The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Well, nor were quite a few other words that now are?Paul Habershon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:50 amIt's such a pity that the p ... y word in the chess problem pawn discussion has become taboo. It wasn't so originally and I find it quite pleasant sounding. It should still be innocently bracketed with bambino, wee bairn etc. which I assume are still ok.
Agreed. That's why it's such a pity.Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:20 pmWell, nor were quite a few other words that now are?Paul Habershon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:50 amIt's such a pity that the p ... y word in the chess problem pawn discussion has become taboo. It wasn't so originally and I find it quite pleasant sounding. It should still be innocently bracketed with bambino, wee bairn etc. which I assume are still ok.
Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:20 pmWell, nor were quite a few other words that now are?Paul Habershon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:50 amIt's such a pity that the p ... y word in the chess problem pawn discussion has become taboo. It wasn't so originally and I find it quite pleasant sounding. It should still be innocently bracketed with bambino, wee bairn etc. which I assume are still ok.
Even the N word started off as non-derogatory, and has regained that sense more than once, according to Wikipedia:Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:00 pmMatt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:20 pmWell, nor were quite a few other words that now are?Paul Habershon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:50 amIt's such a pity that the p ... y word in the chess problem pawn discussion has become taboo. It wasn't so originally and I find it quite pleasant sounding. It should still be innocently bracketed with bambino, wee bairn etc. which I assume are still ok.
It’s also worth asking if there was never any issue with the word or whether when we say “wasn’t so originally” we mean ‘across the board’ or ‘for a certain subset of people’
I agree with the decision to replace the headstone. The original wording only distracted from the message.John Upham wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:58 amHas anyone read this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-53446494
John
How would you answer the comments of historian James Holland?David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:10 pmI agree with the decision to replace the headstone. The original wording only distracted from the message.John Upham wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:58 amHas anyone read this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-l ... e-53446494
John
Some questions don't merit answers.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:23 pmThen wish away, Roger, but here's a question that's been raised and it would be better to address it than not.
That comment casts more light on this discussion than anything I could ever say.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:52 pmSome questions don't merit answers.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:23 pmThen wish away, Roger, but here's a question that's been raised and it would be better to address it than not.
A phrase concerning pots and kettles comes to mind there, Justin.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:21 pmThat comment casts more light on this discussion than anything I could ever say.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:52 pmSome questions don't merit answers.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:23 pmThen wish away, Roger, but here's a question that's been raised and it would be better to address it than not.
I'm not disputing that use of the word caused some offence but only to a small number of people and, even to them, not on the same scale as a racially-motivated physical or even verbal attack. In much the same way, I can see that "night watchman" will upset some cricket fans as sexist but I'd prefer those people "more empowered to speak up and challenge the discrimination" to speak up and challenge instead those abusing female cricketers.Brian Egdell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:05 pmI think it's wrong to suggest that the word, if encountered by a modern-day reader (or a reader in 1976 for that matter) for whom the connotations have personal relevance, would have remained largely unnoticed and caused little offence. The difference nowadays is that people feel more empowered to speak up and challenge the discrimination than they did 45 years ago.
Feeling empowered to speak up is an important issue. Not being shouted down by almost everyone when you do so is a key factor. I remember an incident in the early 1980s along similar lines. I can't link to any source, but from memory it was written by the editor of a major British chess magazine. The approximate details are as follows. An author had produced a children's chess book which used language clearly designed to make the game seem exciting to young people. It pitted the White and Black pieces as opposing armies and, unfortunately, used language along the lines of a race war, almost certainly unintentionally but nonetheless. A teacher who had acquired the book for use in their classroom called the author out publicly on their use of "racist" language in the book. The editor of the chess magazine reported on this and basically ridiculed the whistle-blower in no uncertain terms, calling the original book an "innocent frolic" and making the juvenile observation that the main teaching union's name was often abbreviated to NUT.
That incident occurred just a few years later than 1976 when the problem book referred to by Justin Horton was published. The era was dogged by a culture in which you could not call such (potential) racism out without suffering a major backlash. We need to make sure that we have moved on from that shutting-down culture of not allowing racism to be exposed for what it is, whether the racism is intentional or not.