JAY JG wrote:
Sigh. Until 40 years ago or so the word "Colored" for "African-American" was used near-universally in the United States, and was seen as "neutral" as well. Before that the neutral and near-universally used term was "Negro". They're now seen as offensive, though I'm sure some older users of the terms see (or saw) their replacements as "nonsense" and a "POV lobby". Regardless, I imagine that none of the members of this list would use those terms today, and there are many other examples of this kind of thing (e.g. "Mohammedan"->"Moslem"->"Muslim").
Despite the current fad for the term "African-American" neither the United Negro College Fund nor the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have seen fit to change the names of their organizations. I avoid the term "African-American" because a person's citizenship is not apparent in his racial features, and I certainly would not want to offend a non-citizen by calling him "American". To me there is something offensive about a herd instinct that requires me to change my terminology to suit the whims and fashions of the day.
Language changes, and English probably changes faster than most other languages; usages that were once thought neutral are now seen to contain inherent bias. This has happened with other terms in the past, and may be happening with BC/AD today.
Language change is more complex than that. We learn our terminology at different times and different places. Paramount is its need to continue as an effective means of communication. These formerly neutral terms may still be neutral in another place, or with another segment of the same society, or in different circumstances. "Assuming good faith" includes assuming that the person using a particular term does so without intent to offend. Only the context of his words will show the difference.
Ec