On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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.
These particular examples are not about "whims and fashions of the day" but a people who have historically labeled in a derogatory manner and who have no simple identification term attempting to find something they can live with.
The two groups you named have names from the time they were created and get a lot out of the fact that they are historic. On its own printed matter the UCNF refers to its mission as supporting "historically black" college and uses the term "African American" (no hyphen). The NAACP also uses the term "African Americans." Just because they keep historic names does not mean that they have not seen it fit to change their overall terminology.
This is not about "herd instinct" in the slightest, and this is a lousy example. One should in these cases, especially with issues which have LONG histories of abuse, try to be a bit respectful. If using your judgment to pick out the best term ("Black" and "African American" and "people of Africa descent" are all known to be acceptable as polite terms if used in good faith) based on the definition of "polite" of the day (or, in this case, the last 20 years or so) is too much for your brain to handle, I can't imagine how you possibly get through the day. There is nothing that irritates me more than people using the ridiculous excuse that they "can't keep up" or "can't be expected to remember" or things like that with this particular case when honestly there have been a total of only five or six "changes" and the last one was twenty years ago. Hopefully you are capable.
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.
We learn, and we continue to learn. Our language is not static, and neither are we. This is not rocket science, don't act as if it is truly difficult. If you want to insist on your own labelings and terminology -- fine. But don't pretend it is difficult to keep track of, unless you travel from country to country every different day of the week.
FF