From: aronsson@lysator.liu.se (Lars Aronsson)
Subject: Newspeak (was: The Finns of Sweden)
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:50:09 GMT

ddawson@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Dick Dawson) writes:
>Uh, Jarmo, the term "red-indian" is not well chosen here.  It is
>typically used by US residents of European ancestry as a most
>maliciously profound insult to the descendants of the earliest
>inhabitants of this land.  It is a vile insult comparable to the use
>of the word "nigger" to describe members of the Negro race.  It is

(Something tells me we have been here before.)

Let me first state that I am not speaking for Jarmo, but for myself.

I know that it is common practice in the United States to be
"politically correct" by using terms like African-American and Native
American instead of Negro and Indian. I also know that this practice
is spreading, in lesser extent, to Sweden. For example, it is no
longer always politically correct to talk about Lapps (lappar), but
these people should be called Samis (samer).

This is part of a larger pattern where vocabulary is changed in the
belief that peoples minds will also change. For example, a cleaning
lady (staederska) can no longer be called so, because that makes her
profession sound inferior. Rather, she should be called a house
caretaker (lokalvaardare) or better a hygiene technician
(hygientekniker).

It is said that "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder", which means
that nothing in itself is beautiful or ugly, but only an observer --
the receiver of the message -- can decide what he finds beautiful.
Does the same really hold for insults? Is the insultiveness determined
only by the insulted? Is it the right of the insulted to feel insulted
at anything he pleases?

A spoken message is born as a thought in one person's mind,
formulated, carried by language, received, and made into a thought
again in the other person's mind. Two parties are involved and the
language is their common tool to transfer the thought. This is
different from the beauty, where there is only one party: the
beholder. There is no active sender of beauty, so the entire idea of a
message is in the eye and mind of the receiver.

Is the spoken language in the ear of the listener? Is the listener
free to interpret a spoken message as he pleases? I think not. In
this, an insult is like a spoken message.

If two persons agree that wearing a hat is most shameful, then for one
of them to give the other a hat would be ment as and accepted as an
insult. If a third person, who likes hats, gives the first person a
hat, is it then the right of the first person to feel insulted? Should
all hat-lovers stop giving away hats, just to please the hat-haters? I
think not.

Is it shameful to wear a hat? Is a cleaning lady inferior? Is a Negro
or a Lapp less of a human? The answers to these questions are in our
minds. If someone thinks bad of Negroes, he will think bad of
African-Americans too. Phrases like "African-Americans cannot eat in
this restaurant" or "You can't play with us, cause you're
African-American" are just as insulting as the old phrases using the
word Negro. A hygiene technician has the same low pay as a cleaning
lady.

These things don't change by changing the language. Instead, if all
our minds have been twisted, we must all change our minds. Changing
the language will confuse everybody and draw their attention away from
the real issue. THIS IS THE REAL INSULT. It is an insult to the
targeted groups, because it will not help them. And it is an insult to
all of us, because it tries to imply that we would be stupid enough to
believe that the evil lies in the language. Changing the language is
like killing the messenger.

I never had a bad thought about anybody based on the color of their
skin, or on their cultural background. I have and show respect for
cleaning ladies. I believe that clean deforestations (kalhyggen) are
ugly and harmful. I will continue to say

        Negro,          not African-American;
        Lapp,           not Sami;
        Finn,           not Suomi;
        cleaning lady,  not hygiene technician;
        (kalhygge),     not (foeryngringsyta);
        Indian *,       not Native American; and
        Jew,            not Israeli-American.

* In Swedish language, there is no risk of mixing America's Indians
  (indianer) with the people of India (indier).

Moreover, I wish anybody to feel free to continue to say

	Sweden		instead of Sverige;
	Gothenburg	instead of Goeteborg; and
	Linco-ping	instead of Leen-che-ping.

and I will promise not to feel insulted. Have a Good Yule everybody!
-- 
Lars Aronsson, Lysator, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.europe.misc