I like the idea I once heard that we change our names to "pink people" and "brown people." It would be more accurate, and look a how it discharges so much of the emotional baggage "black" and "white" have! Nancy pink person from Rich'mun ------- I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days. --Daniel Boone On Jan 20, 2007, at 11:34 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote: > I guess I don't understand Tom's question. In what sense is > the term "white folks" politically incorrect? Just off hand, > it seems to be pretty much descriptive of me and people who > look more or less like me, and it does not seem to be > especially offensive. > > Is it the second word, "folks," that is politically incorrect? > In this day and age of populist politics, in which all major > political idealogies that have any serious constituency are > populist, what's wrong with the term "folk?" I could > understand an objection to the term if there was an > intellectually consistent conservative movement still around, > but that does not seem to be the case in Virginia, or really, > anywhere else. Everyone these days is committed to the notion > that the people at large are capable of rational > self-government, and hence are entitled to full participation > in public life. I don't hear anyone in public life suggesting > seriously, for example, that democracies require some > regulation, because the mass of the "folk" are susceptible to > the malicious influence of demagogues. Madison's notion of > filtration is pretty much dead, and has been for a long time. > Viewed from any historical perspective, there is no > conservative party or ideology operative in the United States > today. "Folk" quite adequately connotes the populist > democracy to which everyone today that is politically active > is commited. > > Maybe its the first part of the term, "white" that is > politically incorrect? Perhaps so, but the better descriptor > would be "pink," and that one got used up decrying communism. > And the alternatives, for example "Caucasian," are worse, > because they really are racial descriptors while "white" > simply describes (rather poorly) skin color. At any rate, I > am not especially offended when someone describes me as > "white," and I find it hard to imagine the term generating any > real substantive outrage. > > If there was a double standard in operation here, Tom might > have an argument. But I don't see it. > > All best, > Kevin > Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D. > Department of History > James Madison University > > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the > instructions > at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html