Monday, September 03, 2012



I suppose you expect a "Chief Diversity Officer" to be a pain in the behind

Some fairly dubious claims from the U.S. State Dept. below

Watch your mouth -- everyday phrases like "hold down the fort" and "rule of thumb" are potentially offensive bombshells.  At least according to the State Department.

Chief Diversity Officer John Robinson penned a column in the department's latest edition of "State Magazine" advising readers on some rather obscure Ps and Qs.

Robinson ticked off several common phrases and went on to explain why their roots are racially or culturally insensitive. The result was a list of no-nos that could easily result in some tongue-tied U.S. diplomats, particularly in an administration that swaps "war on terror" for "overseas contingency operation" and once shied away from using the word "terrorism."

For instance, Robinson warned, "hold down the fort" is a potentially insulting reference to American Indian stereotypes.  "How many times have you or a colleague asked if someone could 'hold down the fort?'" he wrote. "You were likely asking someone to watch the office while you go and do something else, but the phrase's historical connotation to some is negative and racially offensive."

He explained: "To 'hold down the fort' originally meant to watch and protect against the vicious Native American intruders. In the territories of the West, Army soldiers or settlers saw the 'fort' as their refuge from their perceived 'enemy,' the stereotypical 'savage' Native American tribes."  [I would have thought that forts were used rather a long time before the Indian wars]

He singled out another phrase, "Going Dutch," as a "negative stereotype portraying the Dutch as cheap."

And "rule of thumb," he wrote, can according to women's activists refer "to an antiquated law, whereby the width of a husband's thumb was the legal size of a switch or rod allowed to beat his wife."

Further, he explained, "If her bruises were not larger than the width of his thumb, the husband could not be brought to court to answer for his behavior because he had not violated the 'rule of thumb.'"

He went on to urge caution over the word "handicap," as some disability advocates "believe this term is rooted in a correlation between a disabled individual and a beggar, who had to beg with a cap in his or her hand because of the inability to maintain employment."

Source

15 comments:

Bird of Paradise said...

Placing speach codes on us allfining everybody that usesa word deemed offensive to liberal whinners

Anonymous said...

These so-called origins of words and phrases are quite obscure and probably inaccurate. So the only reason an average person today might be offended by them is if such dubious explanations were made public enough.
Forts of course had been in existence since at least the Iron Age. Rule of Thumb may have been related to trades people from way back using a simple form of measurement.

RecoveringLawyer said...

Like the foofaraw over "niggardly" the nonsense about beating wives is more evidence of the breathtaking ignorance of these "public servants" who are all Smarter Than The Rest Of Us and therefore entitled to tell us what to do. Per the Word Detective, an authoritative and still entertaining source of REAL etymology:

the "sexist origin" of this phrase is almost certainly pure invention. "Rule of thumb" probably came from the use of the thumb as a convenient measuring tool, the distance to the first knuckle usually being about one inch. Even "The Bias-Free Word Finder," the bible of the Politically Correct Language Guardians among us, considers the wife-beating theory implausible and notes that it first surfaced in a 1986 letter to the editor in "Ms." magazine. So I guess the first "rule of thumb" in these cases is "Check your sources, lest they be hokum."

http://www.word-detective.com/index.html

Anonymous said...

Before the Marxist-in-Chief was placed in the White House by, for the most part, the MSM, had anyone ever heard of a "Diversity Officer"?

To the Left, diversity means forcing society to accept people put into positions they would not otherwise be qualified for, simply because they happen to belong to one of the invented classes of "professional victims".

In reality, diversity, as used by the Left, is nothing more than a form of govt. sponsered and enforced discrimination.

Anonymous said...

"Political correctness is a far greater threat to our freedom and liberty than is terrorism..."

Go Away Bird said...

Very true annon 3:26 this PC is like ATHIESIM and EVOLUTION its a Dangerous concept

Anonymous said...

Well at least the bird-brain managed to spell 'evolution' correctly even if not quite managing 'atheism'. But maybe he/she/it is not aware that "the theory of evolution" is the concept, while biological evolution itself is an obvious fact.
However, perhaps the bird that won't go away would like to explain how this scientific theory is dangerous.

Anonymous said...

OK, if that's what we're doing, then we need to start taking back the words and symbols that have been commandeered by the homosexual community because I find their misuse very offensive:

Gay = happy, joyous
Fag = to work hard
Queen = Female monarch
Rainbow = A multicolored array

Anonymous said...

Oh for f*ck sake. It's time we all just learn Arabic and be done with it. It's inevitable, so why fight it?

Anonymous said...

we have to hold down the fort against these moronic Obama fanatics. Rule of thumb says they'll be out soon enough. We need a pow-wow and need to stop from becoming indian-givers.

Anonymous said...

12:25 AM - So why did "heterosexual society" give those slang names to homosexuals in the firstplace (except the last one). So you don't like words being "commandeered" - so don't give them in the first place - DUGH!

Anonymous said...

2:58, describe in detail how life began. Can you repeat it in a lab? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Anonymous said...

3:15 Why should everything be repeatable in a lab (today)? I guess you're using one of those dumb creationist arguments that are maybe convincing to dumb creationists! (You're probably too dumb and/or ignorant to know the difference between biological evolution and abiogenesis).

Anonymous said...

Even science can't explain why 3:15 is such a moron.

Anonymous said...

And the answer isn't predicted in the Bible either!