Homeless Flotsam: Adventures in Vocabulary

I was surprised today when grading a vocabulary quiz and found that students were defining the noun “flotsam” to mean “homeless” or “impoverished people.”  Then I checked our vocabulary book and the definition is “floating debris; homeless, impoverished people.”  I am used to the first definition in which the word is often paired with jetsam.  The second definition I had heard occasionally in a metaphorical sense.

The definition bothered me because it implied that referring to homeless, impoverished people with a term also used for floating debris was acceptable.  I explained that such a use was not and that to use flotsam in the second way was to use it in a highly pejorative sense.  I also checked two on-line dictionaries   The Oxford English Dictionary does not list the second definition, and that is the most authoritative source.  Dictionary.com does list the second definition, but it is the fourth one on the site and is written as “a vagrant, penniless population” with the example “the flotsam of the city slums in medieval Europe.”  Thus, even though this definition is similar it is less likely to lead a mistaken student to  wonder if the person on the sidewalk in an urban area is flotsam.

Another version of Flotsam and Jetsam, the evil eels from Little Mermaid

It may be good for students to memorize words in this way for standardized tests, but outside of the context of books or other texts strange things can happen in terms of misapplication.

Freshman vs. First Year at UNC

In 2009 the University of North Carolina stopped using the term freshman and switched to first year student.  This fact has gotten picked up recently and is being wielded as a sign of political correctness and unnecessary language change.  There may be some questionable language updates, but this is not one of them.

First, think parallelism.  There are sophomores, juniors, and seniors.  None of those words involve gender.  Why should the fourth term in the sequence be gender based.  If “first year student” is too word, go British and use “forms.”

Second, according the Oxford English Dictionary the word does come from a combination of the adjective “fresh” as in newly made or appearing and “man.”  The sample sentences from back in the 1600s use the term in this more general sense of meaning a neophyte, a freshly minted person.  To go back even further, Adam was the original “fresh-man” but I cannot see Eve being a “fresh-man.”

Certainly the term has come to apply to both genders, but the University policy change does have rather firm grounding behind it.  Now if only I knew why it was getting attention 3 years later.

Can a Woman Manhandle Someone?

I read in the sports section today about a football team’s defensive line manhandling their opponents.  I wondered if women could manhandle someone.   For example, could a female police officer manhandle a criminal, or does the word have a certain gender specificity.

I looked up the word and according to the Oxford English Dictionary, here are the definitions:

 1. trans. Now somewhat colloq.  †(a) To attack (an enemy). Obs.  (b) More generally: to handle roughly; to assault, maul, or beat up (a person; occas. spec. a woman).

2. trans. To handle or wield (a tool). Obs.

 3. trans. To move (a large object) by hand, or by manpower, without the help of machinery or mechanical power (orig. Naut.); to move, manoeuvre, or transport with great effort. Freq. with adv.

Given these definitions and the example sentences, I think that meaning one often is limited to men performing an action while use three is open to both genders.  I would think that to make the word gender neutral, it would need to become personhandle, but this probably one of those fairly negative terms where there is not a hue and cry for equality.

Random Handle as a Visual Gag

Names and Stereotypes

A quick mashup of  two pieces I read recently

A couple of days ago I read this piece “My Name May Be “Ghetto,” But I’m Not!” by a black woman fighting against the stereotypes that come to people’s minds when they hear her name -Shenequa Golding.

Then I thought of a column I read about how the last name Sweeney is election gold in Northeast Ohio.  In it Brent Larkin notes, “I checked two decades worth of results and could not find a single contest where a Democrat named Sweeney lost in a general election for judge. And two longtime observers of the local judiciary said a Sweeney hasn’t lost such an election in at least 40 years.”  Larkin was commenting on the move by judicial candidate Cullen Goretzke to take his wife’s last name, Sweeney.

What then would happen if a candidate in Northeast Ohio happened to be named Shenequa Sweeney?  The stereotypically black first name paired with the traditional Irish-American judge last name, would the individual win?

Shenequa Golding

Cullen Sweeney

Bumper Sticker: What’s So Special About English?

I drove to school today behind a van sporting this bumper sticker.

As an English teacher  I appreciate the first line even though I know many individuals who did not need an English teacher to learn to read (Frederick Douglass for example) and even know of cases where English teachers have gotten in  the way of learning to read.  But what struck me was the second line.  I do not think I would mind if were reading the bumper sticker in another language.  Were I reading it in Algonquin, I would not mind as that would signal the preservation of indigenous cultures.  Were I reading it in French or Spanish or German or Russian or Chinese, I would not mind.  Lots of great literature has been written in those languages.  I think the bumper sticker is trying to use language as a proxy for governmental structure.  The implication is that speaking English means we are a democracy that preserves individual freedom whereas speaking another language would mean we were the subject people of a dictatorship.  In short there is an implied link between English and freedom. While I greatly appreciate what our soldiers have done to preserve our freedoms,  I do not think the link of English to freedom works.  In fact, the soldiers who have fought to preserve our freedom, fought to preserve the freedom of speech, which, as far as I know, can be practiced in any language.

Creativity Gone Too Far: African American Names?

Janelle Harris on Clutch writes a humorous, thoughtful piece on the African American names she encountered while substitute teaching.

Here is the crux of what she encountered:

“Taking attendance seemed like it would be the easiest part of my day. But I glanced at the list to discover that 65 percent of the names on it were a cryptic montage of dashes, accents marks and arbitrarily inserted capital letters. There was a La’ Niaheesa. There was a Devaughntay. There was a Quaymar. There was a Knakeya and a Khaneeka. There were consonant clusters that would tangle a linguist up and combinations that looked like they should be pronounced one way, but in actuality sounded completely different.”

In summary she reaches this conclusion:

“There are so many things I love about our people, not the least of which is our innovativeness. We’ll turn something mundane and dry into something fun and interesting, whether it’s food or music or, apparently, distinctive names for our offspring. But is there such a thing as too over the top when a child’s first name looks like a foreign language vocabulary word and they were, in fact, born to English-speaking parents? How creative is too creative in the pantheon of African-American nomenclature?”

I do not want to weigh in on the extent of creativity a group of people should or should not display, but what does interest me is her statement in the middle of the article.

“There are names that are distinctly Jewish and distinctly Latino and distinctly Asian but just like almost everything else, it’s a different standard for us.”

I think this observation is likely true, those who are hiring or otherwise choosing between candidates may accept and select applicants whose names are clearly Asian or Latino.  I wonder what the reasons are.  There is likely a constellation of issues involving race, class, and nationality involved.

The start of a names list, but these names do have very clear linguistic meanings unlike many Harris encountered

Ted Williams was the First Latino to Win the Triple Crown (not Miguel Cabrera)

Miguel Cabrera

Ted Williams

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I heard a piece on Public Radio International’s show “The World” where the reporter stated,  ”[Miguel] Cabrera is the first player to clinch the Triple Crown since 1967 and the first Latino to do so ever.” I was going to blog on how cool that was.  Then I looked around and found that he was not the first Latino player to do this.  Ted Williams was.  A member of Major League Baseball’s All-Time Latino team, Williams was of Mexican decent on his mother’s side.  According to this CNN piece he spent time when he was growing up with his Mexican grandmother, Natalia Venzor, although according to The New York Times he sometimes shunned his maternal relatives.  The language on Wikipedia has things stated correctly, saying Cabrera is the first Latin American player to achieve this milestone since he was born and raised in Venezuela. Oh the complexity of labels!

“On the Warpath” Is This Phrase Offensive?

I recently heard the term “on the warpath” used in reference to a high school sports team.  The phrase disturbed me as it called up stereotypical Native American images, but I wondered if I was being overly sensitive.  First I looked at the Oxford English Dictionary and the term is there and is not marked as offensive.  The examples included are generally ones where a racial connection would be a stretch such as the boss is on the war path.

On the other hand, I found the term in the Washington Redskins fight song which includes the line “Braves on the warpath.”  In that case the term clearly connects to the stereotypical Redskin.  The original lyrics to the song further connect the warpath reference to other stereotypes when they call out, “Scalp em, Swamp em / We will take em big score !”

Then I found an Information for Teachers posting from the Iroquois Indian Museum regarding how to teach about Native Americans. One guideline they offer is, “Do avoid using derogatory or stereotypical figures of speech, such as “sitting Indian style,” “acting like a bunch of wild Indians,” and “going on the warpath.”"

That is one posting by one organization, so I cannot really generalize from but it does show that in the eyes of some Native Americans the term is offensive.

The tentative conclusion I draw is that the term is offensive to at least some people, and should be avoided if possible; however, when used in a fairly neutral written context lexicographers see it as acceptable.  When used along with other images or behaviors that are stereotypically considered ”Indian” then the term reinforces those stereotypes.  So when a bunch of fans stamp their feet and chant about their team being on the warpath, the deeper import of that behavior should, at a minimum, be thoughtfully considered.

A musician from the Washington Redskins Marching Band

 

 

French Law Eliminates “Mother” and “Father”

Of course this would never fly in America but according to this Slate piece, there is a law in the works in France that would replace the terms “mother” and “father” on official documents with “parent.”  This change is intended to recognize and normalize same-sex couples as parents.  I understand the idea behind the proposal, but I am curious as to what would happen to the question of paternity.  In other words, there is a difference between the mother who is clearly identified and the father whose identification, at least biological, is not as immediately evident.  If one collapses both into parent, what happens legally?  At this point I think the idea has promise, in a kind of European innovation way, and I am wondering how it will play out.  I also am curious as to whether any opponents of this possible change will ramp up a slippery slope argument and argue that if we first we redefine parenthood by eliminating “mother” and “father” we will then end up redefining the number of parents (Why two?  If it is not about biology, why not more?) , and soon we will eliminate species related bias and have dogs, cats and walruses being listed as parents.

Start changing terminology and some day this walrus could be listed as a parent on a French birth certificate. (Photo by Bill Curtsinger, National Geographic)

Racism Definition Sticking in My Head

I was reading a piece on interracial couples discussing race and the author, Shayla Pierce, said she was working from a definition of racism based on “”the racism equals prejudice plus power” equation that is the corner-stone of most sociological, psychological and academic anti-racist arenas.”  She went on to write, ” By that definition, only white people possess the ability to be racist because they are the ones that hold the power.”

As Pierce notes this is a common academic definition of racism and one I have encountered in many diversity seminars.  I agree with the definition in that racism goes beyond prejudice, that it takes action or speech.  The power part is where things get messy.  I know I can be racist, being that I am an upper middle class white guy who went to a private prep school and college.  However, can a classmate of color from the same background who went to the same schools be racist?  According to this definition and its corollaries, no, he or she cannot because he or she does not have power in American society.

Because a whole lot of people who know a whole lot more about racism and diversity than I do and whom I really respect build their work on this definition, I really want to hold onto it.  Also, I understand that the definition is very helpful in that it takes racism beyond clear, obvious acts like yelling racial epithets, to subtle acts where prejudice leads to policies with discriminatory outcomes. However, my amateur face value analysis seems to see flaws in the idea that only white people can be racist.  I believe I’ll be thinking on this one for a while.