""... Language is built on history and where that history is bigoted the language reflects the bigotry."
Don't agree. Language is built on EXPERIENCE and language is used to describe/recount history.
No wonder you Liberals get confused about reality."
The reader makes a point -- I think the reader is saying language doesn't drive thinking, it merely relays it.
I'd respond this way.
Language is, to my mind, not a neutral transmitter. To some degree the medium is the message. Describing a young man as a "boy" may be accurate but it carries with it the meanings history imposes on the term "boy".
I don't think the reader really disagrees too much -- there is the reference to language being built on "experience". To my mind "experience" is just another word for "history".
In any event, I appreciate readers who take the time to write. Their insights are helpful for all of us.
2 comments:
We tried to change the language to politely tell bigots that it wasn't appropriate, but they just don't get it. We said, no more ethnic slurs, but the bigots protest the "politically correct", because they wont change the attitude. We stopped using the "n" word when progressives won some civil rights for certain groups, and we realized it was time to show respect. But, there are those that hang on to the old language, because they hang on to the old attitudes. Its not "experience" they're hanging on to, its bigotry and sexism.
".... Its not "experience" they're hanging on to, its bigotry and sexism. "
That may be so - I have said bigotry didn't exist - however, language develops from "experience" not from "history" as I originally posted.
Michael St.Paul's
Post a Comment