The R Word

I generally support President Donald  Trump and his policies, especially his willingness to take the fight to his enemies. It is such a refreshing feeling to have a Republican who actually fights instead of backing down at the first hint of a harsh word from the Democrats. Still, there are times when the President might be better served by remaining silent. At least the President ought to avoid using schoolyard insults against his opponents.

I am referring, of course, to Trump’s recent comments calling Minnesota Governor Tim Walz “Seriously retarded”. The Democrats and the mainstream media, I’m being redundant, have magnified this taunt into a major scandal, on par with the imaginary war crimes committed by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in the Caribbean. Juvenile insults, although undignified, are hardly a scandal. We might wish for a more decorous president, but Trump is what we have.  Trump, after all, was not really insulting handicapped people. ‘Retarded’ is a word that has entered the vernacular as a synonym for stupid or foolish.

Did he insult the mentally disabled, or just Tim Walz?

I do not really approve of this usage. To my mind, the word retarded denoted a person who, because of an injury or disease of the brain, generally the result of a birth defect, suffers from below normal intelligence. Such a condition is not the fault of the persons suffering from it, and they deserve no blame if they cannot perform as well as those who are more fortunate. They may be doing as well as they can with what nature has provided them.

A stupid or foolish person is presumably of normal or even above normal intelligence who does not do as well as he can with what nature has provided him. Because such a person does not utilize his abilities, he deserves any opprobrium he receives. I dislike the use of the word retarded to refer to such a person because it confuses this vital distinction.

It is interesting and perhaps ironic that retarded is considered a slur. Instead, we are urged to use euphemisms such as mentally challenged or intellectually disabled. Yet, the word retarded itself began as a euphemism. The word retard simply means slow or to slow. It is derived from the French word “retarder,” which means to restrain or hold back. Retarder, in its turn, originated from the Latin word “retardere”, meaning to slow, to hold back, or to delay. In English, to retard means to slow down or decelerate. The idea, then, is that a person who is mentally disabled is not lacking something. He is slow in developing.

Retarded was an euphemism for the previous terms moron, imbecile, and idiot, which were themselves euphemisms in the prior term feebleminded. As far as I can learn, feebleminded was the first ‘scientific’  expression used to describe the mentally disabled. Before the late nineteenth century, there wasn’t a single word for such people. They were simply halfwits or stupid. Feebleminded is hardly a compliment and somewhat vague, so better terminology was needed. In 1910, Henry H. Goddard introduced a series of terms, moron, imbecile, and idiot, to describe differing levels of intellectual disability. While each of these words was already used in common speech, Goddard used them in a more precise and scientific manner.

A moron was the highest level. Moron is derived from the Greek word ‘moros’, meaning a fool. According to Goddard’s scheme, a moron has an IQ ranging from 51-70. A moron could live by himself and take care of his basic needs with assistance. He could perform simple jobs, but could not take advantage of higher education and would struggle with advanced or abstract mental tasks. Incidentally, moros is also found in the word sophomore, the usual term for a second-year student in college or high school. Sophomore means ‘wise fool,’ and presumably, a second-year student has acquired some knowledge but is still ignorant.

The next level in Goddard’s scheme was the imbecile. Imbecile comes from the Latin word ‘imbecillus’, meaning weak. Originally, imbecillus could mean either physical or mental weakness, but over time, the word became reserved for mental weakness. An imbecile has an IQ ranging from 26-50. An imbecile could take care of himself with supervision. He wouldnot have to be institutionalized, but did require supervision and care.

Idiot has the most interesting etymology. Originally, the Greek word ‘idiotes’ simply meant a private person, a person not taking part in politics or interested in the affairs of the polis. There was no connotation of unintelligence. The Romans picked up the word as ‘idiota’ to mean an uneducated, crude person. The French added the meaning stupid to ‘idiote,’ and so idiot was added to English. An individual with an IQ of 0-25 is considered an idiot.  An idiot is incapable of taking care of himself or performing basic tasks and often must be placed in an institution.

Despite Dr. Goddard’s intentions, all these words became terms of oprobium, and by the middle of the twentieth century, mentally retarded became the preferred word. As we have seen, retarded has itself become an insult, so words like intellectually disabled or mentally challenged have become current. This process is called the euphemism treadmill. A euphemism treadmill is a process in which pleasant alternatives to offensive, salacious, or obscene words become themselves offensive, salacious, or obscene, requiring new euphemisms. In time, words like intellectually disabled will become aspersions, and they’ll have to come up with new terminology.

But the euphemism treadmill works in unexpected directions. The meaning of retarded has shifted to the point where it is no more a slur against the mentally challenged than such words as moron, idiot or imbecile. They have all become synonyms for stupid. With that in mind, President Trump is correct. For allowing hundreds of thousands of Somali illegal immigrants to overwhelm his state and getting away with welfare fraud, as well as other acts of incompetence, Tampon Tim Walz is seriously retarded.

Seriously retarded?

The F Word

There are two words beginning with the letter F that are used far too often. One of these F words is a monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon word that refers to sexual intercourse. I have heard people use this word as a noun, verb, adjective, and adverb, all in a single sentence. Soon, I expect to see it used as a pronoun. Perhaps people could use one of the many alternate words in the English language, just for variety.

The other overused F word is, of course, Fascism. According to leftist social media commentators, Fascism in the United States presents an existential threat to Our Democracy. Donald Trump is a Fascist. Trump’s MAGA supporters are Fascists. The Trump administration is a Fascist regime.
This anxiety about Fascism in the United States seems strange. There is no Fascist Party in the United States. There are no politicians who call themselves Fascists. Such Fascist groups that exist, like the Patriot Front, are probably either creations of federal law enforcement or so heavily infiltrated that they might as well be. At any rate, it is doubtful that any Fascist group has more than a handful of members. At most, there may be perhaps ten thousand open Fascists in the whole country.

Fasces-the symbol of Fascism

It would seem that anxiety about Fascism is directed towards a largely imaginary threat. Today’s Fascists may not openly identify themselves. There may be many who secretly hold Fascist beliefs. The first step, then, is to define what Fascism is and what it is not. After that, we can assess whether Fascism poses a real and growing threat.

Fascism is notably difficult to define as a political ideology. Unlike Communists, fascists did not engage in the kind of ideological nitpicking that is common among Socialists. Fascism is not the product of centuries of intellectual development, as is Liberalism. Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, stressed that Fascism was a doctrine of action over words. Fascism was pragmatic rather than dogmatic.

Benito Mussolini

It might be more effective to define what Fascism isn’t, rather than what it is. To begin, despite what liberals believe, Fascism is not conservative. Conservatives want to preserve and maintain existing institutions. Fascism is a revolutionary doctrine. Fascists aim to fundamentally transform existing institutions. German conservatives wanted to bring back the Kaisar. Italian and German conservatives wanted to maintain or restore the privileged positions of the Church and aristocracy. Both Italy and Germany are countries composed of formerly independent regions with diverse dialects and cultures. Conservatives wanted to respect this regional diversity. Fascists endeavored to form a single united state, disregarding differences in class or region.

Franco of Spain was a Fascist dictator who wanted to preserve, or perhaps revive, the pre-Republican institutions of Spain. But Franco was never a doctrinaire Fascist. He was a conservative who was leading a military coup against the liberal government of Spain. He adopted Fascism as a political cover. He was closer to being an authoritarian strongman of the caudillo tradition than a totalitarian dictator.

Francisco Franco

Fascism is also not right-wing. On the standard political spectrum, Communism is usually placed on the extreme left, while Fascism is on the extreme right. This conception of the political spectrum comes from the National Assembly of Revolutionary France.

The National Assembly of 1789

It should be evident that a system created in the late seventeenth century does not translate well to the present. Considering that both Communist and Fascist states are totalitarian countries with strict censorship, secret police, concentration camps, absolute dictators, and a regimented society, it makes no sense to place Communism and Fascism on opposite ends of any political spectrum. They should be next to each other.

This makes no sense.

Fascism has nothing to do with capitalism. Communists theorized that Fascism was the end stage of capitalism. Fascism was the capitalists’ last, desperate attempt to escape the class struggle and the revolution. But Fascists have almost the same contempt for the free market as any Socialists. Capitalists do well under Fascism. That is because Fascist governments have sought to co-opt the capitalists rather than dispossess or destroy them.

If Fascism is neither conservative nor right-wing, then what exactly is it? Fascism is a totalitarian ideology. Mussolini characterized Fascism as a system that grants total control to the state over the nation. As he famously stated, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

Fascism was conceived as being fundamentally different from all former systems of government in that, unlike authoritarian states past and present, Fascism would leave no room for any private life. The Caesars, Pharaohs, and monarchs of old cared little what their subjects thought and did, so long as they obeyed the laws and paid their taxes. Fascism and Communism did care. No institutions not under state control could be permitted.

Fascism is a form of Socialism. This point is controversial. Most people regard Fascism as opposed to Socialism. After all, both Hitler and Mussolini persecuted members of the Socialist and Communist parties. This confusion arises because Socialism is often conflated with Marxism. Because Marxist thought has come to define Socialism, this is an easy mistake to make. Yet there have been many forms of Socialism. There are Christian Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Fabian Socialism, Marxism, National Socialism or Fascism, and others

The one thing all these factions have in common is that economic decisions are made through political means rather than through the free market. In most cases, the state owns a significant portion of the means of production, including large enterprises, factories, farms, and mines. In the most extreme case, Communism, the state owns everything. Under Fascism, private ownership is permitted, but only so long as the owner follows the directives of the totalitarian state.

Fascism is nationalist. This nationalism is more than mere patriotism. For the Fascist, the nation is more than a group of people who happen to live in the same place. The nation is seen as an organic unity. Fascism is opposed to Socialist notions of class struggle because the emphasis on class divides the nation. Liberal ideas of democracy, political parties, contested elections, and political debate divide the nation. Free market capitalism, with its competition, divides the nation. The ideal of Fascism is for everyone in the nation to be pulling in the same direction, under the leadership of an absolute ruler who embodies the national will in his person.

Now that we have determined what Fascism is and is not, we should ask whether there is any party, group, or individual that shares the characteristics associated with Fascism. The Democrats have increasingly embraced Socialism. But the Socialism they espouse is the classic Marxist, class-based ideology. The Democrats seem to be more intent on dividing Americans by class and race than in promoting the national unity beloved of Fascists. The MAGA movement takes pride in its patriotism, and conservatives have generally supported the military and law enforcement. While there is a superficial resemblance to Fascism here, simple patriotism is not the same as the obsessive nationalism of Fascism.

So far as I know, no one is proposing converting to a totalitarian state. Trump’s critics accuse him of authoritarianism, but he is far from being even a classic authoritarian strongman, let alone a totalitarian dictator. Since there is, in fact, no danger from Fascism, perhaps it is time we stopped using the F word, both of them.

Is Chaucer Relevant

The University of Leicester is planning to “decolonize” their English Literature Department by ending the study of Chaucer and other great poets of Medival English and replacing them with new and up-to-date modules on race and sexuality. According to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald:

The University of Leicester will stop teaching the great English medieval poet and author Geoffrey Chaucer in favour of modules on race and sexuality, according to new proposals.

Management told the English department that courses on canonical works would be dropped in favour of modules that “students expect” as part of plans now under consultation.

Foundational texts such as The Canterbury Tales and the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf would no longer be taught, under proposals to scrap medieval literature. Instead, the English faculty will be refocused to drop centuries of the literary canon and deliver a “decolonised” curriculum devoted to diversity.

Academics now facing redundancy were told via email: “The aim of our proposals [is] to offer a suite of undergraduate degrees that provide modules which students expect of an English degree.”

New modules described as “excitingly innovative” would cover: “A chronological literary history, a selection of modules on race, ethnicity, sexuality and diversity, a decolonised curriculum, and new employability modules.”

Professors were told that, to facilitate change, management planned to stop all English language courses, cease medieval literature, and reduce early modern literature offerings.

Despite Chaucer’s position as “the father of English literature”, he will no longer be taught if plans currently under consultation go ahead.

They would end all teaching on texts central to the development of the English language, including the Dark Age epic poem Beowulf, as well as Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

This brings up the question of whether we ought to continue to teach these Medieval and Early Modern literary works or whether we ought to eliminate them in favor of newer, more diverse selections. Are these texts still relevant to our modern age, or should they be forgotten as relics of a darker, less tolerant past? Is it more important to study our own history and heritage or a selection of modules on race, ethnicity and the rest of that woke crap? Who is Geoffrey Chaucer anyway, and why should we read him six hundred years after his death?

                                                                         Geoffrey Chaucer

If you remember Chaucer at all from your English classes, you know him as the author of the Canterbury Tales, the one that begins with

When April with its sweet smelling showers

Has pierced the drought of March to the root

and then tells the story of a diverse group of pilgrims to Canterbury who decide to tell each other stories to make the long journey pass by more quickly Chaucer wrote and did a lot more than the Canterbury Tales, however. He was quite an interesting man. Born sometime in the 1340s, we don’t know exactly when; Chaucer was a Member of Parliament and close personal friend of King EdwardIII’s son John of Gaunt. Chaucer held a number of government posts, under the patronage of the royal family, including comptroller of the customs for the port of London, and clerk of the King’s works. King Edward III and his grandson King Richard II entrusted Chaucer

                                               King Edward III

When Chaucer was captured by the French during the Hundred Year’s War, King Edward III paid his ransom out of his own pocket, a measure of how greatly the king valued Chaucer.

Today, Chaucer is known more for his literary endeavors than his services to the King of England. Most educated people know about The Canterbury Tales, but he wrote a whole lot more. Chaucer translated Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy from Latin and wrote a treatise on the astrolabe for his son. His works of poetry include the epic poem Troilus and Criseyde, and of course, the Canterbury Tales, a work he began late in life and never actually finished before his death in 1400.
So that is who Chaucer was. Why should we study him? Well, Geoffrey Chaucer lived and wrote during a pivotal moment in the history of the English Language and Literature. Before Chaucer’s time, English wasn’t considered to be a very prestigious language. Latin was the international language of the Church, scholarship, and diplomacy. If you had anything important to say, you said it in Latin. Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, the aristocrats and anyone of importance in England spoke Norman French. England was a sort of colony of Normandy and English was the language you spoke to the servants or to the peasants to remind them to pay their taxes. The Angevin kings of England were more concerned with their lands on the continent and seldom visited England except to get money to finance their wars and crusades.

The Kings of England spent more time in France than England

This situation began to change about a century before Chaucer’s time, when King John, of Magna Carta fame, managed to lose all of his territory in France. After that, the kings and aristocracy of England began to identify more and more as English rather than Norman and the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons became melded into one English people. English started to become the language of everyday life among the nobility. The process only accelerated with the coming of the Hundred Year’s War. Wars always encourage patriotism and this war was no exception.
English was still not a literary language, however. This had to wait until the later 1300s when Chaucer and other poets, under the patronage of the king, began to what in what is now called Middle English. These poets helped to establish the dialect spoken around London as the form of standard English and developed much of the vocabulary and devices used in English poetry. Geoffrey Chaucer was the greatest of these Middle English poets. His influence cannot be underestimated. Chaucer was, in many ways, the father of English literature, rescuing the English language from the negligence the language had endured after the Norman Conquest. The revival of English as a literary language would likely have occurred without Chaucer, but the history of English literature would be much poorer without him.
Needless to say, My answer to this question is an unambiguous yes. Chaucer is still relevant to the present day and we should still read and study his works. Chaucer’s works have endured for over six hundred years. I doubt very much if any of these modules “on race, ethnicity, sexuality, and diversity” will be read in six decades. If you want to understand the history and development of the English language and literature, you have to study the greatest masters of the English language, including Geoffrey Chaucer and the unknown writer of Beowulf. A university course that does not include these great writers is not teaching English literature. That university is defrauding its students, promising them an educated but delivering only woke fluff; politically correct nonsense that cannot stand the test of time. The woke universities that go this route ought to be shut down for academic fraud and the students’ tuition and other expenses should be paid back to them so they can get a real education.

Colored Person of Color

Something I have been wondering. Why is it that saying colored person is considered offensive and even racist while saying person of color is politically correct? Aren’t the two phases saying the same thing? If colored person is offensive then why isn’t the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) offensive? Shouldn’t they change their name to the National Association for the Advancement of Persons of Color (NAACoP)? I can understand why the word negro might be a problem since it sounds a lot like another, less polite word, but negro is not really the same word. Still, if negro is offensive, then why hasn’t the United Negro College Fund changed its name.

African-American is the current politically correct word for a Black person, but Black and African-American are not synonymous. It is possible to be a White African-American if you are a White immigrant from South Africa or North Africa. There is a tendency to refer to any Black person as an African-American even in science fiction or fantasy. A dark-skinned person in a story set in the distant future need not be an African American. He could just as easily be from Africa, France or Rigel 5. People who refer to all Blacks as African Americans may be trying to be politically correct, but sometimes they are simply being foolish.

The politically correct way to refer to people from places like China, Japan, and so on is to call them Asians. Orientals, the old word is no longer acceptable. Why? Neither word is accurate. Asia is a large continent and the word Asians covers a large and diverse population.  Indians, Iranians, Arabs, Turks and many other people could be described as Asians. Oriental simply means easterner. Anyone could be from the east. To a person living in France or England, a German, Russian or Greek could be an Oriental. Traditionally, Oriental was used to refer to people from what we now call the Middle East. Either way, it seems strange that Oriental is suspect while Asian is politically correct. Why is this?

The people who lived in the Americans when Christopher Columbus arrived used to be called Indians because Columbus thought he had discovered the Indies. This, of course, is more than a little ridiculous since the “Indians” have nothing to do with India or the Indies. More recently the proper term has been Native Americans. The problem with Native Americans is that the Native Americans are not the only people who are native to America. I am a native American. I was born here in America. I did not immigrate here from anywhere else. As far as I can determine, my ancestors have been here for two hundred years. How am I not a native? Lately, the proper term has been swinging back towards Indians or American Indians. Why?

Who decides what names are acceptable and politically correct and what names are wrong and why do the correct terms keep changing? Is there some committee somewhere that decides these things? Do they keep changing the politically correct nomenclature just to mess with the rest of us? Is this a way to get people in trouble by changing the vocabulary so that people who use old words can be condemned as racist when needed?

It seems to me that the people who are the most concerned with using the proper, politically correct jargon are less interested in promoting tolerance and harmony among people than in bullying and pushing people around. They may claim to be trying to eliminate racism and prejudice, political correctness really seems to be more about enlightened and tolerant few asserting power over the benighted and deplorable many. I have observed that these people who are overly concerned that every little group be called by the proper terms, lest they be offended and marginalized, are not really very concerned with treating their fellow human beings with tolerance and consideration.

It seems to me that how we treat people is far more important than the precise words we use to describe them and that If no offense is intended, then no offense should be taken. It is the actions and intent that matter, not the precise words we use. It matters less whether we say Asians rather than Orientals or Person of Color rather than Colored Person than whether we treat people of whatever race and color with justice, charity, and tolerance. Maybe we would all get along better if we worried more about how we act rather than what we say.

Anglish

I have mentioned in passing how the Norman Conquest of 1066 fundamentally changed the English Language. When William the Conqueror and his French speaking Normans defeated Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings and took over the Kingdom of England, French became the language of administration, the court, literature, and polite society generally. English was relegated to being a language of the conquered, spoken largely by servants and serfs. After about two centuries the Norman kings and nobility began to think of themselves as English and to speak the English language. English became, once again, the language of England and thanks to Chaucer and others, English was renewed as a language of literature equal to French. But it was no longer the language of Beowulf and Alfred the Great. The Old English, spoken by the Anglo-Saxons had become Latinized and Frenchified, the language historians call “Middle English. As a result, fully half the words in the English Language ultimately derive from Latin, either directly or though one of the Romance Languages, mostly French.

What would English be like if William the Conqueror had lost the Battle of Hastings and remained simply William the Bastard, the Norman Duke who failed to capture England? Would we still be speaking Anglo-Saxon? Would Beowulf, the oldest work of literature written in English be comprehensible to the modern English speaker, instead of seeming to be a strange dialect of German? Probably not. Languages change over time, even in the absence of foreign invasions. The Norman conquest marks a decisive breaking point between Old and Middle English, but the language was changing anyway. Still, there would probably be more of a continuity between Old and Middle English without the break of the Norman conquest.

If he had lost…

While there probably wouldn’t be the vast influx of Latin words entering the English Language from French, there would be some borrowing. Latin was the language of the Church and of scholarship and France was just across the English Channel. The vocabulary of Modern English would probably be more German with fewer words derived from Latin. The total number of words might be smaller, but it is really hard to know just how many words there really are in any language. Claims that English has a larger vocabulary than most languages is impossible to verify. Since the Germanic words in Modern English tend to be the more commonly used, perhaps there wouldn’t be as much of a difference as you might think. On the other hand, there are many common Latin derived words. I’m not sure I could write this post if I were confined to words derived from Anglo-Saxon.

There might have be a greater influence from Old Norse. The Vikings or Danes had been raiding and settling in England since around the later part of the eighth century and began to settle in England by the middle of the ninth century. At one point around half of England was under the control of England. Although the Danes were driven out by King Alfred the Great, they returned and from 1013-1042, England was ruled by Danish kings. Shortly before the Battle of Hastings, Harold Godwinson had defeated an invading army of Norsemen. This long relationship between the Anglo-Saxons and VIkings added Old Norse words to the English language including, scarf, skirt, keel, knot, wife, muck, mire, and many others. If the Normans had not conquered England, perhaps the Scandinavians would have. English could be a lot closer to Scandinavian languages such as Danish or Norwegian. England could be considered another Scandinavian country.

If the Anglo-Saxons had managed to maintain control over England, perhaps Modern English would be something like Anglish. Anglish is English which has been purified or purged of foreign words. You can learn all about it at The Anglish Moot, a Wiki devoted to the subject with articles in English and Anglish telling what they are doing towards make the English language more English along with Wikipedia style articles written in Anglish and translations of texts and speeches.

Here is a description of their purpose.

The aim of Anglish/New-English is:

English with many fewer words borrowed from other tongues.

Because of the fundamental changes to our language, to say that English people today speak English is like saying that the French speak Latin. The fact is that we now speak the international language, Ancwe (Ancillary World English). Unlike most nations, we no longer “own” our language. The Anglish/New English project is intended as a means of recovering the Englishness of English and of restoring ownership of the language to the English people.

Here is a part of their article on the Banded Folkdoms of Americksland (United States of America)

The Banded Folkdoms of Americksland (BFA), mainly called the Banded Folkdoms (BF or B.F.) and Americksland, is a bound groundlawful folkwealth made up of fifty folkdoms and a bound shire. The land is indwelt in midmost Northamericksland, where its forty-eight linked folkdoms and Washington, C.S. (Columbo Shire), the headtown shire, lie between the Great Frithly and Even Seas, landlinked to Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. The folkdom of Shoulderland is in the northwest of the landstretch, with Canada to the east and Russland to the west across the Bering Narrowing. The folkdom of Firelands is an ilandcluster in the mid-Great Frithly Sea. Americksland also holds a few landstocks in the Great Frithly and Caribish Seas. Americksland is one of the world’s most heathenly sundry and manibreeding folklands, the outcome of great incomings  from many rikes. The earthlore and weather of the Banded Folkdoms is also sundry.

And a translation of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Speech.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this greatland, a new folkship, dreamt in freedom, and sworn to the forthput that all men are made evenworthy. Now we are betrothed in a great folk-war, testing whether that folkship, or any folkship so born and so sworn, can long withstand. We are met on a great battle-field of that war.

We have come to earmark a bit of that field, as a last resting spot for those who here gave their lives that that folkship might live. It is altogether meet and seemly that we should do this. But, in a greater meaning, we can not earmark — we can not bless — we can not hallow — this ground. The bold men, living and dead, who struggled here, have blessed it, far above our wretched strength to eke or take. The world will little write, nor long ken what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be earmarked here to the unfullcame work which they who fought here have thus far so highbredly put forth. It is rather for us to be here earmarked to the great task lasting before us — that from these hallowed dead we take increased drive to that belief for which they gave the last full deed of drive — that we here highly settle that these dead shall not have died in idleness — that this folkship, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that lawmoot of the folk, by the folk, for the folk, shall not swelt from the Earth.

It’s English, but not quite the English we speak. It seems less abstract, since the Latin roots and affixes that English often uses to create new words do not always have obvious meanings unless one is familiar with Latin, maybe homier is a better way to describe Anglish. It is a language closer to German both in vocabulary and in that homey quality that I wrote about not long ago.

While Anglish is interesting, and if I were a writer who wanted to write a story set in an alternate universe in which William the Bastard lost the Battle of Hastings, I would have the characters speak in Anglish, I do not altogether approve of the idea of language purification. I believe that the idea of  language purity to be almost as silly an idea as racial purity, though not nearly as silly an idea as cultural appropriation in vogue among leftists.

Languages grow by taking words from other languages. Any attempt to keep a language pure of foreign influences only stifles its growth, causing it to become something like a linguistic bonsai tree. It is the glory of English that it has always been willing and eager to take words from other languages without shame and the Latinate words the people at the Anglish Moot disdain as foreign are every bit as English as a word with a pedigree going back to Old English.

 

Related articles

• Is King Harold buried under a Hertfordshire church? Amateur historians try to solve the mystery (telegraph.co.uk)

One Horn

I have been studying German lately, mostly by using Duolingo, and I have noticed an interesting difference between English and German. This article I read about Ira Einhorn, the founder of Earth Day who murdered and composted his girlfriend brought the difference to mind.

Ira Einhorn was on stage hosting the first Earth Day event at the Fairmount Park in Philadelphia on April 22, 1970. Seven years later, police raided his closet and found the “composted” body of his ex-girlfriend inside a trunk.

A self-proclaimed environmental activist, Einhorn made a name for himself among ecological groups during the 1960s and ’70s by taking on the role of a tie-dye-wearing ecological guru and Philadelphia’s head hippie. With his long beard and gap-toothed smile, Einhorn — who nicknamed himself “Unicorn” because his German-Jewish last name translates to “one horn”  —advocated flower power, peace and free love to his fellow students at the University of Pennsylvania. He also claimed to have helped found Earth Day.

Einhorn is actually the German word for unicorn. What I have noticed is that English tends to create new words for new or abstract concepts by taking words from other languages, particularly Latin and Greek and often combining them in new ways not found in the original languages. German tends to create new words from other German words and seems to be less eager to take words from other languages.

In English we watch television (Greek tele “far” + Latin visionem, participle of videre “to see”). Germans watch the Fernseher (literally “far-seer” in German). We may study science (Latin scientia “knowledge) in school while Germans study Wissenschaft (“knowledge” in German). If you study chemistry you may be familiar with the elements, like hydrogen (Greek Hydr “water” + gen “produces or born from” thus “made from water”) or oxygen (Greek oxys “acid”+ gen so “made from acid). In German they are Wasserstoff (waterstuff) and Sauerstoff (sourstuff). Carbon comes from Latin carbonem “coal” Germans call it Kohlenstoff, “coalstuff”.

Electricity (Latin electrum and Greek elektron both meaning amber) is one of humanity’s greatest inventions. The Germans do have the word Elektrizität but they also call it Strom “stream, current”. We may be afraid of exposure to radiation(Latin radiationem “shining” from radius “beam of light). A German would prefer not to be exposed to Strahlung “beaming”.

You don’t have to study science to notice the difference. English speakers may vote (Latin votus “to vow”) in an election (Latin ex “out of” + legere “to choose”) for Congress (Latin congressus from com “with” + gradus “to walk” thus walking or meeting together) or Parliament (French from parler “to speak”). Germans may abstimmen (choose or coordinate) in a Wahl (choice) for the Bundestag (Bundes “Federal” Tag literally “day” from Latin diet “daily” the name of various representative assemblies in the Holy Roman Empire and elsewhere). This body may pass legislation (Latin legis latio “proposing a law”). In German it is Gesetzgebung (Gesetz “law” + gebung “-tion” so “lawization”. In English, we may participate (Latin participare “to share”) in and organization (Latin organizationem from organum “organ”). In German they teilnehmen (take part) in a Unternehmen (undertaking). I could go on and on but you get the idea.

I don’t want to exaggerate the contrast between the two languages. German does have plenty of words derived from Latin, mostly taken, like English through French, and English, of course, does make new words out of older English words, just like German. We can say we take part in an “undertaking” too. In fact, English seems to have a double vocabulary, one made up of simpler words derived from Anglo-Saxon and another composed of fancier words from French and Latin. Which approach is better, the German or the English is a matter of taste, I think. English perhaps has more words and is more eager to appropriate words from other languages, but all those Latin words may make English a more abstract language in some respects, one more easy to obfuscate in. German seems somehow homier, yet as anyone who tried to read Hegel or some of the other German philosophers can attest, German can also be an obfuscating language with dense verbiage.

So, why is English half a romance language, while German remains, well, Germanic? Part of the reason must be that there was nothing like the Norman Conquest in German history. Germany was not conquered by a nation that spoke a Romance Language as England was conquered by the French speaking Normans and so there was not the huge influx of Latin derived words into German as there was with English.

Yet, I also think that there is another reason why English has generally been careless about adopting words. from other languages. For some reason, English speakers seem to lack the concern about language purity found in the speakers of many other languages. The French have the Academie Francaise, an official institution that tries to safeguard the purity of the French language by setting standards for usage and inventing proper French words to replace any foreign words that have managed to slip in. Almost every major language has a similar official organization to set standards, with one exception, English. There has never been any sort of official or semi-official body in the English speaking world with any authority to set official standards for usage, or even for spelling, nor has there been any serious movement to purify the English language by purging it of “foreign” words. Other languages have had spelling reforms sponsored by various governments. German spelling was reformed in 1901 and again in 1996. The People’s Republic of China simplified the characters used in written Chinese, and there was even a proposal, shortly after the Communists came to power to abandon the characters altogether in favor of romanization. Ataurk ordered the Turks to abandon their traditional use of the Arabic script to write Turkish in favor of the Latin alphabet. Nothing like that is likely to occur in English, even though English orthography is a mess and badly needs to be simplified.

It seems that there is simply about the Anglophone mind and culture that tends to resist regimentation and regularization imposed from above, even when such such regularization might make things easier. English speakers have generally been the most reluctant to adopt the metric system, and the United States still uses the traditional system of measurements. We seem to prefer things haphazardly and chaotically rather than rational and regular, and we don’t mind speaking a language where every rule has an exception and in which if we don’t have a word for something, we have no trouble stealing words from other languages. If the new words aren’t proper English words, we don’t care.

Maybe if English were more regular, it would be an easier language for foreigners to learn. Since English is rapidly becoming the Common Tongue of the whole world, maybe we owe it to the poor souls who have to learn the language to make it easier for them. On the other hand, the fact that English has at least one word from almost every other language may make it at least a little familiar to others. English is certainly a more interesting and dynamic language because of its propensity to borrow shamelessly from other languages and maybe that is part of the reason English is the primary international  language.

 

Code Switching Ebonics

Language is often a contentious issue, perhaps because the languages we speak are one of the most fundamental ways in nations and societies differentiate themselves from on another. Language is often at the core of our identity. It should come as no surprise, then, that the question of Ebonics, or African American Vernacular English as it should more properly be called, should be controversial, particularly since it involves race, another contentious issue in America. For this reason, this a has gotten more attention than it really should, particularly from Conservatives who want to feel outrage

 In classrooms across the country, students might be scolded for using “ain’t” instead of “isn’t.” But a UW-Madison student is working to erase the stigma against Ebonics, also known as African-American Vernacular English. UW-Madison junior Erika Gallagher conducted research about code switching, also known as code meshing, in which people change their regular speech tendencies to fit into the mold of what is commonly accepted as appropriate. Ebonics is a variety of English that is commonly found in the center of large cities that have been historically populated primarily by black people. It is commonly found in slam poetry, as well as hip-hop and rap music.

Gallagher, a Posse scholar, began her research during her time as an undergraduate Writing Fellow this semester. She said she realized, as she sat in her seminar class of predominantly white students, that she wanted to focus on standard written English and how it excludes marginalized groups. “I want to center the voices of the people who need to be centered,” Gallagher said. “As a Writing Fellow, as a white-passing person, I have a lot of power and privilege that should be shared.” Gallagher conducted much of her research through three interviews. She talked to UW-Madison student leaders from marginalized groups and asked how they felt about code switching. She said all three “overwhelmingly” said it felt oppressive—one said “it is the biggest form of cognitive dissonance that exists.”

She presented her research at the Collegiate Conference on Composition and Communication in Portland, Ore., earlier this semester. She was selected as one of roughly two dozen undergraduates from across the U.S. to participate in the conference, which is typically attended by graduate students and professors. 

Before going on to the topic of Ebonics, I have to point out that Ms. Erika Gallagher’s research is worthless. She reached her conclusion that expecting “‘marginalized” persons to speak Standard English is oppressive by interviewing just three people. Three individuals from a single university campus is far too small a sample size to make any sort of generalization. But then, Ms. Gallagher seems to have reached her conclusions before doing any research at all. The fact that this nonsense is getting any sort of credit is an indictment of our system of higher education.

Code switching is the term used to refer to the practice of multi-lingual people switching languages during the course of a conversation, often even within a sentence. Code switching can also occur might even be done by a person speaking two varieties or dialects of the same language, such as person who speaks an informal or nonstandard dialect at home and a more formal dialect at work. Paul from Langfocus made a video about code switching, not too long ago.

The controversy about African American Vernacular English centers of whether it should be taught in schools along side of or even instead of Standard English and whether African Americans ought to be encouraged to speak in Standard English. Ms. Gallangher seems to be of the opinion that it should and she hopes her research will encourage the teaching of African American student in their own language.

Gallagher said she hopes to develop her research into a nonprofit organization that “teaches teachers to teach,” with the goal that educators will eventually express disclaimers at the start of each semester that state they will accept any form of English that students are comfortable with.

She also hopes increased acceptance of different rhetoric will encourage the formation of a campus-wide diversity statement.

“Just because you speak a different way doesn’t mean you’re not smart, but there’s a huge stigma around it,” Gallagher said. “I want to teach [educators] a different rhetoric, teach them to be more accepting.”

Now, every language exists in different varieties which may be dialects, accents, and so on. Usually some varieties are considered to be more prestigious or more correct than other varieties and there is often one particular variety that is considered to be standard. In American English, that standard is the vaguely midwestern accent often heard spoken by politicians and television reporters. There is no objective reason to consider some varieties more proper than others and from a scientific, linguistic point of view, you can’t really say that a particular pattern of speech is superior or inferior to another pattern of speech. There is no reason “ain’t” shouldn’t be a proper word or that, “he is going” is better than, “he be goin'”. Since the establishment of a standard language is more due to the chances of history and geography, there is no particular reason speaking in a different way might be stigmatizing.

In the real world, however, people do judge other people by the way they speak, and a person who cannot or will not speak Standard English is going to be regarded as uneducated or stupid. This is not just a racial thing. If you speak in a deep southern accent or a West Virginia hillbilly accent, anyone you are speaking to is going to deduct 20 points from his estimate of your IQ. It doesn’t matter if you have a PhD or graduated at the top of your class in medical school, he will still tend to regard your speech as uneducated. Similarly, an African-American who speaks in Ebonics will not be seriously considered for many well-paying jobs. His speech will confirm any prejudices against him.

For this reason, it is not actually helping “marginalized” people if they are not taught to use Standard English, at least in situations where more formal language is expected. Speaking solely in Ebonics will only make an African American more marginalized, since he may be denied opportunities that he might otherwise be able to take advantage of. Ms. Gallagher’s approach will not improve the lives of African-Americans. Her approach is also a little insulting. There seems to be the idea that African-Americans cannot really be expected to speak Standard English. It is just too stressful or triggering for them. Better for the rest of us to make accommodations. Ms. Gallagher demonstrates the soft bigotry of low expectations. Her approach is more about keeping a people in their place than helping to rise. It is about keeping them in their ghetto.

Related articles

• Talking Back, Talking Black: Truths About America’s Lingua Franca by John McWhorter (pagesofjulia.com)
• The Case Against the Grammar Scolds (theatlantic.com)
• Black Men Speaking Latin (luxlibertas.com) You need to challenge people not coddle them, if you want them to be successful.

It’s Greek to Me

My favorite YouTube channel is, without question, the Langfocus  channel, created by Paul Jorgenson, a Canadian who teaches English in Japan. Paul is fascinated by language and he shares his knowledge and fascination in his videos. Paul makes videos about particular languages, language families and general concepts about language. Whatever the specific topic he covers, Paul’s videos are always interesting and informative.

Not too long ago, Paul made a video on the Greek language.

I have studied Koine or New Testament Greek a little bit and it is amazing to me just how little the language has actually changed over the centuries. I can tell there are some differences in grammar and vocabulary. Some of the verb inflections have changed a little and Modern Greek seems to have lost the dative case. I also notice that the middle and passive voices have combined into a mediopassive voice. The Greek word for speak has changed from λαλεω (laleo) to μιλεω (mileo) and dog from κυων (cuon) to σκυλος (skylos). I think that a speaker of Modern Greek could read the New Testament in its original Koine Greek without too much trouble and could even read Plato and Homer with varying degrees of difficulty. I suppose that the sounds or phonology of spoken Greek have changed quite a bit more than written Greek so a modern Greek transported back to Periclean Athens might have quite a bit of difficulty making himself understood in conversation, but perhaps not much more than speakers of related languages might have. Despite the changes, Modern Greek is recognizably the same language as the Greek spoken two thousand or more years ago.

Now look at this sample of English from about one thousand years ago.

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,

þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,

hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,

monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,

egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð

feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,

weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,

oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra

ofer hronrade hyran scolde,

gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning.

These are the first lines of Beowulf, an Anglo-Saxon epic poem that was probably the first work of literature written in Old English. Here is a translation.

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings

of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,

we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!

Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,

from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,

awing the earls. Since erst he lay

friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:

for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,

till before him the folk, both far and near,

who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,

gave him gifts: a good king he!

It doesn’t seem to be the same language at all. If you look closely, some of the words are recognizable, “god cyning”= good king, but the grammar is very different and there are even some strange letters not used in Modern English. The text looks more like a dialect of German than the English we are familiar with. This is not too surprising. German and English originated on the same branch of West Germanic in the Germanic language family. There would probably be a closer resemblance between Modern English and German if it weren’t for the infusion of so many words from French and Latin after the Norman conquest. As it is, English is less of a strictly Germanic language, at least in vocabulary, and more of a hybrid between Germanic and the Romance languages. (Paul has a couple of videos on this)

Besides the unfamiliar words, you might notice that Modern English has lost the inflections that Old English had. This may also be due to the Norman conquest, or perhaps the earlier Danish or Viking invasions. Britain seems to have been something of a magnet for settlers during the tenth and eleventh centuries and since the Danes, Normans, etc had to communicate with the Anglo-Saxons who already lived there, they used a simplified form of Old English that developed into the language we speak today.

Here are the first lines of Chaucer’s Canturbury tales, written in Middle English around 1300.

Whan that aprill with his shoures soote

The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,

And bathed every veyne in swich licour

Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth

Inspired hath in every holt and heeth

Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne

Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,

And smale foweles maken melodye,

That slepen al the nyght with open ye

(so priketh hem nature in hir corages);

Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,

And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,

To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;

And specially from every shires ende

And the translation:

When April’s gentle rains have pierced the drought

Of March right to the root, and bathed each sprout

Through every vein with liquid of such power

It brings forth the engendering of the flower;

When Zephyrus too with his sweet breath has blown

 Through every field and forest, urging on

The tender shoots, and there’s a youthful sun,

His second half course through the Ram now run,

And little birds are making melody And sleep all night, eyes open as can be

So Nature pricks them in each little heart), On pilgrimage then folks desire to start.

The palmers long to travel foreign strands

To distant shrines renowned in sundry lands;

And specially, from every shire’s end

This is recognizably English even if the spelling looks strange. There are some unfamiliar words and some differences in grammar. Chaucer can be read by an English speaker, but it is not easy. Shakespeare and the King James Bible are the most familiar examples of Early Modern English. They are essentially the same language spoken today, but even after a mere four hundred years they already seem quaint and old-fashioned, requiring a glossary to fully understand the text.

How is it that a language like Greek has changed slowly enough over the centuries that the Greeks can read the classics of Ancient Greek literature without too much difficulty while anything written in English more than about five hundred years ago is incomprehensible to the modern reader? Has Greek been unusually conservative or has English changed faster than most languages. Maybe it is both. Latin has changed quite a bit in the transition to the Romance Languages, particularly in the loss of the noun case system, loss of the neuter gender and changes in verb tenses. The vocabulary of the Romance Languages is still largely based on Latin and I think that a modern speaker of Italian or Spanish could still get the basic meaning of a Latin text.

Part of the reason might be because Greek has a much longer written history than English. Writing does tend to make a language more conservative, at least in its written form, particularly when the older version of the language is seen as somehow more pure while innovations are viewed as corruptions. This has long been the case in Greek where until recently it was common for Greek writers to use a formal and archaic version of Greek that resembled Ancient Greek more than the Greek actually spoken. (This is actually a common phenomenon found on many languages with a long literary history.) It seems the greatest changes in English came in the centuries after the Norman Conquest when French was the official language at court and English was mostly a language of illiterate peasants. Another possible reason for the continuity of Greek as opposed to the development of the Romance Languages from Latin might be that the Greek speaking Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Empire survived as a nation until 1453 while the Latin speaking Western Roman Empire broke up causing regional dialects to become separate languages.

Whatever the reasons, the relatively rapid development of English from its Germanic, Anglo-Saxon origins to the useful language we speak today with its large vocabulary and relatively simple grammar has helped to make English the lingua franca of the modern world. I’m sure I’d rather speak Modern English than Anglo-Saxon, but I wish there had been a greater continuity over the centuries.

Related articles

• The Anglish Moot-They want to restore English to its native roots. The result of writing English without any Latin, Greek, or other words is truly weird and helps to demonstrate just how much English has borrowed from other languages.
• Day of the Dead Languages (feedproxy.google.com)

Noble Titles for Sale

Have you ever wanted to be a count or a baron? Do you think having a noble title will make your life more meaningful? If so, you may be in luck. In the old days, you either had to be born into the right family to get a title, or you could do the king a huge favor and he might reward you by making you a duke or a baron. Nowadays, however, it is possible to buy a noble title. For only a few thousand Euros, you too can be a member of the nobility. All you have to do is go over to the website; Noble Titles for Sale and pick the title you want.

Ostlichter LTA is a company that offers exclusive and high quality legal services and historical & genealogical research related to Feudal and Noble Titles in Continental Europe, mainly French, Italian and German. Privacy and Discretion are paramount to us.

Our company provides a high quality legal service, as all the legal matters pertaining to the purchase and transference of Noble and Feudal Titles are carried out by experienced continental European Solicitors well versed in European continental nobility law, procedures and complexities. We are able to offer a first rate service, very exclusive and of the highest quality.

Why would anyone want to buy a noble title?

There are many people who wish to acquire a feudal or nobility title. Titles may give you a sense of historical belonging, satisfy your vanity, or simply honour your ancestors, leave a beautiful inheritance to your descendants, or use it for business purposes.

They specialize in French, German, and Italian titles.

We are a private institution that specialises in the faultless legal and historical research, transfer and acquisition of ancient Italian Feudal & Noble Titles, mainly Italian Baronies, Marquisates, Duchies and Principalities.

We also work with French Baronies, French Feudal Baronies, French Titles of Count and Viscount, Marquisates and the truly rare and very much appreciated French-German Baronies and Counties from Alsace and Lorraine.

All our Noble and Feudal Titles are hereditary and all the transfers are handled by experienced European solicitors with the utmost respect to legality, complying with French and Italian Law.

You can get a barony for the low, low price of 7000 Euros. (I wonder how much that is in dollars.) The title of Count can cost 9000 or 10,000 Euros depending on whether you want to be a German or French count. You can be an Italian duke for only 15,000 Euros and even a prince for just 20,000 Euros. At these prices, I’m sure it won’t be long before all the good titles are snatched up, so you better hurry.

I notice countries that these titles come from, France, Germany, Italy are all presently republics in which the old noble titles no longer have any political or legal significance. There are no titles for sale from countries such as Britain or Spain that retain a monarchy, and presumably some vestige of the old peerage. In these modern republics, the use of noble titles have been abolished so any title like the Duke of Lyon or the Baron of Hanover (I’m making them up since it is too much trouble to research real titles). There are, no doubt, descendants of these noble families still around, just as there are still members of the Bourbon, Hohenzollern, and Hapsburg families still living. Nearly every country that has abolished their monarchy still has at least one descendant of their former royal family who would be king or emperor. There is nothing to stop the great grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany or the great-great-great grandson of Louis Philippe, the last king of France, from calling themselves king or emperor, but they cannot expect anyone else to take them very seriously.

So, why should someone pay thousands of Euros for something that has no real significance? What’s to stop me from calling myself the Duke of Bridgewater if I feel like it? Nothing, unless there is a real Duke of Bridgewater somewhere. I suppose that it might be considered identity theft if I referred to myself by a title known to be associated with another person. It doesn’t seem to be worth the expense and trouble though.

It is strange that for centuries it was taken for granted that a person who held a noble title or who belonged to a noble family had a hereditary right to rule over others, only to have the whole order swept away virtually over night by the doctrine that all men are created equal, and that government should be by the consent of the governed and not by a hereditary class. This revolution in government has been a great improvement, but I wonder if it is really permanent in the long term. These titles did not start out being hereditary. Duke derives from the Latin dux meaning simply leader (compare Mussolini’s title Il Duce), while Count is from the Latin comes or companion (of the Emperor). Baron may come from Old Frankish “warrior” and baro meant soldier or mercenary in Late Latin. I could go on but the point is that these titles were originally government posts appointed by the Roman Emperor. Over time they became linked with certain families and eventually became hereditary.

Perhaps something like that may happen again. Even in a longstanding republic like the United States. We have had our political dynasties, think of the Adamses, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys. Last year the expected frontrunners for the presidential election were the son and brother of presidents and the wife of a president and it seemed as though the presidency might become the prerogative of the Houses of Bush and Clinton. We managed to avoid that fate, but maybe someday the instinct for hereditary rule will become too strong to resist, even in America. Such titles as Governor or Senator may belong to certain families and be passed down from parent to child.

In the meantime, if you happen to want a noble title, you’ll just have to spend a few thousands Euros.

Don’t Say Eskimo

If you want to understand why people hate what is commonly called political correctness, you don’t have to go much further than to read this article from NPR explaining why we should not use the word “Eskimo”.

Confused about the word Eskimo?

It’s a commonly used term referring to the native peoples of Alaska and other Arctic regions, including Siberia, Canada and Greenland. It comes from a Central Algonquian language called Ojibwe, which people still speak around the Great Lakes region on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border. But the word has a controversial history. (Editor’s note: And that’s why it’s not used in the stories on Greenland that NPR has posted this week.)

Actually, no, I wasn’t at all confused. Eskimos are those people who live far to the north. I doubt many people are in the habit of asking NPR for advice on what words to use and it seems rather presumptuous for the author of this article to tell the rest of us what is appropriate or offensive. Most people resent being told to use certain politically correct expressions, even when it is well intended.  But to continue.

People in many parts of the Arctic consider Eskimo a derogatory term because it was widely used by racist, non-native colonizers. Many people also thought it meant eater of raw meat, which connoted barbarism and violence. Although the word’s exact etymology is unclear, mid-century anthropologists suggested that the word came from the Latin word excommunicati, meaning the excommunicated ones, because the native people of the Canadian Arctic were not Christian.

But now there’s a new theory. According to the Alaska Native Language Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, linguists believe the word Eskimo actually came from the French word esquimaux, meaning one who nets snowshoes. Netting snowshoes is the highly-precise way that Arctic peoples built winter footwear by tightly weaving, or netting, sinew from caribou or other animals across a wooden frame.

But the correction to the etymological record came too late to rehabilitate the word Eskimo. The word’s racist history means most people in Canada and Greenland still prefer other terms. The most widespread is Inuit, which means simply, “people.” The singular, which means “person,” is Inuk.

Of course, as with so many words sullied by the crimes of colonialism, not everyone agrees on what to do with Eskimo. Many Native Alaskans still refer to themselves as Eskimos, in part because the word Inuit isn’t part of the Yupik languages of Alaska and Siberia.

But unless you’re native to the circumpolar region, the short answer is: You probably shouldn’t use the word Eskimo.

So, “Eskimo” was bad because it was believed to be derogatory, but now it may not be so bad, but we still shouldn’t say it because an Eskimo might be offended.

The fact is that few Native American tribes or nations are widely known by the names they call themselves. Most Indian groups are commonly known by the names others have given them. Some are of obvious European origin, the Black Foot, Nez Perce, Creek, Delaware, Crow, or Beaver. In most cases, these are translations of their original names into English, French, or Spanish. Many are known by names given by their enemies, thus; Sioux (little snakes), Mohawk (man eaters), or Iroquois (real snakes), or their friends like Comanche (they fight with us). Some of the tribal names derive from European attempts to pronounce unfamiliar words, Ute from Nuutsiu, Seneca from Osininka, or Illini from Illiniwek. Of course, there are the names we use for the people as a whole. Indians are only called Indians because Columbus didn’t know where he was, and while the Indians are certainly natives to this continent, they did not call themselves Americans.

It is not just the Native Americans who are not called by the names they call themselves. No one in China knew that they were Chinese until they met the Europeans. The Chinese call themselves the Sons of Han and their country is the Middle Kingdom (Zhong Guo). China seems to be derived from the first Imperial dynasty the Qin. The Indians had many names for themselves, since India is a very diverse country, but India is derived through Persian from the Indus River. The most common Indian word for India is Bharat. The Hindu religion was not called Hinduism until the Muslims started to conquer India. Before that time, the Hindus had no need of a word to distinguish their religion.

Our Western civilization largely began with the Greeks, but the words Greek and Greece come from Latin. The Greeks knew themselves as the Hellenes and their country as Hellas. We call the Deutsche Germans and Deutschland Germany, while the French refer to them as Allemands and Allemagne from the German tribe the Alamanians. This isn’t just an European colonialist custom. The Arabs and Persians refer to Europeans as al-Faranj and Farangi from the Franks.

It seems that almost no one in the world is called by outsiders by the same name they use for themselves. It doesn’t seem practical to go through every language and change every term that might be offensive to someone somewhere in the world  so I think I’ll just go on saying Eskimo.

Eskimos

Related articles

• Newspeak Alert: The Word “Eskimo” Is Now Racist (moonbattery.com)