![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 29th, 2013 09:06 pmIt's funny, the unexpected moments when something kind of clicks in your head.
While I was in Toronto, I was party to a conversation about the term 'gays' versus 'gay people'. I beleive that saying 'gays' is a little bit dehumanizing in comparison to 'gay people', but it wasn't something that I felt very strongly about. Tonight, though, as I read through the textbook for the course I'm assisting with, I came upon a reference to "ancestral African-Americans" who came to the new world as "enslaved people," and suddenly that distinction seemed much more powerful to me. I suppose it may only be that I've heard that group described as "enslaved people" much less commonly than I hear "gay people". Or it might be the way the context of long-past history is dehumanizing in itself that makes an intentionally humanizing choice of language so striking and powerful to me. And perhaps it is in part because the word 'enslaved' emphasizes the fact that this is something that was done *to* these people by *other people*; that these were victims of a horrific act (which is, obviously, not the case for gay people). But I suddenly realized that talking about enslaved people drives home the reality and humanity of those people on an emotional level in a way that speaking of "slaves" does not. And that helps me a little to better appreciate the connotations of many similar issues as well, such as 'gays' vs 'gay people'.
While I was in Toronto, I was party to a conversation about the term 'gays' versus 'gay people'. I beleive that saying 'gays' is a little bit dehumanizing in comparison to 'gay people', but it wasn't something that I felt very strongly about. Tonight, though, as I read through the textbook for the course I'm assisting with, I came upon a reference to "ancestral African-Americans" who came to the new world as "enslaved people," and suddenly that distinction seemed much more powerful to me. I suppose it may only be that I've heard that group described as "enslaved people" much less commonly than I hear "gay people". Or it might be the way the context of long-past history is dehumanizing in itself that makes an intentionally humanizing choice of language so striking and powerful to me. And perhaps it is in part because the word 'enslaved' emphasizes the fact that this is something that was done *to* these people by *other people*; that these were victims of a horrific act (which is, obviously, not the case for gay people). But I suddenly realized that talking about enslaved people drives home the reality and humanity of those people on an emotional level in a way that speaking of "slaves" does not. And that helps me a little to better appreciate the connotations of many similar issues as well, such as 'gays' vs 'gay people'.
