Politically correct racial terms

[oggbashan]

Quite so.

The Japanese equivalent is "Gaijin" which they will tell you means "Foreigner" but actually comes from a phrase meaning "subhuman."

Americans say "illegal Immigrant."

Barbarian comes from the Roman Empire. Apparently it meant people who said "Baa Baa Baa" because they couldn't speak proper Latin and were therefore uneducated hicks.

 

[sr71plt]

Ummm, no, Stella. "Gaijen" translates as "outsider" ("Gai" outside; "jen" person). It does not mean "subhuman." Just another stretch of something to mean what suits your agenda?

If you'd like a more appropriate example in the context, in the only book (other than his cut-and-past New Testament) he wrote, that good old model for human rights, Thomas Jefferson, classified blacks as subhuman. Interesting enough, he didn't classify the indigenous native Americans (misnamed Indians by Chritopher C and friends) as subhuman.

 

[MichaelWest]

If you are writing in a narrative voice-- if the person telling the story is right there-- then you might be able to get a sympathetic readership.

My point was that in dialogue I think you may not be able to avoid the terminology of an era without sounding false. The current "correct" term may not be in another generation, and what was once an offense may become just another word. In any event, language can date a story, fifties words in dialogue work for that era, just as the vogue words of now fir now, but swap them or watch how in a few years they seem dated. As the author you should use words that fit, but it can be overdone or misdone as easily as being done just right.

 

[sr71plt]

My point was that in dialogue I think you may not be able to avoid the terminology of an era without sounding false.

I don't think this contradicts what you quote from Stella. A narrator-as-character in that time and setting should do the same thing. Witness Mark Twain.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Quite so.

The Japanese equivalent is "Gaijin" which they will tell you means "Foreigner" but actually comes from a phrase meaning "subhuman."

Americans say "illegal Immigrant."

ALL of them are derogatory. It doesn't matter what language it's in, or even the given word for that matter. If a word is used to "hurt", "demean" or "insult" a group of people it is derogatory.

Okay, quid pro quo

How many of you "sensitive" sorts here have been kowtowed into saying

"Holiday tree"

so we don;t offend religions who have nothing to do with the damn holiday of Christmas in the first place.

Come on, show of hands!

Nope. I call it a holiday tree, an X-mas tree and/or a freak'in pine tree! I give a rat's ass for the xian concept that they own naming rights to a certain type of tree in December.

 

[MichaelWest]

I don't think this contradicts what you quote from Stella. A narrator-as-character in that time and setting should do the same thing. Witness Mark Twain.

I was not intending to contradict.

 

[Handley_Page]

According to my dictionary of Historical Slang the word wog is from late 19th and early 20th Centuries and is defined as "An Indian; an Arab. probably from golliwog".

A 1914 quote attributed to Winston Churchill (but denied by him) is:

"The wogs begin at Calais."

I was taught that WOG was short for "Westernised Oriental Gentleman", although they could have been pulling my leg.

Our local councillors had an argument when their contractors replaced a storm-damaged "Happy Christmas" light with "Season's Greetings". The next year "Happy Christmas" was back.

Apparently the lighting suppliers had a surplus of cheap "Season's Greetings" because no town wanted them.

Ever see that Birmingham travesty called "Winterval" ?

 

[oggbashan]

My point was that in dialogue I think you may not be able to avoid the terminology of an era without sounding false. The current "correct" term may not be in another generation, and what was once an offense may become just another word. In any event, language can date a story, fifties words in dialogue work for that era, just as the vogue words of now fir now, but swap them or watch how in a few years they seem dated. As the author you should use words that fit, but it can be overdone or misdone as easily as being done just right.

While you are right, I prefer to avoid being overly precise about setting a story in a particular era by using then-current terminology. It can deter readers if you are too accurate. There is the danger that some readers might not understand the words in the context.

However some authors and some stories can work with accurate vocabulary.

Georgette Heyer was meticulous in her research for her Georgian romances, using slang (cant) that was actually current in the years she sets her stories in. But she uses a useful device: The hero explains to the heroine what the 'cant' words mean.

My parodies of Swift's Gulliver's Travels are reasonably accurate except that Swift did not admit authorship, nor were the Travels published under his name, during his lifetime. However since I preface them with a note to posterity, I think I can justify the attribution.

In my stories I would avoid words that were not considered offensive then but are now.

 

[sr71plt]

In my stories I would avoid words that were not considered offensive then but are now.

I agree this is the best approach. Good period fiction isn't literal or needing a lot of historically accurate background anyway. It only need evoke the period. The same with any ethnic dialogue. You just need enough to evoke the character's persona.

 

[electric1]

I, too, find "African American" obnoxious. No race is so precious as to deserve that many syllables.

In my own writing, I don't bring up a character's race, because to me, it's not important. Especially in porn stories. Why not let each reader fantasize about the races he/she wants to fantasize about?

But if you're going to bring up a character's race, I say do it directly. I personally find it annoying when authors use physical description to "hint" at the character's race without saying it directly. Maybe that's just me. But if race is important, just come out and say it. If it's not important, leave it out.

My 2 cents.

 

[oggbashan]

I was taught that WOG was short for "Westernised Oriental Gentleman", although they could have been pulling my leg.

It is one of the urban myths. Wog was in use long before someone decided it was "Western(ised) Oriental Gentleman". Originally it was very specific and applied only to men from the Indian Sub-Continent or the Near East.

Ever see that Birmingham travesty called "Winterval" ?

Birmingham is possibly the most ethnically diverse city in the UK. While they need to be sensitive to others' feelings, Winterval was a step too far when they already celebrate Diwali and Eid.

Our local Muslims, Hindus, and Jews are quite happy to wish their fellow citizens "Happy Christmas". Our diverse-faith shopkeepers will happily sell me Valentine's Cards, Diwali Cards, Christmas Cards, Bar Mitzvah Cards - as long as they make a profit - the universal religion.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My point was that in dialogue I think you may not be able to avoid the terminology of an era without sounding false. The current "correct" term may not be in another generation, and what was once an offense may become just another word. In any event, language can date a story, fifties words in dialogue work for that era, just as the vogue words of now fir now, but swap them or watch how in a few years they seem dated. As the author you should use words that fit, but it can be overdone or misdone as easily as being done just right.

In dialogue, exactly.

And surely language always dates a story. Like-- totally!

 

[Stella_Omega]

I, too, find "African American" obnoxious. No race is so precious as to deserve that many syllables.

In my own writing, I don't bring up a character's race, because to me, it's not important. Especially in porn stories. Why not let each reader fantasize about the races he/she wants to fantasize about?

If the writer mentions someone's sweet blue eyes, they've reduced the number of races that can be easily imposed on that character, just saying...

But if you're going to bring up a character's race, I say do it directly. I personally find it annoying when authors use physical description to "hint" at the character's race without saying it directly. Maybe that's just me. But if race is important, just come out and say it. If it's not important, leave it out.

My 2 cents.

That would be because you tend to imagine your characters as white, so those "little hints" jar your sensibilities. If you went on the assumption that the characters might be black by default, those wouldn't read as "little hints" would simply be straightforward descriptions of someone who is, of course, black.

Ummm, no, Stella. "Gaijen" translates as "outsider" ("Gai" outside; "jen" person). It does not mean "subhuman." Just another stretch of something to mean what suits your agenda?

Nope. Japanese phonemes are very limited, and each sound has many meanings, each one understood via context. What the Japanese tell you, and what they know for themselves -- can be slightly different. Keep digging, you'll find it.

If you'd like a more appropriate example in the context, in the only book (other than his cut-and-past New Testament) he wrote, that good old model for human rights, Thomas Jefferson, classified blacks as subhuman. Interesting enough, he didn't classify the indigenous native Americans (misnamed Indians by Chritopher C and friends) as subhuman.

Yes.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't have to go looking for the meanng of Gaijen, Stella. I gots my Japanese language texts right here. Seigo Nakao's Random House Japanese-English Dictionary, Len Walsh's Read Japanese Today, and Fumiko Koide's Easy Japanese. The translation is straightforward and it doesn't require digging and it isn't as you have twisted it.

You're just a victim of your zealotry.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't have to go looking for the meanng of Gaijen, Stella. I gots my Japanese language texts right here. Seigo Nakao's Random House Japanese-English Dictionary, Len Walsh's Read Japanese Today, and Fumiko Koide's Easy Japanese. The translation is straightforward and it doesn't require digging and it isn't as you have twisted it.

You're just a victim of your zealotry.

Uh huh.

 

[sr71plt]

Truth. It just seeps out of you. Here you are again telling people what they can write and read.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Truth. It just seeps out of you. Here you are again telling people what they can write and read.

You need a nap, sweetheart.

 

[sr71plt]

Deflection much? I'd dearly like to take a nap, but I'm busy writing an e-book for my most popular pen name series (mildly lesbian), and a nap would only be a diversionary tactic, which is what, of course, coming here and seeing you tell everyone what they can/do think and can write and read is as well.

 

[electric1]

That would be because you tend to imagine your characters as white, so those "little hints" jar your sensibilities.

No, it's because I don't like someone using paragraphs to not say something, rather than using one sentence to say it. As much as I dislike an author bringing up race, I like even less an author treating a character's race like a shameful secret that needs to be brought up in the most delicate, roundabout way possible.

And Stella, you wildly overestimate your intimacy with my imagination.

 

[sr71plt]

And Stella, you wildly overestimate your intimacy with my imagination.

Don't feel picked on. She does that with everyone.

It's easy when you have all of the answers in the universe.

 

[lovecraft68]

I guess my line in one of my stories that reads, "Ruine was as black as the night, the only break in his darkness the perfect white teeth he flashed in a sarcastic smile." is a no-no to some

 

[sr71plt]

Not nearly as much as my frequent erotica theme (and personal fetish) of worshipping big, jet-black cock (which don't come from just my imagination or anyone's stereotyping, sports fans).

 

[Stella_Omega]

No, it's because I don't like someone using paragraphs to not say something, rather than using one sentence to say it. As much as I dislike an author bringing up race, I like even less an author treating a character's race like a shameful secret that needs to be brought up in the most delicate, roundabout way possible.

I said that because we almost never read a description which begins "He was white." Instead, we usually read a story which mentions his features in ways that assume he's white. No need to say so.[/QUOTE]
And Stella, you wildly overestimate your intimacy with my imagination.[/QUOTE] I apologise.

I guess my line in one of my stories that reads, "Ruine was as black as the night, the only break in his darkness the perfect white teeth he flashed in a sarcastic smile." is a no-no to some

You've described his skin color. And his teeth. And his attitude. Speaking personally, I think it's a great description.

 

[MichaelWest]

Unless I have a specific race or ethnicity, or even just hair color or physicality in mind, I try to avoid too much description so that a reader can imagine who they like. So perhaps in a way my default is "average white person."

In a story I wrote for a friend I made the female character dark skinned in a description to highlight the contrast of his white hand on her thigh, beacause the imagery read better for my own imagination. The reader told me she felt "white girls" were more submissive so I should change that! You never know how people's minds work, they are full of preconceptions, good and bad. In using such details about characters I find that I have to think more about "why." Why is it important this character be "X". Does it advance or detract? Only the author knows for certain.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The newspapers and magazines are dying becuz theyre so inane and uptight, and porn will go the same path as it Listerizes its content to appease every shitwit with a soapbox and a chip on their shoulder. But thats good, becuz it eliminates the cowards who write and produce sites for them. I mean, why have an interracial category if the topic is verbotten. Reminds me of schools named in honor of Mark Twain banning his books.