I’ll not say anything original or mind-blowing, but it needs to be articulated anyway: When an authority recommends to avoid the term “minority” in favour of “equity deserving group,” it implies there are groups that do not deserve equity. I can only guess what group that might be. Thank you, Lana!
If someone is offended by a word that an author uses, despite explaining their intentions or thoughts on that matter... then the fault lies in the reader's inability to look past their own biases. The fact that they used the sentence or phrase for minority, "it may imply," is also implying that the reader will be unable to look past their own perspective. A lost cause or a difficult hill to reach the reader.
Lana, I just want to share my appreciation for your straightforward and humble approach to such contentious topics. It's heartening to discover sensible and stable people in what is increasingly becoming a *foreign* world to me. This is by no means meant to be an advertisement, but your manner of speech and demeanour reminds me a little bit of my own, if I may say so. I mostly cover literature, heritage and ecology, but I have occasionally critiqued identity politics and Critical Social Justice as well. I look forward to watching more of your videos.
Its been I while since I've viewed your content. After Rings of Power ended, so did the brilliant videos providing trenchant and comedic analyses. My feed slowly filled with other content, mostly American current events/politics. Today though, you popped back in! Glad to see you burst through 10K subscribers, well done! Good content as usual. Remember it's not just one university but all of them across Canada and US. A stretch you ask? No stretch at all! Consider this, it's OK for the NAACP to use the 'C' word, so how do you censor that for some but not others? Can only 'C' people use the C word? What happens when a non 'C' person is writing about the NAACP, are they forced to call it the NAA P?? This is but a divot, the rabbit hole of such censorship is almost infinitely deep. However those who would censor us care not, they will simply change the rules extemporaneously as their needs require. I'll defer to Orwell's 1984 to explain how that works. Bottom line... When academia, media, government agencies and business leaders all align with a singular political party, that is Fascism. An ideology (along with all the other dangerous totalitarian ideologies) our Universities used to teach about, now such facts/discussions are censored/cancelled at the University. I fear we may face some harrowing days ahead. But... I do find it rather reassuring that bright young thinkers like you and others are posting such quality content. Keep up the good work. (Hope you don't mind, I will share this video on my small (very small) X platform)
I guess the minority doesn't mean the numerical minority actually refers to Banzhaf Power Index. The importance of some group doesn't totally depends on how many people are actually in that group. The weights of each group sometimes matters more. Consider you have three group of people a1, a2, a3, and each group has a weight w1, w2, w3. Say you want to pass certain policy, naturally you would want some quorum larger than half of the total weights. But if a certain group's weight is larger than the sum of the rest of other groups, then this group is winning under no matter what circumstances. Then it would more suitable to refer other groups as "equity deserving group" as they are not necessarily numerical minorities.
Maybe this is just my perspective as a history student, but I feel like even if people wouldn’t generally use such terms, it’s still wrong to say they shouldn’t ever use them. If I were to write about American social history, it might be relevant for me to bring up the terms that were used then to refer to non-white people, in the same way that I wouldn’t swear in my essays but if I’m quoting or translating a source which does swear, it’s completely expected for me to use it in that context. Idk, does this make sense?
I'm not Canadian, but I am from the USA and may be able to add context to a few points. The potential problem with "Foreigner" might refer the possibility of mislabeling a legal resident, naturalized citizen, or natural born citizen whose ancestors came from a different part of the world than is assumed for Canadians or Americans (e.g. Europe). Additionally, some people may even mislabel a person from an indigenous culture as foreign because they look non-European. The potential problem with "minority" depends on context. Sometimes a group was historically a numerical minority, but isn't anymore, yet are referred to as minority for bookkeeping purposes because laws were written using such language and relabeling them as non-minority might be cause to remove protections or advantages. Another problem with minority is that it's used disparagingly to dismiss persons and peoples. Slurification can happen to any word. Another problem with minority is that it that the concept of minority and majority may no longer apply because changing demographics may mean there is no majority, it's just a plurality or many groups. However, the most problematic issue with "minority" (in my opinion as someone with a degree in political science) is that it often refers only to ethnicity even when discussing policy based on other criteria. In other words, if 51% or more of persons want a policy, they are the majority, but some will refer to them as a coalition of minorities, as if that matters for a particular policy or vote. Voting blocks can be a thing, coalitions can be a thing, but the ethnicification of the word "minority" can makes it confusing when discussing politics and socio-economics.
You can say asian-Canadian, but not african-american. I understand that context is everything, but come on. Who gets offended by being called african-american? Anything said with harming intent is offensive, not the word in itself, most of the times
I can at the very least understand where these policies probably come from. Words exist in the contexts they are most used in (though, if this isn't as true as I think it is, please produce the relevant linguistic literature); it is one goal of communication to see one's perception realized in another's, so it would be failing that purpose to not use language that at least matches the most appropriate connotation. And this is where things should get hairy: The precise meaning of a word is as much a function of one's own milieu as it is everyone else's. Even if one doesn't have the mind to cause offense with seemingly innocuous words like "minority" or "Caucasian" (and to the speaker, they really are innocuous), one can very cogently say that it is the responsibility of anyone claiming to act in good-faith to be mindful of whom they are speaking to. I believe what I'm saying is related to locutionary acts (perlocution?) in that certain words are more likely than others to induce negativity in the recipient of one's language (e.g. in a slightly racist person, "minority" might amplify biases whereas often marginalized people may feel othered). If one takes the above position, then it's no surprise that "foreign" is to be avoided while "foreign born" is acceptable.
"They" are in the minority... Them who listens to "They" are also in the minority... Of course "They" don't want to be described as the few because it makes them sound powerless. Power is what "They" want most of all. Power over Them... Power over Us. It's a kingdom built on a house of cards that can be toppled simply by ignoring it... Freedom is powerful... Feel free to use your full range of words and expressions.
Yes exactly. You cannot please everyone. Whatever you say might insult someone, and if that defines what you can speak about, it's going to get really messy. I have a degree in computational linguistics and I remember the time when I heard for the first time about language mutilation and taboo in a linguistic context on general linguistics courses. It felt completely unbelievable to me that there are some cultures where mentioning a deceased person's name was a taboo. What made it incredible was that someone's name could be "Flower", and when she died, people who knew her had to avoid using the word flower in any context and find a lexical substitute to it. Now, only about 10 years later, I can see how this "taboofying" is entering our culture as well.
The point of these speech codes is to enforce a particular ideological vision of the world. That's the point. Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, when they're pretty upfront about the bullshit games they're really playing. Rememeber, descriptivism for you, but prescriptivism for me.
when people i’ve never met before call me she and gender me correctly, am i being coercively controlling?? when people that who talk to my boyfriend when im not there and call me she, am i being coercively controlling??
I feel like language is always changing, but it happens organically and slowly... and thats usually how it tends to stick long term. For example... I hear older boomers in their 70's and 80's use the term Oriental sometimes.. and its always a bit cringe, but almost all young people know thats not an appropriate term. When that generation dies out, so will that term. Language is a bit like slang. Younger generations learn what is appropriate organically, and as time moves forward language becomes more PC... because PC is all about the "time" in which you are living. What was PC 50 years ago is not PC now. In 50 years some of these terms they are deeming "politically correct" will probably change.
Is Occidental apply as well? Oriental is a geographic term, no? This is a highly manipulative ideological initiative that will come back to bite us in the ..... What would be the least offensive word...hmmm , is "behind " okay ?
I always found it amusing that "Oriental" and "Asian" are similar, both being words from a western language referring to the direction or region from which the sun rises.
Why not Caucasian? It is accurate. Heaven forbid we use the correct words. But, I do demand everyone call me Welsh-American, and if they do not, that is a micro-aggression.
Accurate? I've heard the hypothesis that white people came from the Caucasus Mountains has been falsified through analysis of DNA. Although, people who assert the validity of the story of Noah's Ark might disagree with that.
Oxford Reference online defines Caucasian thus: "The normal word, as noun and adjective, in American English (and increasingly elsewhere) for a white person (as distinct from an African American, a Japanese person, etc.). It avoids referring to skin colour or racial group, and is politically less sensitive than alternatives." Apparently, 'less sensitive' and in common use to NOT refer to skin colour, etc. is just not good enough for the woke folk at the University of Waterloo. No surprise there. Canada has gone woke-mad. And I live in Canada.
This is going too far. I am from a minority in my country of birth, now I am living in another country, where I was a foreigner when I first immigrated, until I got naturalized. None of the words I used in this sentence are offensive to me. Also, even though English is not my native language, and I am finding plural "they" replacing singular "him/her" just confusing. Linguistically I agree that gender pronouns are remnants of a misogynistic era that is well past its useful life already, so why not invent words proper to the occasion, like let's just call a singular person "e" instead of "he/she", "hem" instead of "her/him" and so on (just giving examples for clarity). Then we do not need to jump through singular/plural hoops, or mind boggling pronouns.
Did anyone else notice the contradiction between using geographic specific terms and not using Caucasian? What if I want to describe people from the Caucuses? Do I have to repeatedly say "people from the Caucuses" rather than "Caucasian"? Politics aside, that's just bad writing.
Central Urban? So vague, it's like zip lining to avoid walking on eggs. But then again, isn't politically correct language like being sentenced to walking on eggs... waiting and hoping for the inevitable catastrophic crash and backlash.
I’ll not say anything original or mind-blowing, but it needs to be articulated anyway:
When an authority recommends to avoid the term “minority” in favour of “equity deserving group,” it implies there are groups that do not deserve equity. I can only guess what group that might be.
Thank you, Lana!
If someone is offended by a word that an author uses, despite explaining their intentions or thoughts on that matter... then the fault lies in the reader's inability to look past their own biases. The fact that they used the sentence or phrase for minority, "it may imply," is also implying that the reader will be unable to look past their own perspective. A lost cause or a difficult hill to reach the reader.
Lana, I just want to share my appreciation for your straightforward and humble approach to such contentious topics. It's heartening to discover sensible and stable people in what is increasingly becoming a *foreign* world to me. This is by no means meant to be an advertisement, but your manner of speech and demeanour reminds me a little bit of my own, if I may say so. I mostly cover literature, heritage and ecology, but I have occasionally critiqued identity politics and Critical Social Justice as well. I look forward to watching more of your videos.
Its been I while since I've viewed your content. After Rings of Power ended, so did the brilliant videos providing trenchant and comedic analyses. My feed slowly filled with other content, mostly American current events/politics. Today though, you popped back in!
Glad to see you burst through 10K subscribers, well done! Good content as usual. Remember it's not just one university but all of them across Canada and US.
A stretch you ask? No stretch at all!
Consider this, it's OK for the NAACP to use the 'C' word, so how do you censor that for some but not others? Can only 'C' people use the C word? What happens when a non 'C' person is writing about the NAACP, are they forced to call it the NAA P?? This is but a divot, the rabbit hole of such censorship is almost infinitely deep. However those who would censor us care not, they will simply change the rules extemporaneously as their needs require. I'll defer to Orwell's 1984 to explain how that works.
Bottom line...
When academia, media, government agencies and business leaders all align with a singular political party, that is Fascism. An ideology (along with all the other dangerous totalitarian ideologies) our Universities used to teach about, now such facts/discussions are censored/cancelled at the University.
I fear we may face some harrowing days ahead. But... I do find it rather reassuring that bright young thinkers like you and others are posting such quality content. Keep up the good work.
(Hope you don't mind, I will share this video on my small (very small) X platform)
Avoid Assumptions... says the document making massive amounts of assumptions.
The first question, of course, is (or should be): what's wrong with offending people?
They cry like little babies
I guess the minority doesn't mean the numerical minority actually refers to Banzhaf Power Index. The importance of some group doesn't totally depends on how many people are actually in that group. The weights of each group sometimes matters more. Consider you have three group of people a1, a2, a3, and each group has a weight w1, w2, w3. Say you want to pass certain policy, naturally you would want some quorum larger than half of the total weights. But if a certain group's weight is larger than the sum of the rest of other groups, then this group is winning under no matter what circumstances. Then it would more suitable to refer other groups as "equity deserving group" as they are not necessarily numerical minorities.
Thank you so much for bringing some sanity to the clearly insane.
Maybe this is just my perspective as a history student, but I feel like even if people wouldn’t generally use such terms, it’s still wrong to say they shouldn’t ever use them. If I were to write about American social history, it might be relevant for me to bring up the terms that were used then to refer to non-white people, in the same way that I wouldn’t swear in my essays but if I’m quoting or translating a source which does swear, it’s completely expected for me to use it in that context. Idk, does this make sense?
Some people have a way with words. Others no have way. Clive James (Australian. Deceased).
I'm not Canadian, but I am from the USA and may be able to add context to a few points.
The potential problem with "Foreigner" might refer the possibility of mislabeling a legal resident, naturalized citizen, or natural born citizen whose ancestors came from a different part of the world than is assumed for Canadians or Americans (e.g. Europe). Additionally, some people may even mislabel a person from an indigenous culture as foreign because they look non-European.
The potential problem with "minority" depends on context. Sometimes a group was historically a numerical minority, but isn't anymore, yet are referred to as minority for bookkeeping purposes because laws were written using such language and relabeling them as non-minority might be cause to remove protections or advantages. Another problem with minority is that it's used disparagingly to dismiss persons and peoples. Slurification can happen to any word. Another problem with minority is that it that the concept of minority and majority may no longer apply because changing demographics may mean there is no majority, it's just a plurality or many groups. However, the most problematic issue with "minority" (in my opinion as someone with a degree in political science) is that it often refers only to ethnicity even when discussing policy based on other criteria. In other words, if 51% or more of persons want a policy, they are the majority, but some will refer to them as a coalition of minorities, as if that matters for a particular policy or vote. Voting blocks can be a thing, coalitions can be a thing, but the ethnicification of the word "minority" can makes it confusing when discussing politics and socio-economics.
Tell me about that.. I am American Culture and Literature student
You can say asian-Canadian, but not african-american. I understand that context is everything, but come on. Who gets offended by being called african-american?
Anything said with harming intent is offensive, not the word in itself, most of the times
I can at the very least understand where these policies probably come from. Words exist in the contexts they are most used in (though, if this isn't as true as I think it is, please produce the relevant linguistic literature); it is one goal of communication to see one's perception realized in another's, so it would be failing that purpose to not use language that at least matches the most appropriate connotation. And this is where things should get hairy: The precise meaning of a word is as much a function of one's own milieu as it is everyone else's. Even if one doesn't have the mind to cause offense with seemingly innocuous words like "minority" or "Caucasian" (and to the speaker, they really are innocuous), one can very cogently say that it is the responsibility of anyone claiming to act in good-faith to be mindful of whom they are speaking to. I believe what I'm saying is related to locutionary acts (perlocution?) in that certain words are more likely than others to induce negativity in the recipient of one's language (e.g. in a slightly racist person, "minority" might amplify biases whereas often marginalized people may feel othered).
If one takes the above position, then it's no surprise that "foreign" is to be avoided while "foreign born" is acceptable.
Well done.
"They" are in the minority... Them who listens to "They" are also in the minority... Of course "They" don't want to be described as the few because it makes them sound powerless. Power is what "They" want most of all. Power over Them... Power over Us.
It's a kingdom built on a house of cards that can be toppled simply by ignoring it... Freedom is powerful... Feel free to use your full range of words and expressions.
Yes exactly. You cannot please everyone. Whatever you say might insult someone, and if that defines what you can speak about, it's going to get really messy.
I have a degree in computational linguistics and I remember the time when I heard for the first time about language mutilation and taboo in a linguistic context on general linguistics courses. It felt completely unbelievable to me that there are some cultures where mentioning a deceased person's name was a taboo. What made it incredible was that someone's name could be "Flower", and when she died, people who knew her had to avoid using the word flower in any context and find a lexical substitute to it.
Now, only about 10 years later, I can see how this "taboofying" is entering our culture as well.
The point of these speech codes is to enforce a particular ideological vision of the world. That's the point. Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, when they're pretty upfront about the bullshit games they're really playing. Rememeber, descriptivism for you, but prescriptivism for me.
'Global Majority' is the most sinster term I've heard of late. You can hear the jackboots coming round the corner.
Lana being based again… ❤
when people i’ve never met before call me she and gender me correctly, am i being coercively controlling?? when people that who talk to my boyfriend when im not there and call me she, am i being coercively controlling??
I feel like language is always changing, but it happens organically and slowly... and thats usually how it tends to stick long term. For example... I hear older boomers in their 70's and 80's use the term Oriental sometimes.. and its always a bit cringe, but almost all young people know thats not an appropriate term. When that generation dies out, so will that term. Language is a bit like slang. Younger generations learn what is appropriate organically, and as time moves forward language becomes more PC... because PC is all about the "time" in which you are living. What was PC 50 years ago is not PC now. In 50 years some of these terms they are deeming "politically correct" will probably change.
Is Occidental apply as well? Oriental is a geographic term, no? This is a highly manipulative ideological initiative that will come back to bite us in the ..... What would be the least offensive word...hmmm , is "behind " okay ?
I always found it amusing that "Oriental" and "Asian" are similar, both being words from a western language referring to the direction or region from which the sun rises.
Why not Caucasian? It is accurate. Heaven forbid we use the correct words. But, I do demand everyone call me Welsh-American, and if they do not, that is a micro-aggression.
Accurate? I've heard the hypothesis that white people came from the Caucasus Mountains has been falsified through analysis of DNA. Although, people who assert the validity of the story of Noah's Ark might disagree with that.
❤❤❤
Oxford Reference online defines Caucasian thus: "The normal word, as noun and adjective, in American English (and increasingly elsewhere) for a white person (as distinct from an African American, a Japanese person, etc.). It avoids referring to skin colour or racial group, and is politically less sensitive than alternatives." Apparently, 'less sensitive' and in common use to NOT refer to skin colour, etc. is just not good enough for the woke folk at the University of Waterloo. No surprise there. Canada has gone woke-mad. And I live in Canada.
This is going too far. I am from a minority in my country of birth, now I am living in another country, where I was a foreigner when I first immigrated, until I got naturalized. None of the words I used in this sentence are offensive to me. Also, even though English is not my native language, and I am finding plural "they" replacing singular "him/her" just confusing. Linguistically I agree that gender pronouns are remnants of a misogynistic era that is well past its useful life already, so why not invent words proper to the occasion, like let's just call a singular person "e" instead of "he/she", "hem" instead of "her/him" and so on (just giving examples for clarity). Then we do not need to jump through singular/plural hoops, or mind boggling pronouns.
Did anyone else notice the contradiction between using geographic specific terms and not using Caucasian? What if I want to describe people from the Caucuses? Do I have to repeatedly say "people from the Caucuses" rather than "Caucasian"? Politics aside, that's just bad writing.
Proud to be an European without so many hang ups!!!
Central Urban? So vague, it's like zip lining to avoid walking on eggs. But then again, isn't politically correct language like being sentenced to walking on eggs... waiting and hoping for the inevitable catastrophic crash and backlash.
You speak remarkably accent-free English for never having been to an English-speaking country!