[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Editing literature to conform to current custom

[Jennifer Boggess Ramon]

At 7:30 PM -0400 7/1/02, Jen Faulkner wrote:
>
>As I understand, this change is based not at all on the meaning of the
>word "gay," but rather on the placement of the song in the movie vs. the
>stage play.

You beat me to this, but you're absolutely correct.  I noticed this 
when the kids at the school I teach at performed the musical this 
past fall, and then I purchased the DVD to show my Spouse (who had 
never seen either) the differences.

>  -- a similar meaning can be traced
>back at least 20 years earlier, making its first appearance (as a
>possible ad lib?) in a line by Cary Grant in *Bringing up Baby* (1938),

The word "gay" has been used in print to mean "homosexual" since 
1935, and a "sexual undesirable" since the mid-1800s (for a while, it 
meant a prostitute).  I am always amused at homophobes claiming that 
the word has been "corrupted" who are clearly Baby Boomers, as the 
usage is demonstrably older than they are.


At 9:39 PM +0000 7/1/02, cindysphynx wrote:
>I really don't think the issue is whether you are allowing the N-
>word to acquire some power it doesn't otherwise have by using it.  I
>would suggest that the oppression of people with dark skin and the
>ugly usage of this word to facilitate that oppression is what causes
>the word to be terribly offensive and creates its power.  Believe
>me, whether you say it or type it is *not* the source of its power,
>and your usage of it will in no way divest it of its considerable
>power to wound.  I wish it were that easy.

I think my African-American students would disagree with you, at least in part.

I was _absolutely_ _shocked_ when I heard them tossing the noun in 
questions at each other - over and over, in all sorts of contexts.  I 
finally had to stop class one day and politely request that they not 
use it in my classroom - because I was born and raised in 
Mississippi, and there were too many people there who used it in its 
old sense.  The upshot of the discussion was that they felt that 
using it among each other really did rob the word of its power to 
hurt, for them; when it was decontextualized (not that they'd ever 
use those sorts of postmodern terms)  like that, it became just 
another word that claimed their identity as people of color.

Now, *I* can't use it like that, obviously.  Again translating from 
their terms into pomospeak, my skin color makes my speech the 
oppressor's language when directed at them; the term is not so 
decontextualized for them that my (or any other white person) 
speaking it wouldn't recontextualize it.  In fact, there was some 
discussion as to whether Hispanics and Asians have the "right" to the 
term or not; the majority opinion was that they had the right to use 
the term with each other, but not with African-Americans, at least 
not yet, but that it was less offensive for a Hispanic to use it than 
an Asian.  There was also some question about whether it was okay for 
an African-American student who was a first-generation immigrant from 
Africa to use it, or whether it didn't belong to them yet.  I was 
amazed at how much thought the kids put into this when I asked them 
about it; on the other hand, they might have been willing to think 
about anything other than similar triangles at the moment.

At any rate, to sum up, at least some people of color do use it 
precisely to rob it of its power to hurt, and they think it works. 
I'm not going to tell them not to use it that way, as that would be 
me being the oppressor again, just like I'm not going to let men 
dictate to me what "bitch" and "slut" mean when I apply them to 
myself or my coven-sisters in neutral or positive contexts.


At 12:57 AM +0000 7/2/02, ssk7882 wrote:
>If the connotative meaning of the word "wizard" had changed in the
>same way that the connotative meaning of the word "nigger" has, then
>I would *certainly* not be bothered by the decision to revise the
>books.

I find this confusing.  The meanings of the latter term didn't change 
at all; it has always meant meant pretty much exactly what it means 
now.  The society that uses the language changed; it changed such 
that that meaning that became unacceptable.

I find it unlikely that a society that, from ours, changed in such a 
way that the current meaning of "wizard" became similarly 
unacceptable would have failed to burn the Harry Potter books, so the 
question of whether they could be "translated" to not offend such a 
society is pretty much moot, IMHO.

-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!