I usually don't get too hysterical about these things (you know, now that I'm an evil capitalist instead of a righteously-indignant socialist), but this one surprised me a little. Yesterday's "word of the day" on my "Word-a-Day" calendar is "Equatorial Guinea". First of all, yeah, I know, what kind of a "word" is that? I have many beefs with this calendar, one of which is that the Saturday words, which are all accompanied by a picture or diagram, are always pretty silly. Usually some kind of obscure animal or architectural term or something I'd never be able to use in conversation and therefore probably never retain unless I worked really hard at it. Or it's something like "Equatorial Guinea", which does not need "defining" per se, but at least I learn a few interesting facts about it. Anyway, I will now quote from the "definition" of Equatorial Guinea: Originally inhabited by Pygmy peoples, it was discovered by the Porgtuguese in 1472.
Come on, really? Are we really still referring to non-Western countries as having been "discovered"? I'm not saying that it should say "it was raped and plundered by the Portuguese in 1472", but dude, discovered?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'm curious to know which dictionary the calendar is drawn from -- it might provide some insight...
I guess the key phrase is "origianlly inhabited". Maybe they don't have the guts to say why they are no longer there. Or are some still there???
Just like Jesse "discovered" the botanical gardens at WU! LOL.
At least they're not saying the Portuguese "invented" Equitorial Guinea. Because I'm pretty sure that was Al Gore.
jesse "discovered" the japanese gardens too...he had a regular little empire there at willamette! :)
since when are you no longer a socialist? :(
the calendar is courtesy of the american heritage dictionary. and i suppose colonialism *is* an important part of our American Heritage. not sure about the current pygmy population in equatorial guinea, or whether they are even still called "pygmies". for all i know, equatorial guinea is now insisting on only being called "le republique democratique du guinea". (actually, i'm pretty sure they're not insisting on being called that, because they're the only spanish-speaking country in africa.)
Sure enough -- there's "discover" in the 4th edition's definition.
The Amer. Herit.'s definition of discover provides some insight into the thought process that allows the use of the word in the definition of Equatorial New Guinea: "To be the first, or the first of one's group or kind, to find, learn of, or observe" (emphasis added).
Where cultural sensitivity has made us aware of the arrogant presumptions implied by this use of the verb to discover, it would seem that the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary have simply regarded this as a specialized meaning of the word, distinct from its arguably more pure sense.
So they've covered themselves, but only by rewriting the meaning of an imperialstic term to obscure its historical origins and meanings.
N- "the first of one's group or kind", eh? very interesting. those american heritage people are kind of punks, aren't they? i kind of want to burn the rest of my calendar in protest, but i do learn a useful new word about once every two weeks.
MJ- i guess it depends on what you mean by "socialist", but by any definition i probably haven't been one for several years now. if we're loosely defining "socialism" as wanting the state to have a very large economic and social role, then many, but not all, of my opinions in that regard have changed (or more concrete opinions have formed in the place of ephemeral "progressive" leanings). it really depends on the specific policies. i'm okay with heavy taxation and downward income redistribution (but i am opposed to an unnecessarily complex tax system such as ours). i'm not okay with european-style labor market rigidities (e.g. making it very hard to fire people). i'm okay with having a minimum wage that rises automatically with the price level. i'm not at all okay with trade protectionism, and i'm not even completely comfortable with some of the ways in which certain groups attempt to impose labor and environmental standards as a part of free trade agreements (which is not to say that labor and environmental standards should never be a part of a free trade agreement; just that the issue is problematic).
Oh no Jenn... what would Bill Smaldone say if he saw you now???
what about things like national health care, good public school systems, and all the anti-poverty stuff that goes on in socialist countries like the scandanavian countries?
bill smaldone, i admit, would probably be sad. on the other hand, he would be proud of my analytical skills, which are what i use to decide how i feel about all this capitalism/socialism stuff.
the provision of health care and health insurance is very prone to market failures and inefficiencies; nationalized health care isn't perfect, but it's probably the best solution if it's done well. certainly much better than the current situation in this country.
i'm all for very good, very expensive public schools (i mean expensive for the government and taxpayers, not for students' families).
as for other "anti-poverty" stuff, i guess it just depends. i'm pretty confident that if the program is designed well, things like welfare and unemployment benefits can be very useful and positive.
when markets work well they do so, in part, because they guide behavior through incentives. (and part of the way to get health care, welfare, etc to work well probably has to do with creating good incentives in the way that a well-working market would.) that i recognize that some markets don't work and need to be meddled with is, in my mind, a sign of my devotion to capitalism. but if it makes you feel better to think of me as some sort of quasi-socialist, that's okay with me. =)
Post a Comment