From: thmartin@romulus.rutgers.edu (Miss Animerica)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Gender neutrality in language
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:42:58 GMT
Organization: Crossroads Corporation Consistency Commission

Lauren L. Crawford posts "A Person Paper on Purity in Language", but
it is marred by several gaps that are replaced with the letter "T" for
some reason, like this:
>     Another unlikely word has recently become a subject of controversy: T(including teen-agers), and by affectionate extension it is often applied to 

Here's the complete article:

                     A Person Paper on Purity in Language

               by William Satire (alias Douglas R. Hofstadter)

                               September, 1983

It's high time someone blew the whistle on all the silly prattle about
revamping our language to suit the purposes of certain political fanatics.
You know what I'm talking about-- those who accuse speakers of English of
what they call "racism".  This awkward neologism, constructed by analogy
with the well established "sexism", does not sit well in the ears, if I may
mix my metaphors.  But let us grant that in our society there may be
injustices here and there in the treatment of either race from time to time,
and let us even grant these people their terms "racism" and "racist".  How
valid, however, are the claims of the self-proclaimed "black libbers", or
"negrists"-- those who would radically change our language in order to
"liberate" us poor dupes from its supposed racist bias?

    Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the
age-old usage of the noun "white" and words built from it, such as
_chairwhite_, _mailwhite_, _repairwhite_, _clergywhite_, _middlewhite_,
_Frenchwhite_, _forewhite_, _whitepower_, _whiteslaughter_, _oneupswhiteship_,
_straw white_, _whitehandle_, and so on.  The negrists claim that using the
word "white", either on its own or as a component, to talk about _all_ the
members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces
racism.  Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute "person" everywhere
where "white" now occurs.  Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of
course find this preposterous.  There is great beauty to a phrase such as "All
whites are created equal."  Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of
Independence well understood the poetry of our language.  Think how ugly it
would be to say "All persons are created equal.", or "All whites and blacks
are created equal."  Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases
are redundant.  In most contexts, it is self-evident when "white" is being
used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the darker
race just as much as fairskins.

    There is nothing denigrating to black people in being subsumed under
the rubric "white"-- no more than under the rubric "person".  After all,
white is a mixture of all the colors of the rainbow, including black.  Used
inclusively, the word "white" has no connotations whatsoever of race.  Yet
many people are hung up on this point.  A prime example is Abraham Moses,
one of the more vocal spokeswhites for making such a shift.  For years, Niss
Moses, authoroon of the well-known negrist tracts _A Handbook of Nonracist
Writing_ and _Words and Blacks_, has had nothing better to do than go around
the country making speeches advocating the downfall of "racist language"
that ble objects to.  But when you analyze bler objections, you find they all
fall apart at the seams.  Niss Moses says that words like "chairwhite" suggest
to people-- most especially impressionable young whiteys and blackeys-- that
all chairwhites belong to the white race.  How absurd!  It is quite obvious,
for instance, that the chairwhite of the League of Black Voters is going to be
a black, not a white.  Nobody need think twice about it.  As a matter of fact,
the suffix "white" is usually not pronounced with a long `i' as in the noun
"white", but like "wit", as in the terms _saleswhite_, _freshwhite_,
_penwhiteship_, _first basewhite_, and so on.  It's just a simple and useful
component in building race-neutral words.

    But Niss Moses would have you sit up and start hollering "Racism!"
In fact, Niss Moses sees evidence of racism under every stone.  Ble has
written a famous article, in which ble vehemently objects to the immortal and
poetic words of the first white on the moon, Captain Nellie Strongarm.  If you
will recall, whis words were:  "One small step for a white, a giant step for
whitekind."  This noble sentiment is anything but racist; it is simply a
celebration of a glorious moment in the history of White.

    Another of Niss Moses' shrill objections is to the age-old differentiation
of whites from blacks by the third-person pronouns "whe" and "ble".  Ble
promotes an absurd notion:  that what we really need in English is a single
pronoun covering _both_ races.  Numerous suggestions have been made, such as
"pe", "tey", and others.  These are all repugnant to the nature of the English
language, as the average white in the street will testify, even if whe has no
linguistic training whatsoever.  Then there are advocates of usages such as
"whe or ble", "whis or bler", and so forth.  This makes for monstrosities such
as the sentence "When the next President takes office, whe or ble will have to
choose whis or bler cabinet with great care, for whe or ble would not want to
offend any minorities."  Contrast this with the spare elegance of the normal
way of putting it, and there is no question which way we ought to speak.
There are, of course, some yapping black libbers who advocate writing "bl/whe"
everywhere, which, aside from looking terrible, has no reasonable
pronunciation.  Shall we say "blooey" all the time when we simply mean "whe"?
Who wants to sound like a white with a chronic sneeze?

                                 *    *    *

    One of the more hilarious suggestions made by the squawkers for this point
of view is to abandon the natural distinction along racial lines, and to
replace it with a highly unnatural one along sexual lines.  One such
suggestion-- emanating, no doubt, from the mind of a madwhite-- would have us
say "he" for male whites (and blacks) and "she" for female whites (and
blacks).  Can you imagine the outrage with which sensible folk of either sex
would greet this "modest proposal"?

    Another suggestion is that the plural pronoun "they" be used in place of
the inclusive "whe".  This would turn the charming proverb "Whe who laughs
last, laughs best" into the bizarre concoction "They who laughs last, laughs
best".  As if anyone in whis right mind could have thought that the original
proverb applied only to the white race!  No, we don't need a new pronoun to
"liberate" our minds.  That's the lazy white's way of solving the
pseudo-problem of racism.  In any case, it's ungrammatical.  The pronoun
"they" is a plural pronoun, and it grates on the civilized ear to hear it used
to denote only one person.  Such a usage, if adopted, would merely promote
illiteracy and accelerate the already scandalously rapid nosedive of the
average intelligence level in our society.

    Niss Moses would have us totally revamp the English language to suit bler
purposes.  If, for instance, we are to substitute "person" for "white", where
are we to stop?  If we were to follow Niss Moses' ideas to their logical
conclusion, we would have to conclude that ble would like to see small
blackeys and whiteys playing the game of "Hangperson" and reading the story of
"Snow Person and the Seven Dwarfs".  And would ble have us rewrite history to
say, "Don't shoot until you see the _persons_ of their eyes!"?  Will pundits
and politicians henceforth issue _person_ papers?  Will we now have egg yolks
and egg _persons_?  And pledge allegiance to the good old Red, _Person_, and
Blue?  Will we sing, "I'm dreaming of a _person_ Christmas"?  Say of a
frightened white, "Whe's _person_ as a sheet!"?  Lament the increase of
_person_-collar crime? Thrill to the chirping of bob_persons_ in our gardens?
Ask a friend to _person_ the table while we go visit the _persons'_ room?
Come off it, Niss Moses-- don't personwash our language!

    What conceivable harm is there in such beloved phrases as "No white is an
island", "Dog is white's best friend", or "White's inhumanity to white"?
Who would revise such classic book titles as Bronob Jacowski's _The Ascent of
White_ or Eric Steeple Bell's _Whites of Mathematics_?  Did the poet who wrote
"The best-laid plans of mice and whites gang aft agley" believe that blacks'
plans gang _ne'er_ agley?  Surely not!  Such phrases are merely metaphors;
everyone can see beyond that.  Whe who interprets them as reinforcing racism
must have a perverse desire to feel oppressed.  "Personhandling" the language
is a habit that not only Niss Moses but quite a few others have taken up
recently.  For instance, Nrs. Delilah Buford has urged that we drop the useful
distinction between "Niss" and "Nrs." (which, as everybody knows, is
pronounced "Nissiz", the reason for which nobody knows!).  Bler argument is
that there is no need for the public to know whether a black is employed or
not.  _Need_ is, of course, not the point.  Ble conveniently sidesteps the
fact that there is a _tradition_ in our society of calling unemployed blacks
"Niss" and employed blacks "Nrs."  Most blacks-- in fact, the vast majority--
prefer it that way.  They _want_ the world to know what their employment
status is, and for good reason.  Unemployed blacks want prospective employers
to know they are available, without having to ask embarrassing questions.
Likewise, employed blacks are proud of having found a job, and wish to let the
world know they are employed.  This distinction provides a sense of security
to all involved, in that everyone knows where ble fits into the scheme of
things.

    But Nrs. Buford refuses to recognize this simple truth.  Instead, ble
shiftily turns the argument into one about whites, asking why is it that
whites are universally addressed as "Master", without any differentiation
between employed and unemployed ones.  The answer, of course, is that in
Anerica and other Northern societies, we set little store by the employment
status of whites.  Nrs. Buford can do little to change that reality, for it
seems to be tied to innate biological differences between whites and blacks.
Many white-years of research, in fact, have gone into trying to understand why
it is that employment status matters so much to blacks, yet relatively little
to whites.  It is true that both races have a longer life expectancy if
employed, but of course people often do not act so as to maximize their life
expectancy.  So far, it remains a mystery.  In any case, whites and blacks
clearly have different constitutional inclinations, and different goals in
life.  And so I say, _Vive na difference!_

                                 *    *    *

    As for Nrs. Buford's suggestion that both "Niss" and "Nrs." be unified
into the single form of address "Ns." (supposed to rhyme with "fizz"), all
I have to say is, it is arbitrary and clearly a thousand years ahead of its
time.  Mind you, this "Ns." is an abbreviation concocted out of thin air:  it
stands for absolutely nothing.  Who ever heard of such toying with language?
And while we're on this subject, have you yet run across the recently founded
_Ns._ magazine, dedicated to the concerns of the "liberated black"?  It's sure
to attract the attention of a trendy band of black airheads for a little
while, but serious blacks surely will see through its thin veneer of slick,
glossy Madison Avenue approaches to life.

    Nrs. Buford also finds it insultingly asymmetric that when a black is
employed by a white, ble changes bler firmly name to whis firmly name.  But
what's so bad about that?  Every firm's core consists of a boss (whis job is
to make sure long-term policies are well charted out) and a secretary (bler
job is to keep corporate affairs running smoothly on a day-to-day basis).
They are both equally important and vital to the firm's success.  No one
disputes this.  Beyond them there may of course be other firmly members.
Now it's quite obvious that all members of a given firm should bear the same
name-- otherwise, what are you going to call the firm's products?  And since
it would be nonsense for the boss to change whis name, it falls to the
secretary to change bler name.  Logic, not racism, dictates this simple
convention.

    What puzzles me the most is when people cut off their noses to spite their
faces.  Such is the case with the time-honored colored suffixes "oon" and
"roon", found in familiar words such as _ambassadroon_, _stewardoon_, and
_scupltroon_.  Most blacks find it natural and sensible to add those suffixes
onto nouns such as "aviator" or "waiter".  A black who flies an airplane may
proudly proclaim, "I'm an aviatroon!"  But it would sound silly, if not
ridiculous, for a black to say of blerself, "I work as a waiter."  On the
other hand, who could object to my saying that the debonair Pidney Soitier is
a great actroon, or that the hilarious Quill Bosby is a great comedioon?  You
guessed it-- authoroons such as Niss Mildred Hempsley and Nrs. Charles White,
both of whom angrily reject the appelation "authoroon", deep though its roots
are in our language.  Nrs. White, perhaps one of the finest poetoons of our
day, for some reason insists on being known as a "poet".  It leads one to
wonder, is Nrs. White _ashamed_ of being black, perhaps?  I should hope not.
White needs black, and black needs white, and neither race should feel
ashamed.

    Some extreme negrists object to being treated with politeness and
courtesy by whites.  For example, they reject the traditional notion of
"Negroes first", preferring to open doors for themselves, claiming that
having doors opened for them suggests implicitly that society considers
them inferior.  Well, would they have it the other way?  Would these
incorrigible grousers prefer to open doors for whites?  What do blacks want?

                                 *    *    *

    Another unlikely word has recently become a subject of controversy:
"blackey".  This is, of course, the ordinary term for black children
(including teen-agers), and by affectionate extension it is often applied to
older blacks.  Yet, incredible though it seems, many blacks-- even teen-age
blackeys-- now claim to have had their "consciousness raised", and are
vougishly skittish about being called "blackeys".  Yet it's as old as the
hills for blacks employed in the same office to refer to themselves as "the
office blackeys".  And for their boss to call them "my blackeys" helps make
the ambiance more relaxed and comfy for all.  It's hardly the mortal insult
that libbers claim it to be.  Fortunately, most blacks are sensible people and
realize that mere words do not demean; they know it's how they are _used_ that
counts.  Most of the time, calling a black-- especially an older black-- a
"blackey" is a thoughtful way of complimenting bler, making bler feel young,
fresh, and hireable again.  Lord knows, I certainly wouldn't object if someone
told me that I looked whiteyish these days!

    Many young blackeys go through a stage of wishing they had been born
white.  Perhaps this is due to popular television shows like _Superwhite_ and
_Batwhite_, but it doesn't really matter.  It is perfectly normal and healthy.
Many of our most successful blacks were once tomwhiteys and feel no shame
about it.  Why should they?  Frankly, I think tomwhiteys are often the cutest
little blackeys-- but that's just my opinion.  In any case, Niss Moses (once
again) raises a ruckus on this score, asking why we don't have a corresponding
word for young whiteys who play blackeys' games and generally manifest a
desire to be black.  Well, Niss Moses, if this were a common phenomenon, we
most assuredly _would_ have such a word, but it just happens not to be.
Who can say why?  But given that tomwhiteys are a dime a dozen, it's nice to
have a word for them.  The lesson is that White must learn to fit language to
reality; White cannot manipulate the world by manipulating mere words.
An elementary lesson, to be sure, but for some reason Niss Moses and others of
bler ilk resist learning it.

    Shifting from the ridiculous to the sublime, let us consider the Holy
Bible.  The Good Book is of course the source of some of the most beautiful
language and profound imagery to be found anywhere.  And who is the central
character of the Bible?  I am sure I need hardly remind you; it is God.
As everyone knows, Whe is male and white, and that is an indisputable fact.
But have you heard the latest joke promulgated by tasteless negrists?  It is
said that one of them died and went to Heaven and then returned.  What did
ble report?  "I have seen God, and guess what?  Ble's female!"  Can anyone
say that this is not blasphemy of the highest order?  It just goes to show
that some people will stoop to any depths in order to shock.  I have shared
this "joke" with a number of friends of mine (including several blacks, by the
way), and, to a white, they have agreed that it sickens them to the core to
see Our Lord so shabbily mocked.  Some things are just in bad taste, and there
are no two ways about it.  It is scum like this who are responsible for
some of the great problems in our society today, I am sorry to say.

                                 *    *    *

    Well, all of this is just another skirmish in the age-old Battle of the
Races, I guess, and we shouldn't take it too seriously.  I am reminded of the
words spoken by the great British philosopher Alfred West Malehead in whis
commencement address to my _alma secretaria_, the University of North
Virginia:  "To enrich the language of whites is, certainly, to enlarge the
range of their ideas."  I agree with this admirable sentiment wholeheartedly.
I would merely point out to the overzealous that there are some extravagant
notions about language that should be recognized for what they are:  cheap
attempts to let dogmatic, narrow minds enforce their views on the speakers
lucky enough to have inherited the richest, most beautiful and flexible
language on earth, a language whose traditions run back through the
centuries to such deathless poets as Milton, Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Keats,
Walt Whitwhite, and so many others. . .  Our language owes an incalculable
debt to these whites for their clarity of vision and expression, and if the
shallow minds of bandwagon-jumping negrists succeed in destroying this
precious heritage for all whites of good will, that will be, without any
doubt, a truly female day in the history of Northern White.
Newsgroups: soc.singles