 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
|
||
|
||||
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Revolt of the Non-RedsJanuary 10, 2006 Once upon a long time ago, I thought people of color were being unreasonable when they declined to explain to white people why racism was bad and what we could do about it. What clued me in was my extreme exasperation when I had to explain to men why sexism was bad and what they could do about it. Especially when I had to explain to the same man for the third time in a month some basic point like why "Hey, nice boobs!" is not a compliment, especially when shouted magna voce across the street to a woman you've never met. One of the perks of privilege is not having to see anything you don't want to see, or learn anything that makes you nervous. One of the non-perks of non-privilege is looking unreasonable when you decline to "educate" your betters -- on your time and their turf, needless to say. For the last eight years or so, I've been an active participant on a great e-list for copyeditors and other dedicated word nuts called Copyediting-L. (Now I've got a beer stein, nicknamed Gertude, to prove it.) I try try try not to get sucked into those time-sink queries that begin with "Is it politically correct to say . . . " or "Do gay people prefer . . . ?" but I relapse a lot. A day or so ago a query surfaced with "racial-ethnic terminology" in the subject line. The querent had apparently just discovered that the term "nonwhite" might be a bit problematic. I tried to stay out of it, I really did. Finally I jumped in with both feet. Devil made me do it, honest. This is what I wrote about "nonwhite": Here's a little exercise: Close your eyes. Forget "pejorative." Forget "politically correct." Forget all the rigamarole about right and left, ins and outs, and how the winner names not only the age but all the people therein. Instead think about the words. Think about what they mean. Think about the audience. Basic editing stuff, right? OK, now imagine that you love the color blue, all the shades of blue, and you fall in with a group who insist on calling blue "non-red." Not only do they lump all the shades of blue into "non-red," they lump blue in with yellow, green, purple, and orange, as if the only important thing about them is that they're not red. Now make a case for the inadequacy of "non-red." I bet you can do it in 25 words or less. If someone's writing a book about red -- assuming, at least for the purpose of the book, that red is the most important color -- then lumping yellow, green, purple, and orange into "non-red" makes some sense. It saves space. The author isn't focusing on those colors; it's OK to lump them together. (Don't blame me, though, if purple and orange give the author a hard time by arguing that they're partly red, and if some of the reviewers take up their cause.) See? That's not so hard, is it?
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
Home - Writing - Editing - About Susanna - Bloggery - Articles - Poems - Contact Copyright ©
Susanna J. Sturgis. All rights reserved. |
||||