VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"S. Corneliussen" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:24:34 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US