Why Were The Radical Republicans Radical?

[Liz Rosenthal]

(05-02-2013 07:39 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Liz, referring to J. Taft's terminology, was there already a (serious) awareness of linguistic prejudice in America in those times? Discussions on this matter didn't really start here before the 1980ies (just two month ago there was an intense political debate on "censoring" all classic literature and re-publishing the works in "correct" neutral language. Finally they dropped it.)

Eva: No, there was little to no awareness of the impropriety of racial slurs in the 19th century - nor was there for about 2/3 of the 20th century. It took, first, the atrocities of World War II and then the American Civil Rights movement to bring an end to the use of racial slurs in polite society. (But I suppose we'll always have impolite society!) It's been a battle not only regarding African-Americans, but regarding American Indians, Asian-Americans, Americans of varying ethnicities, women and gay people, too.

But the more enlightened individuals of the 19th and 20th centuries tended to be a bit better about their language, though not perfect. And language that was considered respectful, say, in the 19th century would be considered offensive today. For example, a respectful way of referring to African-Americans in the 19th century and early 20th century was to call them "colored." In fact, the great civil rights organization, the NAACP, founded in the early part of the 20th century, utilitized the term (it's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). But now, at best, the term "colored" is an anachronism and, at worst, it's offensive. I imagine that the NAACP didn't change its name, though, given its long and illustrious history.

I personally don't favor the censoring of literature to protect modern-day sensibilities. If you do that, you not only lose the flavor of the literature but you also keep people from learning about the less attractive aspects of their country's history.