Master/Slave

Subject: Master/Slave
From: David Orr <whitears -at- INTERACCESS -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:07:10 -0500

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


Previous by Author: Ragged Right
Next by Author: Master/Slave
Previous by Thread: masters, slaves, servants
Next by Thread: Re: Master/Slave


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads