[Ads-l] newly "offensive" term

Wed Feb 14 21:15:45 UTC 2018

Thank you.  This is an example of what I was looking for.

> 
> ----
> 
> "The term 'chain migration' has itself assumed vague racial undertones that imply Third World hordes clamoring at the gates."
> 
> Lochhead, Carolyn. "Senate Swayed by Analyst's Immigrant Count." San Francisco Chronicle, 20 June 2006, A1.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [Caution-mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Mullins
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 1:53 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADS-L] newly "offensive" term
> 
> Can anyone provide any citations that antedate Sen Durbin's comments of Jan
> 12 for someone asserting that "chain migration" is a racist term (or even a problematic one) because it calls to mind the slaves brought over
> in chains?
> Lots (hundreds and hundreds) of tweets containing "chain migration" + "racist term" since Jan 12; only a handful before then (and they don't
> make the connection between the term and slave chains).
> 
> For that matter, can anyone provide any citations for asserting "chain migration" is a problematic term for any reason at all before the
> Trump campaign?
> 
> I've looked reasonably hard (in detailed searches in ProQuest and other databases and archives), and am having trouble finding such.  And
> this makes me think that, given its long uncontroversial usage (the term being uncontroversial, not the actual immigration or the policies
> about it) when discussing immigration, that the term itself isn't particularly "totalitarian" or racist or otherwise bad, but that asserting that it
> is, is a way of showing that you don't like Trump's proposed immigration policies.
> As Peter has more eloquently suggested.
> 
> (and the idea that 10th grade German classes on the rhetoric of totalitarianism are a proper and appropriate touchstone for consideration
> of American usage of American terms being discussed on the listserv of the American Dialect Society seems a little, well, odd)
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Dialect Society [Caution-mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of Peter Reitan
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 6:42 PM
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: newly "offensive" term
> >
> >
> > My point was to express surprise at how obvious you found the sinister
> > connotation and evil rhetorical intent was.  It seemed very non-
> > obvious
> to me.
> >
> >
> > I am also surprised at your suggestion that it "couldn't possibly"
> > have the literal meaning I generally understand it to have, despite
> > your
> apparent openness to the possibility that it might have that meaning "on some literal level."
> >
> >
> > I generally have understood in in the more literal way, chain reaction
> > sense, as it has been used and understood for at least fifty years.
> > But of course the word is relatively new to me, so I just understood
> > it the way it sounded and was described.  I didn't think to consult my
> > 10th grade Nazi propoganda textbook - until, that is, I read other
> articles explaining the "real", non-obvious meaning to me.  But before the new meaning was revealed to me a few weeks ago, I generally
> understood it in line with its non-controversial use over the past several decades, to describe chain reaction in immigration where one
> migration leads to another and then another like links in a chain.
> >
> >
> > In the 1950s, "chain migration" was used to describe white families
> > moving into the Northern suburbs of Chicago in the face of black
> > families
> moving into the southeastern portion of North Chicago:
> >
> >
> > Chicago Tribune, April 24, 1955, page E 6. "A chain migration - from
> > the Loop northward - is taking place on the north side and into the
> > north suburbs, accelerating the suburban growth, the survey indicates.
> > As minority groups push northward into the southeastern part of the
> > north
> area - . . . the middle income families in this area are moving north and northwestward, replacing larger income families who resided on the
> northern outskirts of the city."
> >
> > [END]
> >
> >
> > In 1963, Charles Price used the term in a book about the patterns of
> > Southern European immigration into Australia, as described in an
> > article
> about the book and its findings in an Australian newspaper:
> >
> >
> > Sydney Morning Herald, September 2, 1963, page 2. "Why should almost
> > half the southern European population of Sydney and Melbourne during
> > the 1930s and 1940s have been engaged in small catering businesses -
> > cafes, milk bars, fruit shops and fish shops? . . . National character
> > and tradition may . . . have played a part, but the pheonomenon owed
> > as
> much, if not more, to chain migrtion.  'The strong tendency for those coming out with the aid of friends and relatives to adopt the same
> occupations as their sponsors,' writes Dr. Price, 'can mean that a few large migration chains dominate the settlement pattern of a whole
> nationality.'"
> >
> > [END]
> >
> >
> > In 1985, the expression was used to describe Greek immigration to Hawaii:
> >
> >
> > Honolulu Star-Bulletin, February 19, 1985, page 12. "The Greeks began
> > migrating to Hawaii through "chain migration."  Chain migration is a
> phenomena which occurs when one family member settles in an area and begins sending for relatives."
> >
> > [END]
> >
> >
> > Again in 1985, the expression was used during the debate surrounding
> > what would become the Reagan "amnesty".  This one, I guess, most
> > closely
> describes how I understand it, and how I understand it when I hear it used in the Caution-Caution-news:
> >
> >
> > Camden [NJ] Courier-Post, June 4, 1985, page 10.  "Past amnesty
> > proposals have drawn considerable opposition from a broad spectrum of
> > Americans because they would reward lawbreakers, be unfair to those
> > who wait to come in legally, raise the prospect of future amnesty
> programs, and set off a patern of chain migration.  Millions of legalized aliens, once citizenship is gained, could petition to bring in relatives,
> who once they become citizens, could seek admission of their relatives."
> >
> > [END]
> >
> >
> > During the 1990s, the expression was used in conjunction with
> > recommendations by the U. S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired
> > by
> former Democratic congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan:
> >
> >
> > Anniston [Alabama] Star, June 8, 1995, page 8.  "Jordan said the
> > commission's plan was the only way to reunite the nuclear families of
> legal residents, and Smith added that it will end "chain migration" by the extended families of immigrants."
> >
> > [END]
> >
> >
> > So, yeah, I was surprised that the new, meaning based on a supposed
> connotation with rhetorical value was considered so obvious.
> > Ironically, however, those who probably get the most rhetorical value
> > from
> the sinister interpretation are those who oppose reform.
> >
> >
> > I think the Nazis have a word that describes the intentional twisting
> > of the obvious, well-established, natural, neutral meaning of a term
> > into
> something sinister in order to influence their minions into disliking the object of their derision while avoiding a substantive policy debate.
> > Uebermeinungaenderungvergnuegen, perhaps?
> >
> >
> > But I could be wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on behalf of
> > Chris Waigl <chris at LASCRIBE.NET>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 2:29 PM
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: newly "offensive" term
> >
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       Chris Waigl <chris at LASCRIBE.NET>
> > Subject:      Re: newly "offensive" term
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Peter Reitan <pjreitan at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > "Instantly stood out"?
> > >
> >
> >  Yes, that's what I wrote. Is it unclear?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Because it couldn't possibly mean that one person lets in one close
> > > relative, who then lets in another close relative, who then lets in
> > > an in-law, who then lets in someone three degreesremoved from the
> > > first person - like a series of links in a chain.
> > >
> > >
> > No, it couldn't mean that, for two reasons. The first is that the
> > figure
> that accompanied the term was that of a tree structure.
> > The Nazi term Überfremdung sprang to mind; second, because that's not
> > how
> immigration works.
> >
> > And even if it "meant" that on some literal level, there's connotation
> > and
> rhetorical value.
> >
> > Chris
> > unclear what your point is TBH
> >
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org