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.
OK, I can't resist. In the last century and back into pre-history, the
master/slave relationship existed. To use a master/slave analogy that
accurately describes a technical relationship, doesn't tacitly condone
slavery or betray, I think, any insensitivity. If, however, the writer
calls a person a slave or says a person has a slave mentality, the
comment might be insensitive, racist, or true, depending on the
circumstances and the writer's intentions.
Studiously avoiding using an analogy strikes me as being a form of
denial--i.e., "if we don't even speak it, maybe it didn't happen or will
all go away."
I suppose another reason for not using a slave/master analogy is that it
might remind someone of a painful circumstance, but in order to say,
"Never again!" one has to remember what happened.
Maybe I'm just dense. Can someone explain why slave/master analogies are
per se insensitive?
David Orr
Orr & Associates
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
