Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Stop the Euphemism Treadmill, I Want to Get Off
![shutterstock_307095950 [Converted]](https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Brain-Treadmill.jpg)
The English language evolves quickly. New terms emerge and old ones die with remarkable speed, especially in our accelerated age. Changes in culture, technology, and entertainment are often the catalysts, but more and more, the pursuit of social justice is the cause.
The latter leads to what author Steven Pinker named the “euphemism treadmill.” One term is deemed offensive, so it is replaced with a new term, which, over time, is deemed offensive itself.
A good example of this comes from the field of mental health. Offended by hopelessly vague and unscientific terms like “crazy” and “madness,” early psychologists chose sterile, humane terms such as “moron,” “imbecile,” and “idiot.” But if you happened to visit a schoolyard any time after the Harding administration, you know it didn’t take long for kids to yell those well-meaning terms as they pantsed the kid with his tongue stuck to the flagpole.
To prevent hurt feelings, medical professionals dropped those words and coined “mental retardation,” which only sped up the euphemism treadmill. While some clinics still use that term, it has mostly been replaced by any number of euphemisms. “Mentally handicapped” was replaced with “mentally impaired” was replaced with “mentally challenged” was replaced with “developmentally disabled” until today, when several professionals have thrown up their hands and go with the hopelessly vague and unscientific term “behavioral wellness.” We’ve come a long way since “crazy.”
The treadmill only speeds up when you enter the modern Social Justice movement. If it were chartered today, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would be taboo, but its definitional equivalent, the National Association for the Advancement of People of Color, would be applauded. NAACP bad; NAAPC good. Why, “PC” is right in the name!
But now even “PC” isn’t politically correct. The website Everyday Feminism published an article this week titled “4 Reasons ‘People of Color’ Isn’t Always the Best Choice of Words.”
Language is often one of the last forms of oppression to be challenged – because how do we tackle something so essential to how we communicate with the world and each other? But language is one of the most powerful ways to create change or uphold oppression for that very reason.
Diversity culture, or this push to challenge the societal norms that subconsciously support heteronormative whiteness at the cost of all others, could be responsible for how the term people of color can be used maliciously – albeit unintentionally…
Ironically, the trap of people of color can be permitted by the very people who identify as such – mainly by non-Black people of color, who in their efforts to raise awareness against oppression, continue to rely on exploitation and subconscious violence rooted in language.
Lately, language has pushed to better encompass the sensitivity and awareness needed to navigate within racial identity and ethnicity. But the term people of color – an umbrella term used to encompass everyone who identifies as someone from a non-white background – can be the easiest way for us to fall in the trap of “one size fits all” thinking.
And what’s worse, the term people of color can contribute to the violence that specific communities face every day in a white supremacist society.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words are violence too.
The author — one Cameron G., an “emerging sex educator and professional fangirl from New Jersey” — says that white folk should refer to groups of people by their specific ethnic identity. But getting specific has its downsides since the most recent US Census form has categories for Hispanic/Latino/Spanish origin; Black/African American/Negro; Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian; Native Hawaiian, Guamanian/Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander; or “some other race.”
Replacing “POC” with “POHLSBAANAICFJKVOANHGCSOPISOR” is a touch unwieldy, even for Cameron G. As she closes her piece, she introduces a new term without even a cursory explanation of why it’s an improvement over the old.
We’re able to recognize that we have power in our unique identities, and be allies in supporting other communities of color against white supremacy and violence. However, we do more harm than good by lumping us all together under a forced umbrella of false equality.
Communities of color are powerful and worthy of being acknowledged specifically.
I look forward to Cameron G.’s 2017 thinkpiece, “4 Reasons ‘Communities of Color’ Isn’t Always the Best Choice of Words.”
Published in General
It’s almost as if — almost — we are a society made up of a multitude of unique individuals and not primarily a collection of identity groups. But perhaps I go too far.
The thing about ‘people of color’ is that, as she says, it’s created specifically to include everyone who is not white, and is intended to be exclusionary in that manner, making white people the other.
By their owns standards, this is racist.
Yes she did. I highlighted it for you:
Enjoyed the post. This is one of my favorite Pinker discoveries/insights.
Standards? Ha!
Never forget what the ultimate goal of this type of political correctness is: to take power from you and give it to others.
I give up. Just shoot me.
In 1988 I saw a storefront in Brighton, England called “The Spastic Society”. This seemed unbelievable to me at the time. It appeared to be a Goodwill type of store. I recently asked my British friend whether it was still there, and she replied that it was not.
Moving on . . .
A few months ago I was actually quoting LBJ to a lawyer friend and she said, with great urgency, “You can’t say that word. Never use that word!” The world was “Negro”. “Really? So now there’s too “N-Words?”, I asked. “Yes. Never say that word. Never!”.
But I’m not really sure. The more bad N-World seems to have been “reclaimed” by people of color, (or maybe just people of lots of color), especially if it ends with an “a” rather than an “er”. My college-age nephew told me if it ends with an “a” it is cool (see Trayvon’s GF Rachel Jeantel) but if it ends with an “er” you can get beat up.
But I’m not really convinced. Where is the authority on matters such as these?
So never talk while eating. Never talk where you could get fired. Never talk where you could get recorded.
My God!
This whole business is summed up as:
The writer’s mission-impossible grid of language trip-wires is a privileged contrivance dictated by her own motives. Until recently, this would be confined to the Subaru Outback inundated lands of the Northwest or in a geocities blog, alongside Dole & Kemp’s “World-Wide-Web” campaign site. Now, given the echo chamber of the internet as mouthpiece–these Social (God help me) Writers have confounded themselves with us Social Workers. In reality, the chasm that divides us is so vast, Saito would have immediately committed Seppuku; letting Guinness leave Burma, sorry, Myanmar–thus Rangoon, sorry, Crab Rangoon.
Perhaps like Guinness, this Writer sees nobility in the construction of this intricate apparatus of identity politics, but its Madness! Madness! Arrogantly assuming ethnicity can be easily identified by expressed genetic phenotypes. Personally, hailing from three different racial backgrounds, no one knows I am, what I am: not hetero-normative Mongolians; not trans-gender oboists, not Popeye the sailor-man.
At least Guinness was constructing a bridge, these modernist activism writers are just continuously building scaffolding–because they are not Social Workers, they are Social Writers. They are not concerned with answers, just more personal essays, destructively using Race as lure for their piffle.
The idea that “colored people” is taboo but “people of color” is the preferred usage is so stupid that I find I must rebel against it. Either that, or call white people “people without color.” Or “people of whiteness.” Or, as James Taranto recommends, “people of pallor.”
Every time I read about this topic I am reminded about the slave state laws – and perhaps used in non slave states as well for all I know – which scrupulously had people tracking their family tree to determine if they were black or white.
In kindergarten one of our kids went to a new public school in TX that happened to be zoned such that we were by far among the poorest people in it. At an event, an out of town relative influenced by this consistent racial messaging commented that it wasn’t a very diverse class, to which we pointed out that 80% of these kids were actually expatriates from Mexico and South America from the rich section of the school zone. They may have looked “white-ish” on balance but were actually one of these groups that gets to sub-divide on the census. Although none of the children magically changed, suddenly the group was a tapestry instead of a white wash.
Finally, I find her idea that everyone except the white people should be embracing their unique identities completely indicative of the left’s complete myopia. White folks are all the same, don’t you know. Her own words are “we do more harm than good by lumping us all together under a forced umbrella of false equality” but she is happy to lump people from diverse European backgrounds whose ancestors don’t happen to have spoken Spanish into one big pot of oppressors. Your ancestors grew up just north of Spain but spoke French, not Catalan, well you’re part of the problem not the solution.
Lunacy.
but she is happy to lump people from diverse European backgrounds whose ancestors don’t happen to have spoken Spanish into one big pot of oppressors. Your ancestors grew up just north of Spain but spoke French, not Catalan, well you’re part of the problem not the solution.
The irony being who came to the New World first? (leaving aside Vikings).
This pseudo-intellectual fumigation doesn’t resonate with Black, Hispanic, or Asian voters. I was born into a working-class, military 1/2 Black family, and this concept that success is contingent on achieving some racial utopia is horsefeathers. Black, Hispanic, Asian, Irish, Italian, and Norse families who work neither want nor need an hierarchical structure of racial genuflection.
An occasional contributor to these culture review sites, I was edged out as they became bivouac settlements of itinerant academics. Bereft of experiential inspiration yet pressed for titillating subject matter, racial rigmarole and manufactured outrage quickly became the clickbait dujour. Every Liberal review site I followed capitulated to this format.
Deprived of the photosynthesis of positive energy, they became fetishistic voyeurs into trauma and tragedy. More cynical than Sylvia Plath being forced to juggle–modern Liberal activism is now admonishment, puerile self-sanctimony, and outright cannibalization.
Perhaps this is why Trump’s incessant message of ‘Winning’ seemed impervious to losing its shine. Fear is his main motivator, but unconditional inclusion is not part of the Liberal experience. Minorities are primed for Conservative proselytism–particularly that of Community investment. A Conservative candidate that packaged this concept of pursuing financial and market gains instead of Government assistance in a pedagogical yet not derisive manner would make unbelievable in-roads with Black and Hispanic communities.
Sooooo….. What would your lawyer friend say to the people who run The United Negro College Fund?
When my wife was in nursing school, the classes were steeped with social justice activism. Once a guest presenter mentioned that when diagnosing a certain condition, it was important to be attentive to the fact that it is more prevalent in “people of color”. My wife raised her hand and asked for clarification. After all, “people of color” could encompass everyone from East Asians to Carribean blacks. Is the condition more prevalent in all nonwhites, or in one ethnic group in particular?
My wife was asking because she honestly wanted to better treat her patients. But she got some very hostile looks for her un-PC question.
The term itself is an abomination, coined on the belief that all nonwhites share a common bond: Persecution at the hands of Europeans. This is a political term based on an agenda with a false narrative. On balance, I’d say getting rid of the whole “people of color” obfuscation, and replacing it with terms that reflect history and culture and biology, is actually a positive step. It is a dialing back of the treadmill.
A merging sex educator would probably have more professional credibility.
“It’s the United N-Word College Fund.”
One nice thing about the Ten Commandments is that they were literally etched in stone.
It was many years ago, when “people of color” was becoming the new PC term. The looks of shock and horror came from other students, for whom that abstract goal of “helping people” was more urgent than the concrete goal of providing actual people with actual care. I’m sure most of them started growing up when they became responsible for providing treatment.
I think Gabriel is consciously denigrating People of Stupidity. The use of logic, like the use of math, is a also form of rape. As is humor and, for that matter, cargo pants and laughing at the Three Stooges.
“Race” is a construct imposed by white heteronormative forms of cognition unless persons of non-whiteness choose to see their non-whiteness as a fundamental state of being rather than mere social construct. Therefore, the fundamental problem is that persons of non-whiteness can be non-white in fact but if whites notice or accept such assertions of non-white identity, the racist social construct is reimposed by virtue of that affirmation.
I would pursue that last point in nauseating depth but I fear I might be offered tenure at Brown if I were to do so.
Old Bathos:“Race” is a construct imposed by white heteronormative forms of cognition unless persons of non-whiteness choose to see their non-whiteness as a fundamental state of being rather than mere social construct.
First and Foremost, solid cargo shorts burn.
I actually do believe Race is a cultural construct, in fact being married to a geneticist, it has been stunning to see the how prevalent European and Sub-Saharan African admixture is in this country. Given our history, not shocking from an objective standpoint, but I;ve heard of people taking the news surprisingly hard. I agree with you, but there is still (bangs on tympani) “Institutional Racism” that we people of Kodachrome do contend with. I don’t see it as a monolithic oppressive society–but the removal of Gerrymandering and Census (yes I realize this will never happen) could satisfy so many representational shortcomings.
The GOP’s view on the Census, I believe, was one of the biggest missed opportunities to indoctrinate SO many people of color. And points to simple re-articulation of core values to pick up non-white voters.
The first rule of the ‘revolutionary’ is too kill all those who helped foment the revolution, they might do it again to you.
In the PC ‘revolution’ I can’t actually ‘kill’ you so the next best thing is to silence anyone who dissents… if you are anything other than ‘colored’ you must be silenced. Without a seat at the table we can do what we want to the people we want to ‘do’ it to.
So go sit down and be quiet.
BTW- the response that ‘Cameron G.’ would have to this post is- ‘This is exactly why ‘these people’ should be silenced.’ She lives in a bubble where you and your ‘response’ are irrelevant.
Me inAZ – Oh, but wait, we’ve also abandoned the idiomatic use of that phrase, too. Sounds violent…
Also, because I hated that show.
I was hearkening back to my use of it in the ’70s. I’m so out of it I didn’t know there was a show.
Should have guessed…
Ha ha. I didn’t know there was a show either.