[Ads-l] newly "offensive" term

Wed Feb 14 19:52:51 UTC 2018

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 [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-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