Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:24:34 -0500 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Content-type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Thanks, J South. Two more questions:
1. Do the silly denigration of the word _niggardly_ and the silly outright
ban on the word _slave_ mean there's never any call whatsoever to ponder any
present use of any slavery-era language in any context?
2. You allude to what was legal. Is there any analogy here with the word
_witch_, which was also a legally real status in certain past times?
As I said, I agree that facts are facts and that denotation is denotation,
but something tells me this is nevertheless not all just precious political
correctness. So I hope others comment too.
> The Association of Educational Publishers, among others, has banned the
> use
> of the word slave in favor of enslaved person, worker, or laborer.
> Black/blacks is also banned as a noun, and niggardly is banned to be
> replaced with
> frugal or cheap. A good, and pretty funny, work on the attempts to
> politically
> correct-up language is The Language Police by Diane Ravitch.
>
> At the time slaves were legally owned just like a horse or carriage or any
> other personal property. Attempting to convey some other status is
> historically inaccurate and just plain dumb.
>
> J South
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|