usage [wasRE: photogravure veryOff topic]

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;jseigel@panix.com>
Date: 08/18/05-06:47:07 PM Z
Message-id: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508181815160.22371@panix3.panix.com>

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Randy Hendrix wrote:

>>> One would expect that folks here would be literate
>> enough
>>> to know that when the noun "mankind" is used that
>> it
>>> includes women.

What does "literacy" have to do with it? But that's not why I'm
writing... Read on...

>> Sociological research indicates that women don't
>> feel included when they see the term "man" or
> "mankind".
>
>> The species is humankind or humanity.

At this point we are joined by a new contributor, who explains....

> I thought it was sapiens... as in Homo sapiens,
>
> but anyway, perhaps either the Sociological
> researchers or the women involved were simply
> uninformed of the meaning of mankind, or this usage of
> 'man'.
>
> When a word has more than one meaning, no need to
> change it so one sector of society can feel comfort in
> knowing they have their own word, a word created to
> eliminate all possibility of interpretation

Got it !!

> I would be happy using the historical term were I male
> or female.

That line is what caught my attention -- I'm like, OOPS !!! You mean
you're NOT ????? ("male or female," that is).... Still, that's not why I'm
writing...

> It in facts reflects our history.
> We may not like that history, but it is ours, never
> the less.
>
> I do not think it is good to rename something simply
> because we do not like the thing behind the name.

I'm writing to say that in this my dear Sir or Madam, as the case may be,
you can "think" as you like, but you are quite wrong. A philologist or
language historian could cite MANY changes in usage as words became
degraded or groups wish to change status or image, but the following come
to mind:

The US has several times in recent years changed terms used for "blacks"
or "African-Americans." In my childhood, the *polite* terms were "negro"
and "colored." (That we are all colored in one way or another is
irrelevant.)

The history of photography records entrances, drinking fountains, etc.,
marked "colored," as were schools and such other facilities as existed.
Of course, being separated in this way was profoundly racist, but the term
itself was normal usage. In fact, ironically, until they chose the term
"black" themselves, "black" could well have been considered an insult, as
well. (Of couse my own personal skin is probably as dark as many so-called
"blacks," but that's not *this* nonsense.)

"Darkies" was once a term of near-affection, not intended as insult, until
it was perceived as patronizing. I've seen old photo magazines with
photographs of black children as an ongoing category called "Coon
Photography." Not *considered* insulting by the editors at the time. Etc.

Other groups like those we now call Native Americans have rejected, of
course "savages", and "redskins", but also "Indians," among others. As
have eskimos in Canada, I think, tho I'm guessing here. Other changes
include the "maid" become "housekeeper," or even "nanny," and secretaries
become administrative assistants.

As it happens, however, "racism" entered the dictionary long before
"sexism," and folks who would be extremely respectful in terms of race,
feel free to disparage women's language claims, on no grounds except that
they feel like it, or general backwardness. And although few people would
now use "he" to mean everybody, there was once a major kerfuffle, if you
could believe, on this very list, when some folks, whom I do not name to
protect the guilty, objected to the very idea.

I remember, also, the NY Times's LONG struggle against "Ms." That would
mean a special term for women, they explained. Oh, like "Mrs." isn't a
special term for (married) women. Of course, by this presumably man or
woman's thinking we'd still be asking women if they were married &
addressing them accordingly. No, I take that back, today everyone calls
you by your first name anyway. (Except if President Bush calls you "mom,"
that is.)

Readers of Chaucer, among other early texts, may call to mind other terms
for women (among others), now vulgar & abandoned. I imagine insulting
terms for gays, Jews, Hispanics, Italians and Irish, et al, were not
insults at the outset.

Other related changes: Firemen are now firefighters, mailmen are mail
carriers, and in many advanced quarters waitresses and waiters are, I'm
not making this up, waitpersons. But a language that doesn't change is of
course dead (as is a brain), and "mankind" is not used generically in 2005
among literate people, in fact only rarely by the hidebound and/or
oblivious.

Judy
Received on Thu Aug 18 18:47:16 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 09/01/05-09:17:20 AM Z CST