[1] This, of course, excludes people like me, who are offended by the very existence of such lists.
I find a lot of the cultural appropriation items on this list deeply ironic because they imply English is allowed to take words from French (“beef”, “rendezvous”) and German (“welcome”, “hound”, …). But terms from non-white cultures aren’t allowed to become part of english? (“Guru”, “bury the hatchet”, and so on in this list.)
Is it just me or is that policy remarkably racist?
If you want a better example (though convoluted and still imperfect) of what that could look like for English, it would be like if a different language/culture started using the word "PhD" for anyone with some expertise. Now maybe you don't mind, but you've got to recognize that a fair amount of people would feel like it cheapens the work and expertise that goes into becoming a doctor.
Also doctors raise similar complaints when PhDs call themselves doctors.
... what do they think the "D" in PhD stands for?
The main distinction that lawyers and medical doctors have in terms of the title is that these professions talk to lay people outside their profession regularly and there needs to be a distinction between them and other people offering advice that’s not governed by the rules of the medical community and codified in law. The risk and consequence of harm would be elevated and the ability for recourse would be limited. For example, if you get bad legal advice from random Joe Schmoe, you can’t claim ineffective council (heck you can’t even do that if it’s a licensed lawyer who told you something if that isn’t your lawyer. This doesn’t happen with engineers.
Now I’m not defending or espousing any specific position here. I’m just trying to illuminate the differences and the claims. The counterpoint is that these licensing requirements don’t actually change anything, they’re over broad, they raise prices on services far more than they should, they unfairly exclude people from prestigious jobs that maybe they could do anyway even without schooling (eg an experienced paralegal for 15 years maybe doesn’t need a “lawyer’s education” for certain kinds of legal work) and they go against the principle of free speech. On the other hand, trademarks exist and inhibit free speech in similar ways. On the other hand, trademarks can’t be regular words. On the other hand the government is responsible for writing the rules of trademarks.
On the other hand, this post brought to you by Tevya the Milkman and his fiddle.
> when someone says they’re a doctor in the middle of giving medical advice, they can’t play the “but I have a PhD card” or “free speech” because the recipient of that message would reasonably assume due to common colloquial understanding that that person is a licensed medical doctor (unless the PhD somehow clarified this in a reasonable way).
I don't see why in this scenario the burden would be on the PhD to offer clarification. Again, the meaning of the "D" in PhD hasn't changed in the west since the Middle Ages.
Medical Doctor can simply state his affiliation to his licensing board; to me some organization claiming ownership of a term in common usage singe the Middle Ages screams first amendment violation.
Nah. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional
> The notion of a professional can be traced to medieval European guilds, most of which died off by the middle of the nineteenth century, the exception being the scholars guild, or university.
> With most guilds formally abolished outside of the realm of academia, establishing exclusivity and standards in a trade had to be achieved via other means such as licensing practices, of which might begin as an informal process established by voluntary professional associations, but then eventually become law due to lobbying efforts.
> (...) a significant motivation in the development of the AMA was to gain authority over unlicensed practitioners so as to minimize competition among medical practitioners, thereby enhancing the earning power and prestige of medical professionals. The licensing process Starr argues, was unnecessarily prolonged and the costs were artificially enhanced with the specific aim of deterring potential practitioners from entering the field.*
> (...) while defenders of guilds have argued that they allowed markets to function by ensuring quality standards, Sheliah Olgelvic has instead argued that markets of the Middle Ages flourished when guilds were abolished and that there is much evidence to support the notion that individuals prefer a wide variety of products of varying quality and price to being granted protections which they did not ask for, and which artificially constrain consumer options.
* on that note, https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidie...
> In America, aspiring doctors do four years of undergrad in whatever area they want (I did Philosophy), then four more years of medical school, for a total of eight years post-high school education. In Ireland, aspiring doctors go straight from high school to medical school and finish after five years.
> Americans take eight years to become doctors. Irishmen can do it in four, and achieve the same result. Each year of higher education at a good school – let’s say an Ivy, doctors don’t study at Podunk Community College – costs about $50,000. So American medical students are paying an extra $200,000 for…what?
Please don't use that term as it summons the Ghost of Racism Past.
And in any case, when a word is incorporated from another language, it's meaning is misunderstood all the time. Why is this case somehow morally offensive?
It was the same thing with food packaging. Land 'o Lakes literally removed the Native American woman but they kept the land! She used to be in every grocery store. Now removed.
That's why they as peasants looked after the cows, but the aristocrats from France ate the beef. (Sheep/mutton, pig/pork)
False, it was not the French but the Normans, Vikings who had learned to speak French, who conquered England.
An England made up of Brittanic Celts who had been conquered, ruled over, and had mixed with and learned to speak the Germanic languages of the Angles, the Saxons and then the invading Danes.
French, the language of France, is derived from the Latin language of the Romans who had conquered that Gaulic Celtic place before they were in turn conquered by the Germanic Franks who switched from their lingua franca to Latin. Then the Normans settled in Normandy, just north of Brittany, still occupied by the Celts.
So there is nothing French about the Germanic Franks, nor anything Gaulic or Frankish about the language French, a language the Romans brought to Gaul and the Germanic Normans brought to Great Britain.
Is "reverse cultural appropriation" a thing then, or do we have a better phrase for when it's no longer appropriate for a population to use words that were inserted into their language by force?
“L'anglais n'est que du français mal prononcé”
“English is little more than badly pronounced French”
-- D'Artagnan in Vingt ans après