The page doesn't say why they want to do this. Payphones died a death of natural causes. My best guess is nostalgia? It can't be to build a business out of it, can it?
Also just general accessibility. Houseless people exist and every business is increasingly hostile towards letting them charge their phones. Most people who haven't had to experience houselessness aren't aware about this but next time you go to some bougie upscale shopping district try to acknowledge how many outdoor, easily accessible outlets there are. Now do the same thing in some inner city/poorer area or anywhere with a decent amount of houseless folks
Or they're gonna find away to put ads in the service lol
It's homeless people, not houseless.
If there is some bizarre attempt to reframe things, fine, but what does owning a house have to do with anything? A condo is not a house. An apartment is not a house. So it is:
(house|apartment|townome|condo|cabin)lessness??
A home is any of the above. A house is not.
I use it because of a conversation I had with someone who is houseless. She didn't like being called "homeless" because the city she was sleeping in WAS her "home". She grew up there. Her parents grew up there. She went to school, knew the community there, etc. Eventually due to gentrification she couldn't afford to live in a house anymore.
When the term "homeless" is used I think it often has the effect of painting those who are labelled it as not part of the community. Indeed an off-duty cop later harassed us after the talk w her and some other houseless folk and told me "we don't want them in our community". The cop had an out-of-state license plate...
Whether it's a house or an apartment, the point imo is to draw attention to how our definitions of who does and doesn't have the right to claim membership of a community has been degraded to purely material means. This person who's not even from this state gets to say he doesn't want HER in "our community"
And that unfortunate woman does indeed have no home, even if she is living in her old home town.
Home has more than one meaning.
This is just virtue signaling.
"And that unfortunate woman does indeed have no home"
And home is where your heart is. Homeless people also have their spots. Their living space, their sleeping space etc. it is just all in the open.
(This is how multiple definition words work)
You can kvetch about using words that signal your virtue, but homelessness has a codified definition [1].
Exactly!
> And that unfortunate woman does indeed have no home, even if she is living in her old home town.
Oh. Interesting how you acknowledge the fluidity of the meaning of home but then impose your very specific formulation of it onto others
You know how college students who live in dorms tend to differentiate between "home" (as in going back to their dorm after a night of drinking) and "home home" (as in I'm going back home over the weekend). Clearly there's a lot more to the definition of "home" here than just the shape of the building you sleep in. I don't think you have to be a romantic poet to relate to the feeling of feeling "at home" in the arms of someone you love. Or to move to an apt in a new city and have it never feel like home because you struggle to recreate the feeling of belonging to a community you felt previously
Conversely, I'm sure many people relate to the feeling of it taking a while for a new "house" they moved in to really feel like "home". And there are some sleeping arrangements that might never feel like home like a college dorm or a stay at a hotel/motel
> Changing terms is meaningless, as any stigma assigned to the prior term immediately exists for the new term.
Not really what I'm trying to do. Just changing my own language to be more accurate to what I want to be talking about.
Language changes. That's kinda its thing. If you wanna spend your life fighting the very nature of language you'll probably burn yourself out
Just as you're imposing your specific formulation?
> Language changes. That's kinda its thing. If you wanna spend your life fighting the very nature of language you'll probably burn yourself out
I would very surprised if "homeless" as a term were not used orders of magnitude more than "houseless". The standard term quite simply is "homeless". You (and your acquaintance) are the ones fighting the language. You may win and your terminology may become standard, but language has hardly evolved to the point where the people using the (supposedly) old terminology are fighting the tide.
That said I find your acquaintance's position interesting. I don't, however, think that saying "houseless" instead of "homeless" is making the "language to be more accurate". "Home" has multiple meanings. With one of them your acquaintance is unquestionably "homeless" while with the other she is not.
For what it's worth, I consider homeless people as members of the community and that the city is just as much their home as it is mine. I don't find the multiple meanings all that confusing.
/2 cents
FWIW: I have had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy, I spent nearly 6 years perma-camping and self-identifying as homeless and I have written about the topic on and off for years, mostly my own blogs but also sometimes paid articles on the topic.
Trying to redefine the conversation by changing the wording seems rather clumsy and inept to me, but also your objection it in overly pedantic. You can just keep using 'homeless' (as I do) and simply ignore side arguments about the semantics.
Most archeological evidence I've read up on, shows those we call native americans, to be only one of a multitude of immigrant waves.
And yes, their arrival displaced those already here, sometimes violently.
Every beast and creature wars, and competes, for territory. Humans are no different.
"Normal patterns of within-continent human migration" ... sure. My Hopi neighbor still (jokingly) calls the Dine (Navajo) "those Athabascans" (referring to the people of what is now British Columbia who migrated to what is now the US soutwest in the 1400s).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period
This ice age lasted about 100k years, which is perhaps 1/3 of the time modern humans have ever existed.
Multiple peoples immigrated during this time.
There has probably not been a multitude of immigrant waves.
Archeological evidence says otherwise.
It is still up in the air when the land bridge to Siberia was open, when/if it was used, how often it was used, and how far those who crossed it migrated in any given time interval. The information I am most familiar with suggests likely low-single digit migrations via this route (if indeed it happened at all).
The "arctic route" is not a suggestion I am familiar with.
It was land, right on the ocean, and they've found evidence under water of people living at the end, of this being the case.
And if people are living on the bridge, why on earth would they just stay put. For 100k years of time?! Even if the land bridge was only open for 10% of that time, that's more than all recorded human history!
But beyond this, I'm baffled that you haven't heard of the artic route. How do you think the Inuit got where they are today? Artic people just lived in the artic, and didn't care if it was some future country called "Russia" or "China" or "Greenland", but just wandered where ever they wanted.
But what I find baffling is that there is the concept of "one wave". What does that even mean?
Was there a group of people in a boat, and they crashed on the shore, and the entire massive population of all of North and South America arrived from those dozen or so peoples?! Because that's "one wave".
Or was there an old civilization, 10k year ago, 100k years ago, 200k years ago, and all the people came by boat then, and then just... what... no one ever came again ever? For 100k, 200k years?!
There has never been a single wave, a single point, ever! Why do people believe this? I'm genuinely baffled here.
It being difficult, vastly underestimates our ancestors.
My only thought is that perhaps you grew up in a Mormon household, and believe that all the peoples here are of a single lost tribe of Israel? Or maybe you were taught in a more traditional public school, back when people were still hung on the idea that the Earth was 6k years old, so of course, naturally, there was only one wave of Natives!
A lot of narrative about native americans was crafted with theology in place. It's time to disown that.
So now to go back in time: the issue with the "they were on the bridge, so obviously they moved south" model is that it is one thing to live on or near the bridge (which they clearly did), and something else to migrate thousands of miles across an essential arctic landscape with little/no access to food. This has raised some questions among paleo-archeologists about whether the people who crossed the open land bridge ever did actually migrate substantially further south or not. The consensus that I read seems to still veer towards this being "likely", but not a certainty.
The alternative (or parallel) pathway is to arrive by sea. And yes, it is absolutely possible that the "entire massive population of all of North and South America" could come from a dozen or so people. To think otherwise, as you put it, is to "vastly underestimate our ancestors" :)
Of course, that's not saying this we know this to be true, although the genetic variability of indigenous Americans, last I read about it, does seem to point to a very narrow origin. This could also be explained by many different settlings originating from the same source population, so this is also not a decided question.
The Arctic route that you still haven't really described goes from where to where? Most people would associate the land bridge with "the Artic", so the most common version of "the arctic route" would be "from Siberia to Alaska", but you seem to be referring to something different. As far as I know, it is not currently well understood when the peoples who live in the Arctic arrived there (archeology looks a little different in that sort of landscape).
People have known how to salt meats essentially before modern humans. But regardless, fish keeps easily, and dried fruits and nuts are very packable, and simple to make:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican
It is beyond simplistic to throw food stores on a two-pole travoline, and drag it behind you. Even more trivial to do so with a sleigh.
Traveling "great distances" without food, when people can stop and fish, or hunt seal, is to me strange, especially when food stores do exist for travel.
To put this another way, virtually every primitive/low tech society we have found, has shown signs of food storage.
So I don't get the "but it is hard to travel" long distances argument.
The artic route is just people wandering around the artic, over the pole. Again, stored food and summer temps.
But that all said, I go back to the timefame. Hundreds of thousands of years, for modern humans, to make it over and over again to fresh territory.
From where I sit, this timeframe alone makes a very strong argument, a third of a million years, which requires proof that it was not difficult, but literally impossible to make the trip.
I would find it beyond bizarre if there were not thouands of "waves".
How would you account for the narrow genetic variability within indigenous American populations?
Eg confirmation bias.
One example? Having a close to extinction event, doesn't invalidate that prior waves existed.
https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/h...
EG, this potentially happened with populations seen in the old world, so there is no reason to presume differently for the new.
And there is no reason to presume it only happened once, eg near extinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keywords:_A_Vocabulary_of_Cult...
... That book was published in 2016. Semiology has been around since at least the late 19th century (and can be traced back much further than that). Foucoult's approach to studying language and words through their genealogy and Derrida's contributions to literary studies were both big in the late 20th century. And feminist scholars from both analytical and continental traditions have been pointing out that language isn't neutral for forever. Gramsci's work on cultural hegemony was done in the early 20th century.
Any of these would serve as better starting points for when leftists started focusing on the relationship between power and language. Not sure why you found this random book to pick on but it seems like you're missing some serious context here
While you are correct that an apartment is not a house, did you know that they are considered to be a type of housing? Further, the concept of “housing” in English has been acceptable for many decades! It’s neat how English works!
Whereas houseless is a new term with little to no baggage so it's easier to sell people obviously stupid ideas by changing the terms whenever the new term captures all the connotations of the old term. It's the euphemism treadmill abused for marketing rather than being used to describe the process of transferring meaning to overcome this kind of thing.
I've been stuck with a dead smartphone at music concerts and festivals a few times, and it was not easy to find a charger. A payphone could have worked to phone a friend.
Nobody remembers phone numbers anymore. Add the ability to call Google Hangouts (or whatever that's called now), Facebook Messenger, or other services and it would be effectively modernized.
[1] This would need a database of callers not to interrupt - local 911, hospitals, utility companies, etc. are all important emergency services. Wouldn't want to listen to jingles while the gas line is leaking.
> At Futel, we believe in the preservation of public telephone hardware as a means of providing access to the agora for everybody, and toward that goal we are privileged to provide free telephone calls, voicemail, and telephone-mediated services.
Though the death of the pay station was accelerated by the drug crisis, a reduction in pay stations lead to an acceleration in mobile phone adoption here in the states.