The first definition reads,
“a man who has people working for him, especially servants or slaves.”
Wouldn’t that seem to justify moving in a direction of updating these terms?
“a man who has people working for him, especially servants or slaves.”
Wouldn’t that seem to justify moving in a direction of updating these terms?
The other 3 definitions google offers make no reference to slavery unless you really want to stretch "in charge of an organization or group" just to be offended.
For me, it's more about looking at the potential for harm. I happen to be a white man with no particular harm one way or another associated with terms like these, but I can understand how people with other experiences might feel impacted by being surrounded by terminology like this.
It doesn't hurt me at all to change the terms I use, and if other people with other backgrounds think it's important to do it, I don't have any problem with that.
We need serious reform in our policing and prisons in the US. Every time serious reform is demanded in any real way, the distractions get brought up and the real issues are minimized. I don't believe for a moment that this is accidental.
As someone who has black siblings who are now having children of their own, I am infinitely more offended that the real issues get strategically minimized. Look at the reactions to these threads for an example. Look at how many people (black and white) are saying it's an [0]"obvious distraction" or a non-issue.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/h8w36t/github_...
Personally, I would settle on the side of updating the terms and not being too worried about it or expending further thought, because the use of these specific master/slave terms isn't something I'm attached to. It's a habit I don't mind updating.
I also think, tentatively, that it's not really for me to decide how big a deal this is. I just don't have the experience to understand how big an impact these terms might have. It seems plausible that distractors would get thrown around at a time like this to expend energy without attacking any real structures which would make life more uncomfortable, and I appreciate your bringing it up because I might not have thought about it in those terms.
For myself, I'm happy for these terms to get updated, and I intend to do what I can to focus on continuing to educate myself and try to learn how I can be more effective in deconstructing things that cause harm to people, and to trying to learn more about what it means to be anti-racist.
In terms of values, that's how I think I want to approach something like this, and I respect that other people have a different approach-- I don't mind, as long as the approach people take isn't rooted in things that will perpetuate violence and harm toward people.
If the black folks discussing the topic seem to think it's harmful (and based on the upvote counts they have a ton of support for that opinion) then I'm inclined to agree.
To put it rather bluntly, I wonder what the opinion of the protestors on the street would be while they're facing down rubber bullets and tear gas. I imagine they'd want to fry bigger fish.
Responding to that interpretation, I would say:
1. I need to take responsibility for the knives in my kitchen in the same way that I need to take responsibility for the words that come out of my mouth. If my knives are cutting people, then I would need to get rid of them. Apparently the use of these words are cutting people, and so the notion of replacing them with less harmful alternatives isn't worrisome to me
2. I would also say that the potential for harm being everywhere is not a reason for me to ignore this specific instance
3. Yes, I do think that the end goal is to change the universe. It's okay with me if the medium of change is small actions, if that's what's available