![]() ULABY: It might feel unrealistic to lose words with such force. But as you and I talked about, those words don’t really have the force of saying, like, something is insane. When I say something’s really crazy, what do I really mean? Like, it’s really stressful. ![]() If you are bipolar, for instance, and get upset when you hear that “John did something crazy,” or “The meeting was insane: there was no point to it because everybody just blew off steam,” then I claim you’re being too sensitive, and also that you’re also not being palpably damaged in any objective sense.ĪSLAMI: And as, you know, an English professor, I also felt the burden of, like, well, you know, I should be able to be more specific. ![]() But I don’t think we need to satisfy everyone’s desire to police language, for that creates a one-way ratchet in which the entire English language becomes hostage to those most easily offended. Sure, you may find one or a few people who raise this claim. Still, I can’t imagine exactly how mentally ill people get marginalized when those terms are used. But of course depression isn’t schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. I suppose I’m one of these, having experienced severe clinical depression several decades ago, and sometimes prone to less-severe recurrences. We are talking about people in your community. And of those people, we’re talking about your neighbors. Crazy might seem harmless, she says, but she thinks giving negative value to crazy or insane contributes to marginalizing people.ĪZZA ALTIRAIFI: One in 5 Americans at least have lived – are experiencing mental illness. Azza Altiraifi researches disability justice issues at the Center for American Progress. Part of the conversation, moderated by Neda Ulaby: If you click on the link below, you’ll go to an NPR “All things considered” piece discussing those who think the words “crazy” and “insane” should be ditched, for, according to disability activists, they supposedly insult those who are mentally ill. Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” is indispensable in highighting the political uses of language.īut when “crazy” and “insane” are next on the chopping block, I say “no more”. Still, it seems more accurate than the euphemistic term “undocumented immigrant”, which really does try to erase a crime and to efface a real and politically important difference between legal and illegal immigration. You can claim that such language has the effect of demonizing immigrants as a whole, but what makes many Republicans treat immigrants badly is not the term itself, but their bigotry towards foreigners, particularly brown ones. ![]() After all, “illegal immigrant” isn’t in itself insulting: it’s referring to people who enter the country in violation of the law. And I’m not comfortable with the term “undocumented immigrants” for “illegal immigrants,” which has the same (but less invidious) intent: to try to soften the nature of a transgression. Euphemisms like “collateral damage”, for “innocents killed in warfare” are one example. It’s up to society, of course, whether such changes occur, but society comprises individuals, and if a recommended change seems out of line, we can take a stand against it. The alternative, “Japanese person”, is just as good but without the bigotry. (“Retarded” may be one of these, though I don’t have strong feelings about that, and at any rate the word no longer has a use in characterizing mental illness, though it can mean “slowed down” in non-mental contexts.) Clearly, racial slurs, like the old term “Jap,” used to demonize Japanese during World War II, should be ditched. Some changes in language are clearly advisable because there are alternative words that convey the same concept or object without being offensive or insulting. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |