10 ms·

Just because certain expressions might still be used today and might not be on the fore-front of racism awareness does not make them any less racist. But you a

by kahawe 14y ago

Just because certain expressions might still be used today and might not be on the fore-front of racism awareness does not make them any less racist. But you are right, the article had it wrong: > Originally the phrase 'Dutch courage' referred to the courage that results from indulgence in Dutch gin (jenever), but 'Dutch courage' can also refer to the gin itself. [...] Because of the effects of Dutch gin English soldiers fighting in the Dutch Republic in the 17th century apparently called the drink "Dutch Courage". So it never actually referred to the people.

leoedin 14y ago
This presents an interesting point of consideration. If a saying has its roots in racism, is it still racist if its applied centures later to a completely different context? I'd argue that even if "Dutch courage" was originally in some way racist against the dutch, the racist intent has been stripped away by time. Dutch courage isn't a racist saying at this point, it's just a universally recognised expression for substance-induced courage. A bit of googling reveals that there's quite a lot of expression with racist roots that we use all the time in different contexts.[1] [1]: It is a cracked article, but it makes some valid points: http://www.cracked.com/article_16967_8-racist-words-you-use-every-day.html http://www.cracked.com/article_16967_8-racist-words-you-use-...
- jules 14y ago
  Regardless of the origins, if an expression is applied to a different context, it might still cause subconscious associations to form in the human brain. If you hear "Dutch courage" often enough, you might subconsciously start to link the Dutch to cowardice. For a more modern example take the word "gay". It originally meant "happy". Then it meant "homosexual". As a result of that second meaning large numbers of people use the word as a synonym for "unlikable" or "bad". If somebody uses the word in a context like "that movie is gay", that reinforces the connection between the concept "bad" and the concept "homosexual". Therefore what's important is not the origins of a word, but its current associations and effects: "my car was vandalized" is OK but "that movie is gay" is not.
  - shardling 14y ago
    >As a result of that second meaning large numbers of people use the word as a synonym for "unlikable" or "bad". It is possible that this is kind like how the word bad itself was derived! (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad) >a mystery word with no apparent relatives in other languages. Possibly from Old English derogatory term bæddel and its diminutive bædling "effeminate man, hermaphrodite, pederast"
    - twerquie 14y ago
      That's fascinating. Goes to show that decontextualization is the ultimate disarming of a slur. Abstaining from the word completely leaves it loaded with hateful power.
      - shardling 14y ago
        Don't take that too far -- it's certainly absolutely never a defense for using a particular word. If there are people who'd prefer you not to use it, just don't frickin' use it.
      - illuminate 14y ago
        "Abstaining from the word completely leaves it loaded with hateful power." The persons in power can not do not and will not recontextualize racist terminology on their own.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    Does that extend out to other human descriptors? Off the top of my head: "We were just shy of our goal" -> "We met a shy girl", suggesting through the subconscious association that the shy girl is not quite good enough. And if so, why is there no backlash to the usage of shy the way there is to gay and common racial terms, as examples, when used in similar contexts?
    - jules 14y ago
      I thought that both these meanings of shy were already negative? Note that in the association is between two meanings of a word: the association is between one meaning of shy and the other, not between shy and the girl. The latter are only associated because you used them together in a sentence. So the fact that you used "We were just shy of our goal" does not associate "girl" with something negative. It does associate "shy" with something negative. In contrast, if you use "that movie is gay", just by using that sentence on its own you are associating "gay", and hence a group of people, with "bad". For why there is more backlash in one case than another you also have to keep in mind the direct effect. If you say "We were just shy of our goal", the potential to hurt a shy person who happens to listen in will likely not be large, but if you say "that movie is gay" and a gay person is listening in, it might very well hurt. Secondly, shy is already negative, so it would be a little strange to complain that using it as "almost but not quite" is damaging the status of shy people, since the other meaning of shy is already more negative.
- quadhome 14y ago
  Not universal...
- dhimes 14y ago
  Wait- the Dutch are their own race? It might be a cultural slur, akin to "paddy-wagon" but racism? I think not.
  - shardling 14y ago
    The whole concept of "race" is on pretty thin ice to begin with. Applying the word to the Dutch isn't necessarily any more or less meaningful than to, say, all Chinese -- it's something that's socially constructed.
    - dhimes 14y ago
      Ah, you are correct, to my embarrassment. I immediately associated 'Caucasian' with 'Dutch'. But there may be non-Caucasian Dutch as well as non-Mongolian Chinese. Thank you.
      - kahawe 14y ago
        And non-Dutch Caucasians, for that matter.
robbiep 14y ago
Random comment: I went to the Bols brewing company tour in Amsterdam last week, which invented the first Geniever, which the English later turned into gin - oh my god is it something that takes some acclimatising to. Too much juniper berries! Very much an acquired taste

by kahawe 14y ago

leoedin 14y ago

This presents an interesting point of consideration. If a saying has its roots in racism, is it still racist if its applied centures later to a completely different context? I'd argue that even if "Dutch courage" was originally in some way racist against the dutch, the racist intent has been stripped away by time. Dutch courage isn't a racist saying at this point, it's just a universally recognised expression for substance-induced courage. A bit of googling reveals that there's quite a lot of expression with racist roots that we use all the time in different contexts.[1] [1]: It is a cracked article, but it makes some valid points: http://www.cracked.com/article_16967_8-racist-words-you-use-every-day.html http://www.cracked.com/article_16967_8-racist-words-you-use-...

jules 14y ago
Regardless of the origins, if an expression is applied to a different context, it might still cause subconscious associations to form in the human brain. If you hear "Dutch courage" often enough, you might subconsciously start to link the Dutch to cowardice. For a more modern example take the word "gay". It originally meant "happy". Then it meant "homosexual". As a result of that second meaning large numbers of people use the word as a synonym for "unlikable" or "bad". If somebody uses the word in a context like "that movie is gay", that reinforces the connection between the concept "bad" and the concept "homosexual". Therefore what's important is not the origins of a word, but its current associations and effects: "my car was vandalized" is OK but "that movie is gay" is not.
- shardling 14y ago
  >As a result of that second meaning large numbers of people use the word as a synonym for "unlikable" or "bad". It is possible that this is kind like how the word bad itself was derived! (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bad) >a mystery word with no apparent relatives in other languages. Possibly from Old English derogatory term bæddel and its diminutive bædling "effeminate man, hermaphrodite, pederast"
  - twerquie 14y ago
    That's fascinating. Goes to show that decontextualization is the ultimate disarming of a slur. Abstaining from the word completely leaves it loaded with hateful power.
    - shardling 14y ago
      Don't take that too far -- it's certainly absolutely never a defense for using a particular word. If there are people who'd prefer you not to use it, just don't frickin' use it.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      "Abstaining from the word completely leaves it loaded with hateful power." The persons in power can not do not and will not recontextualize racist terminology on their own.
- randomdata 14y ago
  Does that extend out to other human descriptors? Off the top of my head: "We were just shy of our goal" -> "We met a shy girl", suggesting through the subconscious association that the shy girl is not quite good enough. And if so, why is there no backlash to the usage of shy the way there is to gay and common racial terms, as examples, when used in similar contexts?
  - jules 14y ago
    I thought that both these meanings of shy were already negative? Note that in the association is between two meanings of a word: the association is between one meaning of shy and the other, not between shy and the girl. The latter are only associated because you used them together in a sentence. So the fact that you used "We were just shy of our goal" does not associate "girl" with something negative. It does associate "shy" with something negative. In contrast, if you use "that movie is gay", just by using that sentence on its own you are associating "gay", and hence a group of people, with "bad". For why there is more backlash in one case than another you also have to keep in mind the direct effect. If you say "We were just shy of our goal", the potential to hurt a shy person who happens to listen in will likely not be large, but if you say "that movie is gay" and a gay person is listening in, it might very well hurt. Secondly, shy is already negative, so it would be a little strange to complain that using it as "almost but not quite" is damaging the status of shy people, since the other meaning of shy is already more negative.
quadhome 14y ago
Not universal...
dhimes 14y ago
Wait- the Dutch are their own race? It might be a cultural slur, akin to "paddy-wagon" but racism? I think not.
- shardling 14y ago
  The whole concept of "race" is on pretty thin ice to begin with. Applying the word to the Dutch isn't necessarily any more or less meaningful than to, say, all Chinese -- it's something that's socially constructed.
  - dhimes 14y ago
    Ah, you are correct, to my embarrassment. I immediately associated 'Caucasian' with 'Dutch'. But there may be non-Caucasian Dutch as well as non-Mongolian Chinese. Thank you.
    - kahawe 14y ago
      And non-Dutch Caucasians, for that matter.

robbiep 14y ago

Random comment: I went to the Bols brewing company tour in Amsterdam last week, which invented the first Geniever, which the English later turned into gin - oh my god is it something that takes some acclimatising to. Too much juniper berries! Very much an acquired taste