A BIOLOGICALLY ATTRACTIVELY COLORED AND SCENTED SHOOT OF A SPOROPHYTE BY ANY OTHER NAME

(c) 1993 TedGuy

I'm not entirely opposed to political correctness, even though much of it is a reaction to oversensitivity. And let's face it, names are important in our society. People pay large sums of money to have things named after them. Some people pay large sums of money and spend considerable time and effort to change their names. And one of the most important social skills one can learn is to remember names-we're always pleased when an acquaintance remembers ours. So names are important.

And some names are derogatory, inappropriate, and inaccurate. The recent trend in reevaluating names for groups of people brings that situation to light. Certainly one can understand why the tribes that populated this land before Europeans would not want to be called Indians. But the solution bothers me.

I was born in America. So were my parents. Their parents were Eastern Europeans by birth. Nevertheless, I am a native American. And if you don't buy my argument that "native" refers only to one who was born in a particular place, certainly you have to agree that history shows these tribes to have come from Asia. Are they Asian Americans? Actually, if we assume they were the first to inhabit the area, we should use the term "aboriginal Americans" (even though it wasn't America at the time).

And how about Asians? It is no longer acceptable to refer to an ethnic group as "Oriental." the acceptable term is now Asian. But I have a very basic problem with that-it's vague. There are many ethnic and social groups of people from Asia who are not from the Orient.

Someone I spoke with recently mentioned a friend of hers who is originally from Africa. He happens to be white. But can you imagine the confusion (at the very least) that would result if he were to claim to be an African-American?

And consider the situation of those individuals who, because of illness, injury, or genetic problems are not able to accomplish all of the functions generally associated with being human. At one time they were described as crippled. I suppose this term somehow became offensive, so the term "handicapped" was adopted. But this term also must have become offensive (although I don't know why), because it was replaced by "disabled." But now "disabled" has fallen into disfavor, and we find ourselves using the complex phrases "physically challenged" and "differently abled." I really dislike these terms. Take any two people in the world and they are differently abled. Of course no two people have exactly the same capabilities. And physically challenged? We all are at some point in our day, especially if we're physically active (or attempt to be so). It seems that any term used to describe this group eventually becomes derogatory. But these two are wholly inaccurate and vague.

So what's the answer? Before deciding what to call a group of people, we have to determine why we're talking about that group. If we're talking about the ethnic group that originated in Korea, we should say Koreans. If it's all Asians, we should say so. But if we really need to single out all the ethnic and social groups from the Orient, we should be able to call them Orientals. But be sure there's a reason to link these people together before doing it. If we're discussing members of the black race, we should be able to say so, rather than risking reference to all whose origins are in Africa.

Of course, that still doesn't solve the problem of the Asians who settled here after coming over via the Land Bridge. Any suggestions?
Return to TedGuy's Topics