[Ads-l] newly "offensive" term

[Wilson Gray]

> I'm not sure what to make of the suggestion that the term is especially
offensive to African-Americans.

Perhaps it's just a black thing that you wouldn't understand. No offense.🤡

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Baker, John <JBAKER at stradley.com> wrote:

> Most discussion of "chain migration" (in the contemporary sense) is
> relatively recent, so you wouldn't expect criticisms of the term to be too
> old.  I do see a letter to the Baltimore Sun from 12/28/2017:  "I am
> disappointed and a little bit nauseated to read your uncritical use of the
> dehumanizing, racist, and ad hoc term "chain migration"."
>
> Then there is this more reasoned characterization from the American
> Immigration Lawyers Association, in a policy brief posted on 1/8/2018,
> http://www.aila.org/infonet/aila-policy-brief-the-value-
> of-family-based-immig:  "The term "chain migration" is a myth designed to
> scare the public. The reality is that family-based visas are only available
> to a limited group of close family members, and most of them are subjected
> to wait times of many years, often decades, before a visa even becomes
> available. The chain migration myth perpetuates falsehoods about the
> realities faced by families who wish to be reunited in the United States,
> and it feeds upon nativist claims that immigrants are taking over the
> country."
>
> The arguments for and against the current family-based immigration
> policies are complex and probably best not addressed here, but I think the
> AILA is certainly correct that "chain migration" is a pejorative term
> intended to appeal to nativists as a criticism of persons who have
> immigrated to the United States.  It's always been used negatively and has
> never been intended as a neutral term.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of the suggestion that the term is especially
> offensive to African-Americans.  Clearly no reference to physical chains,
> or for that matter to African-Americans, is intended.  More generally, what
> should we do with terms that are intended inoffensively, or at least (as in
> this case) without offense to the specific audience, but as to which
> offense is taken?  In years past we have discussed "niggardly."  Another
> example is "Eskimo," which many Canadian Inuit find offensive, largely due
> to the false belief that it is historically pejorative.  Actually, "Eskimo"
> is the only established term that refers to both Inuit (who live in Canada,
> Greenland, and Alaska) and Yupik (who live in Alaska and eastern Siberia),
> and Alaskan Eskimos do not find it offensive.  But I suppose if you are in
> Canada it is probably best to avoid the term.
>
>
> John Baker
>
>
>
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of Bill Mullins
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 2:53 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: 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 [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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



-- 
-Wilson
-----
All say, "How hard it is that we have to die!"---a strange complaint to
come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
-Mark Twain

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