have higher quality information?
> Which is my entire point. I avoid using the word and phrase because it is
> insulting to some people. And it is obvious we cannot predict who those
> people are.
That's not in evidence at all. You haven't posted a
single anecdote in which the word was used *carefully* (i.e.,
in a way that made it clear the speaker was offering a genuine
compliment rather than damning with faint praise) and the
recipient was offended. I submit that there's no evidence
on the table that it is impossible to call a person of color
articulate, when done carefully, without significant risk
of offense.
>> Furthermore, my
>> black friends would be quick to point out other words that
>> are also used in this manner and would take offense at the
>> notion that they're too stupid to be able to discern when
>> they're being patronized, whatever the method.
>
> Since I didn't say they're too stupid to be able to discern when they're
> being patronized, I'm not sure why you would include that in your defense.
Well, since you've already admitted that there are
situations in which black people are appropriately described
as "articulate," then the only reason to avoid using the
term is if you believe that either the speakers are too
stupid to figure out the appropriate contexts or you believe
that even when the speakers use it appropriately, the recipients
are too stupid to distinguish the genuine compliment from
the patronizing damning with faint praise.
>>>>> In contrast, historically "articulate" has taken the place of
>>>>> "well-spoken." And both have a history of racist overtones when used by a
>>>>> White person to describe a Black or minority person.
>>>> So can other adjectives. And if somehow "articulate"
>>>> were miraculously eradicated from the language, there would
>>>> just be another code word used by people with racist expectations.
>>>> The problem is *NOT* the word. It's the attitude.
>>> So if people don't use "n*gg*r" any more, they use "c**n" instead, then
>>> "n*gg*r" wasn't an offensive word?
>> You will note that we were discussing words that
>> have have plenty of positive usages as well, not the
>> extreme example you give. Also, you will note that I
>> made no claim parallel to the one you describe.
>
> Ah, so it's okay
Please speak specifically. What's "okay"? I didn't
say anything was or was not okay above. I said that your
argument didn't make sense. If you'd like to clarify, feel
free and I'll attempt to answer it.
>>>>> It's not just theoretical. The difference is real.
>>>> Of course. No one is arguing that "articulate,"
>>>> as well as many other words, can't be used in a racist
>>>> way.
>>> It is used in a racist way. Not can be, is. It isn't just a random stick
>>> someone can use to hit you with. It's been fashioned into a club.
>> "Articulate" is often used in a non-offensive way,
>> even by black scholars to refer to other black people who
>> are particularly gifted in their use of words. It is *not*
>> a word that is always, or even mostly, offensive.
>
> Yet it is sometimes offensive. In ways that are not always dependent on
> the immediate context of damning with faint praise.
Would you care to give an example in which it is
offensive but not in the context of damning with faint praise?
> So I don't use it.
Again, no one has said you must use it. The
question is whether it's so offensive that no one should
use it.
>> Care to explain, then, how it's inappropriate to
>> call a black person articulate when the word is used
>> *properly*
>
> Pretending that a word is only used in its proper sense is a recipe for
> disaster.
Try again. I did not say that it was always used properly,
or imply that. In addition, none of my arguments are predicated
on consistent proper use. The question I asked was how is it
inappropriate to call a black person articulate WHEN THE WORD
IS USED PROPERLY. No one here, least of all myself, has said
that it's okay to use the word in the context we've all agreed
is racist. Let's focus on the real issue rather than the straw
man.
> Pretending there are no implications beyond the dictionary definition of a
> word is foolish and misguided.
Again, I didn't claim that or imply it. I have agreed
that there are inappropriate usages. I've recommended avoiding
the inappropriate usages. So again, I ask you why it is *also*
necessary to avoid *appropriate* usage.
>> to mean that the person has an unusually high
>> degree of facility with words and speech, rather than
>> insultingly to express surprise at a basic ability to
>> speak, if I've happened to express what you've been trying
>> to say?
>>
>>>>> Here's yet another an example of how using "well spoken" can get you into
>>>>> hot water:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.poise.cc/didyouknow/archives/20060316.php
>>>>>
>>>>> This was a real situation. Some people were insulted. The person who used
>>>>> the phrase did not mean to insult them. It was rather awkward for the
>>>>> person who used it.
>>>> She doesn't link to her original text, so it's
>>>> hard to comment on her usage. It seems quite clear from
>>>> what she *did* say that when she herself described what
>>>> she meant, the panelists were, in fact, not insulted by
>>>> what she said.
>>> Uh, no. They said they understood she meant no offense. That's different.
>> Care to quote exactly where it says that?
>
> Did you actually read this?
Yep.
I can read too. I asked you where it said that the
panelists remained offended after she explained her intent.
I don't see that anywhere.
>>> And who knows how many of the people she offended will not "get over it."
>>> Will think she really did mean she had lower expectations of them than of
>>> White people.
>>>
>>>> That leads me to believe that the manner in
>>>> which she used the word was unclear.
>>> No, it was culturally ambiguous. To her it had no insulting meaning
>>> attached to it. For them it did. She even realized, too late, that what
>>> she said was insensitive.
>> You have some access to her original quote that
>> you'd like to share? Otherwise, how are you so sure about
>> what she said and how she said it?
>
> I don't think it's possible to draw the conclusions you want me to, if you
> read that whole post.
What conclusion do I want you to draw? Why are you
chasing tangents rather than answering the direct question?
You are saying that it is rude to call a person of color
articulate, or at least rude enough that no polite person
should do it. Period. You have disagreed with the argument
that the word just needs to be used with caution. You have
said the best course of action is not to use it at all. And
yet, you have given not one single example of a situation in
which the word was used in a way where A) the speaker didn't
intend to damn with faint praise AND B) the speaker phrased
it such that a reasonable person would not misinterpret it
in that manner, and yet the recipient still took offense.
In other words, you have not given one strong counter
example. I'm just looking for you to do so. The example
above suits condition A) but you have no evidence whatsoever
that it suits condition B).
>>>> And, as we all know,
>>>> there are differences between words used in face-to-face
>>>> conversation and the written word. One always has to be
>>>> more careful with the written word because losing the
>>>> body language means you lose a huge amount of the information.
>>>> My bet is that she wrote carelessly, in a way that left
>>>> it well open to the interpretation that she was expressing
>>>> surprise that the minority speakers had a reasonable command
>>>> of the English language. If that was the case, then you
>>>> could insert any synonym of "articulate" you like, and the
>>>> remark would still likely be interpreted as offensive.
>>> No.
>>>
>>> You really have no clue as to the history of this, do you?
>> You really have no clue *what* my background is
>> with this, do you? You just assume if I don't agree with
>> you that I must be clueless. Hmmm...making assumptions
>> about people....
>
> How can you have a clue as to the history of it, if you don't even know it
> exists, and deny that it exists even after given evidence that it exists?
I have not (nor has anyone here, as far as I recall)
denied that the word has been used in a racist way. I simply
disagree with your interpretation that it is not possible to
use the word in a non-offensive way. That doesn't make me
ignorant of the history. It only means that I don't agree
with your assertions and argumentation.
>>>> In
>>>> fact, you'll note that in the piece she seems to indicate
>>>> that "well spoken" would have been just as offensive.
>>> Yes, it is.
>>>
>>>> So,
>>>> again, it's the context more than the individual word.
>>> No, those two are both offensive. And yet not every word is historically
>>> offensive.
>> Odd, that. Perhaps it has something to do with
>> *how* the word is used, then.
>
> How the word was used, also.
>
> You really deny the effects of history?
I haven't anywhere denied that the word has been
used in racist ways. Why do you keep putting words into
my mouth? Why don't you attempt to counter the argument
on the table. You say that the historical baggage is such
that the word must not be used to describe people of color.
Period. Well, except you admit that *some* people are
perceptive enough to do so. Just not us hoi polloi, apparently.
I say that it is, in fact, possible to understand the
historical context and make appropriate choices about
when and when not to use the word to describe people of
color. There is no lack of understanding of the history
and culture involved. There is simply a disagreement on
the conclusion one must draw from that information.
>>>> But there are lots of
>>>> other words used that way, and those usages are every bit as
>>>> offensive. You could manage to use a word in that way that
>>>> has *never* been used to damn with faint praise previously,
>>>> and that would be just as offensive too.
>>> We are discussing two ways (of many) that something can be perceived as
>>> racially offensive. I am focusing on terms that were historically used in
>>> an offensive manner.
>> But you are ignoring many other words and phrases that
>> have *also* been used in the same manner.
>
> And you are just about to list them here:
You can keep asking all you like, but as I have listed
half a dozen at least twice, you can spend the same amount of
time reading over what I said previously (especially since you
seem eager to twist my arguments into something they're not) as
I've had to do with your previous postings.
>> Furthermore, you are
>> denying that people, including black people, have the ability
>> to figure out when they're being patronized and when they're
>> not.
>
> No.
Then we're back to the other possibility, which is
that us speakers are too stupid to figure out how to use
the word with appropriate sensitivity. I reject that notion.
Some may decide that they as individuals are not able to do
so, but I don't believe it is a blanket requirement.
> There isn't always the time to figure out whether someone means something
> in a racist way or not. There isn't always enough information.
Um...haven't I (and perhaps others) said repeatedly
that part of using the word appropriate would include something
like using it to describe people who are, in fact, genuinely
articulate (in the sense of being unusually facile with the
language) and phrasing it in such a way that it was clear
that it wasn't being used in the agreed upon racist context?
Wouldn't that be providing that information? You've been
talking about the obligations of the speaker. The speaker
is in control of the phrasing he or she chooses, and can
certainly choose to provide that information that allows the
recipient to figure out what the speaker means.
> And most importantly, it isn't possible for a person who reacts emotionally
> to the word or phrase to un-feel that reaction.
We *all* have unpredictable gut reactions to benign
situations. No one is guaranteed a life free of those sorts
of happenings, and it is impossible to tailor your speech or
your actions so as to guarantee that you'll never trigger that
sort of thing. That said, I think the odds that someone would
be offended at careful and appropriate use of the term are
pretty much slim and none.
> If you've been raped, you might react negatively to the word "rape." If
> someone used it in a jocular context it might cause you unpleasant
> feelings, especially if the rape was recent or especially traumatic. Does
> this mean no one can ever use the word? No. But it means that a wise
> speaker will avoid it, knowing that it will take away from or even
> obliterate her or his intended message.
Oh, we're not to use that word either? Perhaps you
are the one who should come up with this list of words that
are not obscenities but nevertheless must be avoided in all
polite conversation (now, I'm assuming that "rape" must be
avoided with all folks, not just people of color, yes?).
And why in this case are you limiting it to a "jocular
context?" After all, it could be a very serious context
and still trigger a gut reaction. Isn't that to be avoided
as well?
>>> That doesn't mean using the word isn't offensive.
>> Well, clearly it is *not* offensive in all cases,
>> or even in all cases where it is applied to people of
>> color. So, I find your conclusions over the top.
>
> I would not expect all people of any group to think alike. Are you
> suggesting that that is what is required for you to stop using it? If we
> can find one Black who isn't offended, you're home free?
Well, so far every one I've asked hasn't had a problem
with it as long as it wasn't being used in the context we've
all agreed was offensive. So at this point, I don't even have
*one* real life example to support your contention and several
to support mine.
But that's a bit beside the point. As I said before,
you have so far failed to give even one example that counters
the argument that it's possible to use the word appropriately
and inoffensively. Can you do that?
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:24:02 -0500, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>>
>>> But rather than using a word that could be misinterpreted, I prefer to use
>>> one that probably won't be.
>>>
>>> Rather than using a word with historical freight, I choose to use one that
>>> doesn't have that freight.
>>>
>>> I really don't see what's so horrible or difficult about that.
>> So, um, would you care to give an example of how
>> you could describe a black person as articulate in that
>> way that doesn't use the word "articulate" and isn't
>> open to misinterpretation?
>
> I didn't say I could make it so no one would ever misinterpret you. There
> is no list of words with a guarantee, "if you use these, you will never be
> misunderstood, no one will ever be insulted, if they are they are the
> victim of asinine thought processes."
That's not what I asked. You are saying that you
can compliment a black person on their fabulous command
of the language without using the word "articulate." By
implication, you're suggesting that in doing so, you are
free from being misinterpreted because your word won't have
any historical baggage. I'm asking you for such an example.
Because I'll bet you that one of two things will happen:
1) Your example will also be open to misinterpretation as
damning with faint praise, because it will contain the
same hot button issue of possible expressing surprise at
a black person's ability to speak properly, or 2) Your
example will be just as inoffensive if you substitute the
word "articulate" because you will have sufficiently
clarified the context and you will be offering the
compliment in a situation where it is richly and
obviously deserved.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Gene Wirchenko
>On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:48:19 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>
>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:07:37 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>>>>
[snip]
>>>>>>Context. Context is the key.
>>>
>>>So why did you remove it?
>>
>> Because it is understood in this discussion and if someone needs
>>torefer to it, he can go upthread and get it. That is how newsgroups
>>(the context of this discussion) work.
>
>No, I mean why did you remove the historical context.
I did not. The thread still exists. Snipping is a way of
removing unnecessary duplication.
[snip]
>>>Is there some other reading of making the distinction that I'm missing?
>>>Was there some third group implied that I missed mention of?
>>
>> Probably.
>
>Explain.
No matter what people say, you come back with the same thing.
People have posted various approaches, but you come back with the same
thing. You do not appear to be seriously examining what we state. It
is a reasonable assumption that you may well be missing fine points.
>>>Even if I know that you don't mean to be insulting when you use the phrase,
>>>I know now that if you continue to use it, you are saying, in essence, to
>>>hell with the way those people feel. They can just suck it up. I want to
>>>use that phrase, that word, and I'll use it no matter what they think.
>>
>> No, but the other side is that I am not to use a word no matter
>>what I think.
>
>Because your thoughts and feelings on the matter are not the only factors
>in what is polite.
Yup. Neither are yours.
[snip]
>>>However, I think that, once you're told people react negatively to it, you
>>>would just try not to use it. Like you wouldn't offer a Japanese tourist
>>>berth 4.
>>
>> Yes, once I am told. If I am not, then what?
>
>But you have. What you do once you are informed is up to you.
>
>I would advise not using the word or phrase.
I have not been though. I have been told by you that a large
third group finds it offensive. I am to assume that all of them do?
Complaints on behalf of others really have little weight with me. I
use the term "articulate" to describe myself. It is used in my area
with its literal value. Given that the term is literally positive, I
need more than just one or two persons' assertion.
>>>>Getting upset over such is overreacting. There are more
>>>>useful approaches.
>>>
>>>Like what?
>>
>> Telling the person politely that the term he used is considered
>>insulting and suggesting an alternative.
>
>That's how it started here.
You have been most strident. That tends to devalue your argument
in my eyes. I am not interested in adopting a fanaticism from you. (I
have enough trouble with any I have.)
>Then I was told I was misinformed, lying, misrepresenting, trying to foment
>racial hatred, and so on.
>
>>>I keep having it explained to me that people might not know what they said
>>>(I know this), that people can use any compliment as an insult (I know
>>>this).
>>
>> And do you agree?
>
>I said I know this. I agree.
>
>I even made a point of using the word "innocent" to describe those who
>didn't know the historical usage of the phrases. Rather than "ignorant"
>which suggests they should have known, "innocent" suggests the person is
>unintentionally unaware. I think many here fall into that category.
One definition of "innocent" is simple-minded. Someone could
choose to be insulted by this. It is so easy to take offense if one
wishes to.
>>>That doesn't cover this particular case -- when a word or phrase is
>>>historically insulting to a group of people. And if the answer is, don't
>>>pay any attention to it, ignore cultural reactions and meanings that aren't
>>>already understood by the majority, then I think there's something wrong
>>>with the answer.
>>
>> And how would one know? I had never heard of "articulate" as
>>being insulting. I use the word to describe *myself*; I have for
>>years.
>
>By asking, as the original poster did, and listening to the answers.
I have listened. Maybe, I will test it with the next black I
meet.
>>>And every time I say this, I get hit with all these stupid straw men, over
>>>and over again, as if I think anyone saying hand me the vanilla should be
>>>shot for insulting boring white people.
>>
>> Nope. You keep clubbing us with the historical point.
>
>It seems it's not making much of a dent in some places.
So you do the same thing over again and expect a different
result? That is the essence of a jocular definition of insanity.
(Some do appear to take this definition seriously though.) I think
that is usually too strong of a term, but certainly, your method is
not effective.
I have a problem with treating people differently on the basis of
skin colour where skin colour differences are not relevant. (For
"skin colour", read also pretty much any other physical trait.) I
consider it to be patronising to do so. By my standards, if I do very
much of it, I am being insulting. If I wish to insult someone, one of
the nastiest ways is to be patronising.
I find it highly offensive to be expected to be patronising.