richw@ada-uts.UUCP (08/12/85)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the term, "Negro", is considered to be insulting because its actual meaning is "slave". If that's the case, I see nothing wrong with "homosexual" as an adjective; I don't mind being referred to as a heterosexual man, and if I were gay, I don't think I'd mind being called a homosexual man. After all, "homosexual" means, in my own terms, "sexually prefers persons of the same gender," right? Is it the case that "homosexual" has acquired negative connotations that I'm not familiar with (e.g. I don't know what "Nazi" originally meant, but don't !*#?$@-ing call me one!). If so, please fill me in on it. Rich Wagner a.k.a. Rich "Say-It-With-A-Smile" Vahgner :-)
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/15/85)
That's news to me. My impression was that "Negro" (& similarly "homo- sexual") were objectionable because 1) they were the labels used during the bad old days of near-universal discrimination & thus are inextricably bound up with the benighted attitudes of that period; 2) they were names given by the "oppressor", & since naming affects perception which affects people's sense of what is real, minorities ought to regain control over their identities by renaming themselves. 3) they're misleading or poorly chosen names: "homosexual" was coined in late Victorian times, using a Greek prefix & Latin suffix (the ancient world had no terms for either homo- or heterosexual). Actually, the word "slav" I think derives from the Latin "slavus" or slave, & some Slavs have objected to its use. Regards, Ron Rizzo
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/15/85)
In article <10900001@ada-uts.UUCP> richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes: > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the term, "Negro", is considered >to be insulting because its actual meaning is "slave". The literal meaning of "negro" is "black". >If that's the case, I see nothing wrong with "homosexual" as an adjective; >I don't mind being referred to as a heterosexual man, and if I were gay, >I don't think I'd mind being called a homosexual man. After all, >"homosexual" means, in my own terms, "sexually prefers persons of the >same gender," right? > >Is it the case that "homosexual" has acquired negative connotations >that I'm not familiar with (e.g. I don't know what "Nazi" originally >meant, but don't !*#?$@-ing call me one!). If so, please fill me in >on it. Since being a homosexual is defined as a negative thing by many people, it would be surprising if the word "homosexual" didn't have negative connotations associated with it. On the other hand, connotations are in the eye (ear?) of the beholder, by definition. I think "Nazi" originally stood for National Socialist Party (in German). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (08/16/85)
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the term, "Negro", is considered > to be insulting because its actual meaning is "slave". > "Negro" is from the Latin for "black". It is considered insulting because most of the people who used the word considered the sets of {All Negroes} and {All Slaves} to be identical. Any arbitrary word used would have gained the same negative connotation (see "connotation" and "denotation" in your dictionary). > (I don't know what "Nazi" originally meant, > From "National Sozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei" (National Socialist German Workers Party). Nowadays, typically the American Nazi Party (whose formal name I don't recall). Rather a different case, in that true Nazis do not object to being called Nazis, and some who object to being called Nazis (such as the Klan) object only because they don't want the bad press, or because of a brand-loyalty thing (much like Goodyear/Goodrich, I suppose), not so much because of abhorrence. > If that's the case, I see nothing wrong with "homosexual" as an adjective; > I don't mind being referred to as a heterosexual man, and if I were gay, > I don't think I'd mind being called a homosexual man. After all, > "homosexual" means, in my own terms, "sexually prefers persons of the > same gender," right? > Connotation and denotation again. Some gay/homosexual people feel that the term "homosexual" has gained too much perjorative use, and prefer to be labelled with a word which is still neutral or even positive. (Some feel that the word is too clinical, much like being referred to as a "humanoid" might grate on one's ears after a while). Others don't feel so. Most of the people I know to whom it would matter prefer to be called by name, so I do. :-) -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) (08/16/85)
In article <1529@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >3) they're misleading or poorly chosen names: "homosexual" was coined > in late Victorian times, using a Greek prefix & Latin suffix (the > ancient world had no terms for either homo- or heterosexual). I've always objected to the word ''homosexual'' on linguistic grounds: it doesn't convey the sense of ''attracted to'', but only the sense of ''the same sex''. For that reason, I marginally prefer ''homophile'', seems to have disappeared completely since Stonewall (along with the North American Conference of Homophile Organisations, NACHO). It's ironic that the word ''homosexual'', which we quite correctly tag as the mark of the oppressor, was coined by a Hungarian gay, Kertbeny, as part of a plea for tolerance, and was popularised in English by Havelock Ellis. I've often wished that Kertbeny, Ellis, and George Weinberg (the inventor of the word ''homophobia'') had been linguistically more careful. I used to use the standard etymological arguments about the origin of the word ''gay'', but I've given up. To me, it's now a simple matter of courtesy. If John Simon insists on talking only of ''homosexuals'', then I can equally reserve the right to call him ''Dreedle Slushthumper'', regardless of *his* wishes in the matter.
ps101@sdcc13.UUCP (ps101) (08/20/85)
I use the term gay to group
together for political and social purposes. I go to a gay boating
club, I belong to a gay computer club, I go to gay bars, I vote
according to a "gay" adjenda, and I think of myself as a gay person.
I recall a few years ago reading in the Advocate about a group of
people who were gay who prefered to call them faggots because of the
history of the term. Faggot--slang for logs put on fires> refered
to gays because gays were burned as witches in 16-17th century.
It is interesting how we choose our labels.richw@ada-uts.UUCP (08/20/85)
Thanks, folks. As you can obviously tell, I'm confused about the meanings of many words. I guess I should have looked up their definitions in OED or the like, but then again, I usually don't speak (or think) without first consulting Webster's. That's not an excuse, just an admission of a problem... Rich P.S. Is "admission" the correct word to use? I could look it up, but...
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/23/85)
In article <290@sdcc13.UUCP> ps101@sdcc13.UUCP (ps101) writes: >I recall a few years ago reading in the Advocate about a group of >people who were gay who prefered to call them faggots because of the >history of the term. Faggot--slang for logs put on fires> refered >to gays because gays were burned as witches in 16-17th century. A minor quibble -- My understanding is that the term faggot, as slang for homosexual, arose because homosexuals were used as fuel to burn witches. "Bring me something foul enough to burn a witch." was the judicial remark that supposedly started it all. (Not very practical. The human body is relatively non-combustible, consisting mostly of water). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (08/24/85)
> > I recall a few years ago reading in the Advocate about a group of > people who were gay who prefered to call them faggots because of the > history of the term. Faggot--slang for logs put on fires> refered > to gays because gays were burned as witches in 16-17th century. > It is interesting how we choose our labels. The *American Heritage Dictionary* reads as follows: fag.got [1] *n*. *Slang*. A male homosexual. [Origin unknown.] fag.got [2]. Variant of *fagot*. fag.ot *n*. Also *fag.got*. 1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together. 2. A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars. ... [Middle English, from Old French, from Italian *fagotto*, from Vulgar Latin *facus* (unattested), from Greek *phakelos*.] It does *not* appear that this story for the origin of the term *faggot* for male gays or homosexuals (choose your favorite) is generally accepted. _______________________ Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
flaps@utcs.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) (09/02/85)
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the term, "Negro", is considered >to be insulting because its actual meaning is "slave". You're wrong. Its actual meaning is "black" (the colour). "Negro" is insulting because of its historical usage, that's all. Though to me "homosexual" never seemed insulting.. this idea is new to me upon just recently joining net.motss. I never liked it though, because it seemed very clinical sorta. But I think that if a significant number of people object to it, it shouldn't be used... there are plenty of words in the English language! I always liked Gay, it sounds really nice.