People who are sensitive to avoid giving offense tend to be cautious in how they refer to groups of people because the polite (or at least inoffensive) ways of doing so keep changing. In the US we are perhaps most familiar with how the terms for Black people have changed over time, with ‘Negro’ and ‘colored’ falling out of favor, though African American is still acceptable. The change from ‘black’ to ‘Black’ is quite recent. This evolution can lead to mockery by right-wingers, especially white cis males, to make fun of this as political correctness run amok. Some even argue that they have the right to use whatever label they want to use, even if it seen as offensive by the targeted group, and that they should just suck it up.
Linguist John McWhorter explains why euphemisms keep changing, using many examples from all areas of life.
What the cognitive psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker has artfully termed ‘the euphemism treadmill’ is not a tic or a stunt. It is an inevitable and, more to the point, healthy process, necessary in view of the eternal gulf between language and opinion. We think of euphemisms as one-time events, where one prissily coins a way of saying something that detracts from something unpleasant about it. That serves perfectly well as a definition of what euphemism is, but misses the point that euphemism tends to require regular renewal. This is because thought changes more slowly than we can change the words for it, and has a way of catching up with our new coinages. Since that is likely eternal, we must accept that we’ll change our terms just like we change our underwear, as a part of linguistic life in a civilised society.
…Crippled began as a sympathetic term. However, a sad reality of human society is that there are negative associations and even dismissal harboured against those with disabilities. Thus crippled became accreted with those overtones, so to speak, to the point that handicapped was fashioned as a replacement term free from such baggage.
However, because humans stayed human, it was impossible that handicapped would not, over time, become accreted with similar gunk. Enter disabled, which is now long-lived enough that many process it, too, as harbouring shades of abuse, which conditions a replacement such as differently abled. Notably, the International Society for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled later changed its name again to Rehabilitation, International; today, the organisation prefers to be known simply as ‘RI’, bypassing the inconvenience of actual words altogether. The story has been similar for retarded being replaced by cognitively impaired; for welfare, which today is more often referred to as cash assistance; or by the faceless initials of programmes disbursing it, such as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).
Opinion can permeate a euphemism to such an extent that it becomes difficult to conceive of how it once sounded. Welfarehome relief. The empathy in that term was soon blunted by associations with the people granted relief, such that older generations will recall home relief practically uttered as a negative epithet by the 1950s and ’60s. Meanwhile, reflect on what a warm, charitable word welfare is at its core, and how much static and bile we must peel away to hear it that way again. Similar is affirmative action a term that 50 years ago resounded with a clean, stalwart clang of high-minded social justice now sounds freighted, sour, vague and tired to many on both sides of the political spectrum. Racial preferences was an attempt at a replacement – and note its similar fate.
…The euphemism treadmill, then, is neither just a form of bureaucratese, nor of identity politics. It is a symptom of the fact that, however much we would like it to be otherwise, it ís easier to change language than to change thought.
…This means that, in a linguistically mature society, we should expect that the terms we introduce to help us kick off new ways of thinking will require periodic replacement, like tyres.
Understanding this and accepting it does not mean that the problems go away, though.
I find it best to use whatever term that the members of that group themselves prefer to be referred by even if sometimes it is a little counter-intuitive. One group that I have difficulty with and that McWhorter unfortunately does not discuss is the description for people with the medical condition known as dwarfism. But while the medical term remains, it is offensive to call someone with it a dwarf. Recently, someone in a conversation referred to them as midgets and another person gently pointed out that that term is considered a slur and that the preferred label by the community is Little People. But that term is not universally accepted even within that community, with some preferring the term ‘dwarf’. ‘Little people’ sounds awkward to me too, though that is not my call.
Correcting the use of words by others is a delicate business that most of us shy away from. I was at a meeting of faculty at my university when one of them referred to ‘Oriental’ students. I could see a surprised reaction from others in the room but no one (including me) said anything. A couple of weeks later I was at another meeting when that same faculty member repeated the term. After the meeting, I pulled him aside and gently said that ‘Oriental’ was considered offensive nowadays and not the preferred term and that he should use ‘Asian’ or ‘East Asian’ instead if he wanted to be very specific. He was surprised but thanked me profusely, saying that he had been completely unaware of the negative connotations (he was an immigrant from Europe) and that he would not use it in future.
I had once thought that the term ‘Indian’ for members of indigenous North American tribes was offensive and thus used the term ‘Native American’ instead. But a professor of Native American studies told me that that term was created by academics, and that the preference of Native Americans is to use the specific tribe name such as Sioux or Cree or Navajo. Failing that, the more general term they prefer is ‘Indian’. ‘Native American’, though not viewed as offensive, comes third in preference. I still hesitate to use ‘Indian’ though, since it has been ingrained into me (perhaps by old westerns) that it is faintly derogatory, apart from the confusion it creates with people from India
Most people use negative terms out of ignorance, because they have not kept current, not because of malice. Conversely, members of the targeted groups can usually tell when someone is using a term out of ignorance and not with the intent to hurt and will thus forgive a lapse.
The once positive term “woke” is often used by MAGAts and Conservatives in a derogatory manner with malice.
I now translate “woke” as “not an a..hole.”
In Canada we don’t use “Indian” to refer to Indigenous Peoples.
and I don’t think these are “euphemisms”.
In Canada we don’t use “Indian” to refer to Indigenous Peoples.
“Oriental” is not a slur in Europe; it’s only colonials who take offense. 😉
My alma mater is the School of Oriental and African Studies, BTW. “Oriental” denotes the Far East (people from China, Japan, Korea, etc.), whereas “Asians” are people from India, Pakistan, Indonesia…
“TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)”
I’ve always hated that term “needy”. It sounds derogatory to my ears and perhaps something like a psychological trait. Even more it ignores the fact that poor people have the exact same needs that richer people have: adequate food and shelter. It’s just that they don’t have enough income to meet those needs.
_______
In Canada, “Native American” has never been used, of course, and “Indian” is no longer used. Like you I didn’t like the confusion with people from India who, when I was growing up we would always have to specify as “East Indian”. The preferred terms these days is the tribal name with “Nation” appended” Eg. Cree Nation, Squamish Nation, etc. Collectively called “First Nations”.
In Sweden, the Sami are no longer called “lapps” (as in Lapland). “Zigenare” is being replaced with Rom. Non-rom traveller communities are no longer called “tattare”, I do not know if a new specific term has emerged.
As language change is mostly driven by Stockholm a northener like myself has little access to current trends. (BTW how far north? I recently read a newspaper outdoors by ambient light. At midnight).
.
Former British colonies with their own versions of English are of course experiencing their own language drift. I do not presume to know the euphemisms used for Dalit people in India. And Japan has its own (non-religious) group of “untouchables”. They do not bother with euphemisms. They are just bigots.
“(he was an immigrant from Europe)”
This indicates another aspect of the problem. Who are the USAians to define how the rest of the world should speak?
The people these terms apply to often have differing opinions on their use also. For example, some think “homosexual” sounds derisively clinical and avoid it, as if same-sex attraction were an illness. Others quite like how sciencey it sounds, affirming something natural and innate rather than a flight of fancy or personal choice. “Gay” is broadly accepted, but some think it too is past its prime. It has been used as a term of abuse for decades in many places, and still has connotations of being frivolous, high-spirited and unserious. On the other hand, many women who are attracted to women increasingly prefer “gay woman” to “lesbian” on the grounds that it implies female homosexuality is something different to male. Others prefer “lesbian” as it’s the term they’ve always used and identified with, and female homosexuals’ experiences with culture, society and the law have historically been quite different to men’s. “Sapphic” is rare, usually used as an adjective rather than a noun, and somewhat subsumed into “lesbian” due to their common origin. “Queer” originated as a slur, and many older people (40+ or so) still find it an uncomfortable piece of reclamation to use it for themselves. Younger people often prefer it as more abstract, generic and inclusive, although some prefer more specific terms instead. “LGBT+” or its many variants with additional letters is awkward and overly long, and always risks offending people who are lumped in to the + rather than getting their own letter (some even take offense at the ordering of the letters, inferring that bi and trans people are lesser because they come later).
There are also older, 19th Century, terms we simply don’t use today, such as Uranian and invert, which proved too obscure in origin or too judgmental in tone to catch on.
I have never encountered RI. Instead, the most recent euphemism for the disabled has been called special needs. I have encountered this phrase for jury duty and for elections board panels.
There are more people in Southern California that are actually from India than are Tongva or Chumash. There are two languages from India of the ten that are required in our region by our nation’s laws on any election that has federal ballots. (The United States does not have an official language).
It is a federal requirement to use the word Indian, because the bureau within the Department of the Interior was named the Bureau of Indian Affairs by Congress. To the degree that any of our 400+ dependent nations within our borders wish to cooperate with the feds, it’s in their interest to use that term whether they actually believe/want it or not.
As a kid, I learned the slur “MR” years before grasping it meant “mentally r•t•rd•d” -- the denigration process usually moves more rapidly than the euphemizing.
As cartomancer notes @ # 8, “queer” still carries some baggage -- I still wonder whether, as a cis-het, I may be linguistically trespassing when I say that (as with using the n-word while white).
Other words seem to get degraded without active bigotry: “stink” used to be fairly neutral, but now even “smell” usually has a negative overtone.
And it may just be the redneck in me, but I sometimes have to restrain an eyeroll when hearing “people of color” from those who would immediately criticize anyone saying “colored people”.
@10 Pierce,
“Colored people” was a euphemism that soured over time and referred mainly to people of African descent. “People of color” is a current collective term for anyone with melanin in their skin, regardless of the continent of their ancestry.
@ cartomancer #8: As far as I’m aware, the current use of “sapphic” is a collective label for lesbians and bisexual women. The male counterpart (for gay and bisexual men) is “achillean”. I’ve also seen women take up “sapphic” as their primary identity label to mean “bisexual but predominantly attracted to other women” and/or “bisexual but chooses to only date women”. I’m not sure if any bisexual men use achillean in the same manner, if they do it’s probably not common yet. I’m also not sure if pansexuals are commonly included under either label.
Also fun note: the collective term for gays, lesbians, and straight people is “monosexual”, and the collective term for non-asexual people is “allosexual”.
Trickster Goddess @ # 11: “People of color” is a current collective term for anyone with melanin in their skin, regardless of the continent of their ancestry.
In which case, if taken literally, “BIPOC” is redundant.
Race is not only a social category (not a genetic one), it’s a moving target with lots of moving parts. Back in the Civil War era, many southerners considered “Yankees” a separate race; at least once, George Washington declared Revolutionary veterans as a race. In another generation or so, all the mixing and mingling now underway will possibly retire the concept’s putative meaning in whatever remains of USAstan, but I sort of expect some new arbitrary division(s) to take its place.
One particular point I’ve heard people use before is that terms that are adjectives are usually preferred over terms that are nouns. The idea being that a term like ‘dwarf’ reduces a person to just their condition, but ‘little people’ still has them being people, albeit with a condition. This is the sort of thinking that led to ‘people of colour’ and the like as well.
Though, as you note, groups like this aren’t monoliths, and different people within a group will often prefer different terms. Which means that, often, the best thing to do is simply ask, and accept any responses or requests for terminology as respectfully as possible. You’re not going to be able to please everybody, and while some people are actively looking for things to be offended by, most people will at least respect that you’re trying to do the right thing as long as you don’t repeat anything they complained about.
@Pierce R. Butler #13: The use of “race” in the by current sense is surprisingly recent, historically speaking. Originally it mean something like type/kind in regards to living things (similar to species/genera). Then it changed to meaning something similar to culture/ethnicity/lineage at some point during the 1600s -- possibly influenced by the Greek word genos, literally meaning people/tribe, but was often used metaphorically/philosophically in a similar manner, since ancient Greek philosophy made a big splash in western Europe during that time period. And only after the US Civil War did the word start to acquire its current meaning, to help justify “scientific racism” and keep former slaves down.
So when Southerners referred to “Yankee” as being a separate race, they meant that Northerners had an entirely different culture, and may sometimes have implied that they were largely a separate breeding group as well.
Snowberry @ # 15 -- Fascinating, thanks!
I suspect some of those usages came unstuck in time, so to speak: consider Charles Darwin writing in 1859 about “races” of pigeons and cabbages, almost two centuries after his colonial compatriots began politicizing racial categories following Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia.
Tracing the etymological origins of the word back to “roots” both sheds light on and obscures its meaning(s).
There was also the “backronym” NDN.
https://www.dictionary.com/culture/acronyms/ndn