Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 10:30:49AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Where I grew up in France, we did study the history of the French
> Revolution. We studied it in primary school, and then in high school.
> There was a very different take on the "reign of terror". In high
> school, we were using the official manuals that explained terror by the
> need to defend the republic. They acknowledged the regrettable excesses,
> but moved on quickly. In the catholic primary school on the other end,
> the memory of these "excesses" was still raw. The ritual murders and the
> wanton cruelty of the representatives, the genocidal repression of the
> peasantry that dared to rebel against the draft and the religious
> repression, six generations later the memory was still very much alive.
> Want it or not, that still inform my instinctive resistance against
> imposition of language, let alone the references to guillotines by some
> of the radical protesters. I understand that my colleagues of Russian
> origin have similar memories, only more vivid.
> 
> I do understand that many have the same reaction to "master-slave" as me
> to "guillotine". Such terms are better avoided in technical
> specifications. But at the same time, I shudder at the idea of any
> "purity of speech" committee. Such committees tend to discard checks and
> balances because of "purity", and that leads to detestable behaviors.
> That's why I would rather rely on a shared culture that goes for clear
> specification than on a power structure that dictates language.

Je te remerci. Je suis d'accord.  La verité ce que La Terreur est bien
facile de réproduir.  Il faut que nous soivons en garde contre les
Terreurs et les Revolutions Culturelles.

Nico
--