TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Political Correctness (Was Re: Master/Slave) From:Sandra Law <sandra -at- qmaster -dot- com> To:TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 16 May 2000 10:11:46 -0600
-----Original Message-----
Tom Eagles
Subject: RE: Political Correctness (Was Re: Master/Slave)
If the concern is how Black folks will be offended by "master/slave" let
me tell
you that slavery in America was preceded by several thousand years by
slavery in other parts of the world, and even amongst native tribes in
various parts of the world.
My response:
I didn't want to enter into this debate, given its potential to become a
minefield ... but here goes. One word - context. In the context of
technical writing the phrase 'master/slave' has one meaning. In the
realm of N. American social history it has another and in the realm of
certain tribal practices it has another context (i.e. meaning)
altogether.
Point being, in computer-speak the phrase connotes a dependent
relationship at least, and dictator-like control at most.
In the context of the social history on this continent, the term slavery
implies much more than dependency, and has as a built-in association
with the buying and selling of human beings for profit. The reduction
of human to commodity, and the dehumanization that results.
In the context of tribal cultural practices, I believe the term is not
always appropriately applied. That is, it has been applied too broadly
and has been used to refer to everything from true enslavement, to the
practice of 'capturing' members of another group and incorporating them
into your social group (Mohawks and Hurons did this I think). Captives
were eventually granted the same rights as other members of the group.
The complexities of this 'exchange' between groups is often
misunderstood. Think of the misconceptions about the meaning and
practice of cannabilism.
More of the original message:
Insects enslave each other.
My response:
Yeah, and they have exoskeletons and lack a central nervous system.
Let's not get sociobiological here, and start comparing human behaviour
to that of insects.
More of the original:
The perfunctory description of the relationship between hard drives that
this terminology
captures is the point, not the PC crap that people who have too much
time on
their hands attribute to it.
My response:
The point is context, and clarity. Slavery in the human context can
'mean' a number of different things, given the tendency to lump certain
'practices' into one category.