My innate curiosity, coupled with my lack of psychic abilities, means I spend a frustrating amount of time trying to understand people’s motivations.
Why do people eat mint-chocolate ice cream? Why does anybody find Ibram X Kendi’s ideas compelling? Why is The Bachelor popular eneough to be on its 26th season?
A few days ago on Twitter, I was left pondering an even more profound mystery; why would anybody believe black people find the word “field” offensive?
Yep, the University of Southern California recently announced that they were removing the word from their curriculum, ostensibly because it “could be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant.”
Angel, who is one of my favourite people on the internet (you can follow him here), tried to help me understand. We begin with my tweet.
Steve QJ:
USC bans the word "field" because it "could be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant," and replaces it with the word "practicum." I can already hear everybody who thinks black people are fragile, grievance-addled weaklings having a practicum day over this.
Angel:
Not just that they’re fragile, grievance-addled weaklings, but also that they’re so hopelessly incapable of inferring and understanding context that someone has to come save them from the devastation of reading or hearing this combination of sounds. Unbelievably infantilizing.
Steve QJ:
Exactly! This is my problem with so much of the language policing. When did this idea that black people are uniquely incapable of understanding context and managing their emotions and need to be "protected" become a thing?
Angel:
It’s well-intentioned, but it is both infantile and infantilizing. Not sure when it started, but it’s an extension of euphemistic/politically correct language. As always, Carlin had it down:
In a rare turn of events, I disagree with Carlin here. Not with his entire point; euphemistic language is often patronising and unhelpful, but some words are worse than others. Some words are more loaded than others. That doesn’t mean they shouldn't ever be used, it means they should be used responsibly.
A gun, for example, is worse than a cushion. Neither can cause harm by itself, but some objects, by their nature, can cause more harm than others. That doesn’t mean they shouldn't ever be used, it means they should be used responsibly.
My n-word card is in good standing, but I don’t ever use it. Because whether or not I agree with them, I know some people find this word deeply hurtful. And I wouldn’t dream of aiming the n-word at somebody else. Not to “reclaim” the word, not as a “joke,” not for any reason. I think Carlin’s choice to do so here is in bad taste.
Steve QJ:
I don't know, I'm not at all convinced it's well-intentioned. I think it's a cynical attempt to virtue-signal by finding some new, abstract "harm" to protect us poor fragile minorities from. I mean, "field"? Really?
Angel:
I think that if you buy into the “words are violence” thing, which many people sincerely do (I know a lot of them), then it all logically leads here. And when you attach that presumption to the concept of social justice and morality, you buy into it no matter how absurd it gets.
Virtue signaling is universal. Everyone wants to believe they’re a good person, and it is incredibly difficult to avoid signaling it. I actually don’t think signaling is bad. That’s what “leading by example” is. The problem is when the example is counterproductive nonsense.
Steve QJ:
*Signalling* is universal. We're constantly signalling our thoughts and feelings to the world. And yes, we all think we're good people. But there's a difference between doing this sincerely and feigning it to win praise from your in-group.
I don't believe anybody *sincerely* finds the word "field" offensive. Or believes they're making the world a more racially just place by replacing it with "practicum." I can't find a way to see it as anything but self-serving.
Angel:
Some people are certainly taking advantage, but I think the reason it’s so widespread is because people believe it’s the right thing to do.
Steve QJ:
I aspire to be as charitable as you Angel.😁
Though I guess this is really a question of your faith in their goodwill vs my faith in their basic intelligence. I'm not sure who I'd rather be right.
Angel:
I just use my own experience. I was told to be respectful and call women older than me Ma’am, so I did—but then a number of women were offended by it and told me I should say Miss instead—so I did, but then many people are extremely uncomfortable discussing racism and just want to make sure not to upset people, so when they’re told something is offensive they don’t think about it or protest because they don’t want to be assholes.
And yes, there are absolutely people who seem to enjoy finding new purity tests for people. We all love comparing clothes at church. I just think most people are doing what they think is right, and often don’t think too much about it if it doesn’t directly affect them day to day.
Steve QJ:
Sure, but you're describing something different here, no? A) I don't think "a number of black people" are claiming to find the word "field" offensive. And B) I'm not taking issue with the people following the crowd, I'm taking issue with the people (or likely, person), who fail to think about how their silly language games affect the world around them.
It's a feature of a lot of activism right now that a few narcissists do more harm than good for everybody else unlucky enough to share a demographic with them.
Angel:
Oh yes, I agree.
I wasn’t being glib, I genuinely do aspire to Angel’s charitableness. Not only because there’s far too little of it in the world today, but because it’s the first step in building bridges.
It’s hard to accept that something that appears stupid or weird or malicious to us might be genuinely well-intentioned. I’m still not convinced that this particular case is an example of that. But it’s good to have been reminded of the possibility.
This is literally all part of the plan. The more they can alter people's individual thought pattern to conform to __their__ standard, the easier it is to push them to implement __their__ agenda for them.
It took me a long time to figure out that the basis of this idiotic new rule is that "field" as in "field of endeavor" or "field of study" could sound to some extremely limited minds like "cotton field."
The mind reels.
the stupidity of this is unfathomable.
On the other hand, the announcement opens with "we would like to share ..." which I find extremely offensive, "share" being used for any one of many clearer expressions, like, oh, "announce" or "tell" or "say." This is, along with such phony-warmth therapy-speak like "reach out" and "moving forward" another abuse of language and is much more directly offensive than any feigned polysemy of "field."
This is literally all part of the plan. The more they can alter people's individual thought pattern to conform to __their__ standard, the easier it is to push them to implement __their__ agenda for them.
It took me a long time to figure out that the basis of this idiotic new rule is that "field" as in "field of endeavor" or "field of study" could sound to some extremely limited minds like "cotton field."
The mind reels.
the stupidity of this is unfathomable.
On the other hand, the announcement opens with "we would like to share ..." which I find extremely offensive, "share" being used for any one of many clearer expressions, like, oh, "announce" or "tell" or "say." This is, along with such phony-warmth therapy-speak like "reach out" and "moving forward" another abuse of language and is much more directly offensive than any feigned polysemy of "field."