Abjure the Word

[LDAHL]

I see USC will no longer use the term “field”, on the assumption it may offend people descended from slaves or migrant workers. They will now play football on a “practicing”. That way, when the Trojans take the practicum there will be no unfortunate word connotation.

[catherine]

I see USC will no longer use the term “field”, on the assumption it may offend people descended from slaves or migrant workers. They will now play football on a “practicing”. That way, when the Trojans take the practicum there will be no unfortunate word connotation.

Hmmm, I do think that's a stretch. But language does matter. I was just thinking the other day that I personally object to the term "natural resources." If we changed that term to "natural gifts" maybe we'd be less inclined to treat those gifts as some objectified commodity that will last forever and can therefore be exploited and squandered at will.

[iris lilies]

Hmmm, I do think that's a stretch. But language does matter. I was just thinking the other day that I personally object to the term "natural resources." If we changed that term to "natural gifts" maybe we'd be less inclined to treat those gifts as some objectified commodity that will last forever and can therefore be exploited and squandered at will.

Just a stretch? It is insane.

[littlebittybobby]

But, they are slaves. So, why attempt to obfuscate it? End of story. Case Closed.

[Rogar]

I get some of the great re-naming, but I totally do not get this one. We have something like 25 landmarks with a name beginning with "squaw", like Squaw Mountain or Squaw Creek. I understand that eventually all of these renamed. I can sort of get that, although now when a person reads a history book written before the re-naming and there's a reference to squaw such and such, no one will identify with it's location.

Many chapters of the Audubon Society, named after John James Audubon, the great naturalist, have or will be re-named because of his racist views. Ours was re-named after a local naturalist. Word is the name may be dropped at the national level. Kind of a shame to lose the good side of the historical context.

[rosarugosa]

I think the "field" thing is ridiculous, and I also think when you cross the line into total absurdity, it undermines potential support for the non-ridiculous re-namings; it just makes it so much easier for those who are so inclined to be dismissive of the whole ball of wax.
Catherine - I get what you mean but I don't like "gifts" either, because a gift once given, belongs to the recipient to do with as they please. How about "natural treasures?"

[Rogar]

Catherine - I get what you mean but I don't like "gifts" either, because a gift once given, belongs to the recipient to do with as they please. How about "natural treasures?"

Yes, natural resource does imply sort sort of of use and plunder these days. I do like the idea of a re-naming.

One of the Audubon Societies renamed themselves, Nature Forward, which is decent but does quite have a ring to it.

[JaneV2.0]

Apparently, it's only the USC Social Work department which is grossly over-reacting to a perfectly useful word, not the whole school.

[Tradd]

They could always call it a “pitch” like the Brits do for soccer.

[LDAHL]

They could always call it a “pitch” like the Brits do for soccer.

It may only be a matter of time until they come after “football” because it offends soccer fans. The same way “American” has been discovered to cause harm to people who share the Western Hemisphere with us.