Say What? I can't say "brown bag" or "citizen"?

[Jean in Newcastle]

http://now.msn.com/seattle-says-words-citizen-and-brown-bag-could-be-offensive

 

Text of article:

'Sorry Seattle residents, but citizens are no longer allowed to brown bag it, because city officials have decided that the words "citizen" and "brown bag" are offensive. The Office for Civil Rights has circulated a memo encouraging government employees to stop using those terms. Memo author Elliott Bronstein suggests using "residents," "sack lunch" or "lunch and learn" instead. (Because everyone will start asking co-workers "Are we hitting Subway or did you lunch and learn it today?") Bronstein says that brown bag could be misinterpreted as a reference to skin color, while citizen isn't inclusive enough. "A lot of people who live in Seattle aren't citizens but they are residents," he said. "[Citizens] doesn't include a lot of folks."'

[NatashainDFW]

This is downright silly. 

[myfunnybunch]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

[Melissa in Australia]

:lol:  :lol:

[mlbuchina]

That is so sad.  Makes me want to send him a memo back saying: Greetings fellow Citizen!  I decided to brown-bag it today.  How 'bout you?   :lol:

[Chris in VA]

That's so stupid. On top of everything else inane, if you live in Seattle you are a citizen of Seattle--does he mean they aren't citizens of the US?

 

This kind of idiocy really irks me. Find some corruption to clean up, or help the poor--anything productive. I loathe politicians who waste their time in office with this garbage.

[Jean in Newcastle]

According to the news, he's getting a lot of flak.  He's pretty defensive about it and is saying "it's just a suggestion"!  This is one time I didn't really mind the mild sarcasm coming from the news anchor. . . 

[LaxMom]

I was under the impression "brown bag" lunches referred to those brought from home in paper sacks different from the white ones required to be used by take-away food counters. Did I miss something?

[Parrothead]

Where is take away food required to be in a white bag?

[Laurie4b]

In the article that I read, it stated that apparently at some point those brown lunch bags were held up against skin and you had to be lighter than one to do xyz (can't recall what xyz were), which is why the official thought that term was potentially offensive..

 

I generally am in favor of people in the majority culture giving deference on things that have been and are hurtful to other ethnicities because I do think 1) we've been privileged and 2) it's easy to discount others' experience by running it through the grid of your own and 3) I think love requires putting others first. . The brown bag reference is a new one to me. I don't know what to think in this case. I am pretty much Scottish-English in ancestry and even I get darker than a lunch bag when I get tan. In fact, when working with kids on crafts that are about people, I often used brown bags as the "skin" because it's close to a lot of skin tones.

 

If a significant number of people in that area have that memory of brown bags being associated with racial discrimination and the term actually is hurtful, then I think it's reasonable for gov't employees to avoid terms with those connotations. However, like I said, I've never heard of it, so I don't know if that was perhaps based on an isolated complaint that he's generalizing from, or if it's more widespread.

 

There are some things that have racial connotations that I became aware of only as an adult through the news. One is that calling children "monkeys" could be racially offensive. I would have had no clue since my Scottish-English mother called us "little monkeys" all the time. It denoted a certain animated silly behavior or things like swinging upside down on the swingset, etc.  I learned it was racially charged when that Democratic council woman (can't recall her exact office) in PA (that's where I grew up) used it to tell a child to get out of a tree in her yard. The child was AA  and it hit the news. It came out that many African Americans had been the brunt of it being used in a racial way. So I try to remember not to use it now, even though for me it has no racial connotations. It's no big harm to me to try to change a word and if it is an expression that has a significant chance of hurting someone of a different ethnicity, I'd rather avoid hurting them than exercise my "right" to use the word.

 

Just some thoughts. I don't know what to think about brown bag yet. I'll wait to see whether that actually is a widespread connotation.

[Mom in High Heels]

Are you kidding me????  We're 2 weeks away from being there.  I must come up with some amazing brown bag lunches for James Bond to take to work. And I shall greet everyone I meet with "Hello, fellow Citizen!"  Oh, does this mean people can't say "White Christmas" either?  That sounds racist.  What about white bread or brown sugar?  Where does it all end???   :willy_nilly:  :willy_nilly:  :willy_nilly:

[Kelly1730]

Seriously? Don't these people have anything better to do than sit around and think up things like this?

[kewb]

I am unaware that I have been offensive all these years when I referred to my lunch that I brought to work in a brown paper lunch bag.  How many of them were offended when I picked up that brown paper lunch bag and proudly announced I was brown bagging it while heading to the lunch room?  Oh, the humanity.

 

However, if I am presented with evidence that this term is somehow racially charged I will stop using it.

 

As for citizen I really am unable to think of the last time I used it in a sentence when speaking with someone.  I feel I must use it next time I see someone.  Challenge accepted.

 

[Tess in the Burbs]

I thought he didn't want the words used in government documents....surely we can't ban entire common words from speaking!!!

[Zuzu822]

You are correct.  My friend Audrey wrote a book referencing it: http://www.amazon.com/The-Paper-Bag-Principle-Complexion/dp/1572334622

 

In the article that I read, it stated that apparently at some point those brown lunch bags were held up against skin and you had to be lighter than one to do xyz (can't recall what xyz were), which is why the official thought that term was potentially offensive..

 

I generally am in favor of people in the majority culture giving deference on things that have been and are hurtful to other ethnicities because I do think 1) we've been privileged and 2) it's easy to discount others' experience by running it through the grid of your own and 3) I think love requires putting others first. . The brown bag reference is a new one to me. I don't know what to think in this case. I am pretty much Scottish-English in ancestry and even I get darker than a lunch bag when I get tan. In fact, when working with kids on crafts that are about people, I often used brown bags as the "skin" because it's close to a lot of skin tones.

 

If a significant number of people in that area have that memory of brown bags being associated with racial discrimination and the term actually is hurtful, then I think it's reasonable for gov't employees to avoid terms with those connotations. However, like I said, I've never heard of it, so I don't know if that was perhaps based on an isolated complaint that he's generalizing from, or if it's more widespread.

 

There are some things that have racial connotations that I became aware of only as an adult through the news. One is that calling children "monkeys" could be racially offensive. I would have had no clue since my Scottish-English mother called us "little monkeys" all the time. It denoted a certain animated silly behavior or things like swinging upside down on the swingset, etc.  I learned it was racially charged when that Democratic council woman (can't recall her exact office) in PA (that's where I grew up) used it to tell a child to get out of a tree in her yard. The child was AA  and it hit the news. It came out that many African Americans had been the brunt of it being used in a racial way. So I try to remember not to use it now, even though for me it has no racial connotations. It's no big harm to me to try to change a word and if it is an expression that has a significant chance of hurting someone of a different ethnicity, I'd rather avoid hurting them than exercise my "right" to use the word.

 

Just some thoughts. I don't know what to think about brown bag yet. I'll wait to see whether that actually is a widespread connotation.

 

Edited because it's early and I can't type!

[Mom0012]

http://now.msn.com/seattle-says-words-citizen-and-brown-bag-could-be-offensive

 

Text of article:

'Sorry Seattle residents, but citizens are no longer allowed to brown bag it, because city officials have decided that the words "citizen" and "brown bag" are offensive. The Office for Civil Rights has circulated a memo encouraging government employees to stop using those terms. Memo author Elliott Bronstein suggests using "residents," "sack lunch" or "lunch and learn" instead. (Because everyone will start asking co-workers "Are we hitting Subway or did you lunch and learn it today?") Bronstein says that brown bag could be misinterpreted as a reference to skin color, while citizen isn't inclusive enough. "A lot of people who live in Seattle aren't citizens but they are residents," he said. "[Citizens] doesn't include a lot of folks."'

But couldn't "sack lunch" be misconstrued as reference to "getting in the sack" and leave people open to sexual harassment lawsuits? :)

[Jenny in Florida]

Okay, do I think this is a little silly? Yes. However, before everyone gets all up in arms, I would encourage you all to read more carefully what is actually being said.

 

No one is telling Seattle residents to stop using the word "citizen" or the phrase "brown bag." Instead, the memo encourages government employees to choose other terms.

 

Please note the phrasing:

 

"encourages"

"government employees"

 

The "brown bag" thing seems over the top to me, but maybe there actually have been questions or misunderstandings? I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt while mentally rolling my eyes at that one.

 

And "citizens" does have a specific meaning, which is not the same as "residents." Inviting all residents to an event is different (and more inclusive) than inviting all citizens. If what is intended is the first meaning, then I don't see why it's not better to use the right word.

 

Of course, plain old citizens (and residents) who are not government employees are free to continue to use whatever words they wish.

[Matryoshka]

Well, henceforth I shall endeavor to eschew the use of these terms when referencing my lunch packed in an ecru sack to the denizens of my locale.

 

"Citizen" also has that unfortunate association with the French Revolution.  It's amazing it wasn't purged from the language years ago.

[wintermom]

I think it's limiting to many people because this information written in a memo. There are residents (and probably some city staff) who cannot read. And what about those with no lunch, in a bag or otherwise. What about visitors to the fair city of Seattle, what do we refer to them as, and how about their lunch or non-lunch? I could go on and on, but when will the silliness end? :coolgleamA:  

[Halftime Hope]

http://youtu.be/KafY7Jna-P0http://youtu.be/KafY7Jna-P0

 

So if you watch this clip from 1:29 to 4:30  (don't waste your time with the whole thing, there's a lot of unsavory junk in the rest of the clip) you will see a very interesting bit of conversation in which Russell Brand very innocently offends a lady by using the word "monkey", and how he pleads with her for common sense, for not restricting our use of otherwise innocuous language when no harm is intended.

 

(The things you hear when you're in a strange town, in a rental car...)

 

His point is dead on, and I was proud of him for both 1) the courage to defend his principle,  and 2) the kindness with which he addressed the lady and tried to help her not see everything through the lens of racial insult.

 

ETA:   Prior to that car radio episode, I had no idea who Russell Brand was, since I live under a rock.  He's *not* a moral role model, but it's interesting that he's a closet intellectual (with an enviable mastery of vocabulary, when he's not "putting on" the low-brow accent) with--I think--a good heart and some common sense.   It's amusing that he frequently uses vocab and then defines it for people within the conversation.   :smilielol5:    

[Cinder]

:001_rolleyes:

[Hikin' Mama]

I may be dense, but what is "lunch and learn" supposed to mean?

[kroe1]

The more politically correct we try to become, the more impossible the challenge.

 

[Violet Crown]

I may be dense, but what is "lunch and learn" supposed to mean?

Since it was in a memo directed to employees, I strongly suspect it means "work during your lunch break."

[Caroline]

I may be dense, but what is "lunch and learn" supposed to mean?

 

Government agencies often have informational meetings for residents at lunch time. People bring their lunches and learn stuff.  For example, the health department might have a series of lunch and learns about childhood development. The SBA might have a series of lunch and learns about filing business taxes. The local college might have lunch and learns about financial aid. So instead of calling these brown bag meetings, it is being suggested that they are called lunch and learns since, in the past, people were not let into things if they had skin color darker than a brown bag. 

[KungFuPanda]

Did they ban just the word, or actual brown bags along with it? Are the residents now required to pay .30 more for the white lunch bags? Wouldn't that be segregation and lead to people protesting until brown bags are equally accepted at lunchtime? Are other colors racially insensitive too? Is it possible that government vehicles in Seattle can no longer be white, black, brown, red, or yellow?

 

I'll bet Seattle just LOVES that (probably) one government crack-pot has made them a national laughingstock.

[KungFuPanda]

Government agencies often have informational meetings for residents at lunch time. People bring their lunches and learn stuff. For example, the health department might have a series of lunch and learns about childhood development. The SBA might have a series of lunch and learns about filing business taxes. The local college might have lunch and learns about financial aid. So instead of calling these brown bag meetings, it is being suggested that they are called lunch and learns since, in the past, people were not let into things if they had skin color darker than a brown bag.

They do these around here for govt. employees. The term 'brown bag' is how everyone knows to bring their own lunch and that one isn't provided.

[Violet Crown]

Is there any contemporary evidence at all for this supposed "brown bag" test? This is something that is supposed to have been commonplace in the 20th century, but I can't find any contemporary account; only the bare claim that it used to happen, with citations to books or articles making the bare claim that it used to happen.

[Word Nerd]

Boulder changed the terminology in its city ordinances that refer to "pet owners"; now they're called "guardians."

[marbel]

Did they ban just the word, or actual brown bags along with it? Are the residents now required to pay .30 more for the white lunch bags?

 

:D

 

I would think that disposable lunch bags of any color would be frowned upon in Seattle.

 

 

(Said by a former Oregonian who loves and longs to return to the lovely PNW.)

 

 

[sparrow]

Um, apparently I'm the only person that finds the word "sack" far more offensive than *most* words.  :tongue_smilie:

[SKL]

Well, I agree that people need to understand the difference between citizen and resident, and be considerate about it.  Not because "citizen" is offensive, but it can sound exclusionary or just plain ignorant.

 

As for "brown bag," that's a new one on me.  Maybe it's a regional thing.

[Word Nerd]

Okay, do I think this is a little silly? Yes. However, before everyone gets all up in arms, I would encourage you all to read more carefully what is actually being said.

 

.

Most people are just calling it silly. Who's up in arms?

[Halftime Hope]

Boulder changed the terminology in its city ordinances that refer to "pet owners"; now they're called "guardians."

 

What in the world was wrong with "pet owners"? 

 

The government official in question should have used his dictionary before he made the pronouncement about citizen v. resident.   One would think that government officials would want to encourage the concept of the ownership qualities of a citizen of the city, as opposed to a resident-only mentality. 

[SKL]

As a person with many immigrant friends and colleagues, I can clearly see the citizen/resident issue.  "Pretty City is holding a health fair Monday at 6.  Free to all ____."  Fill in "residents" vs. "citizens" and if you're a visa or green card holder, it makes all the difference in the world.

 

As for "lunch and learn," being in the corporate world, that term is used quite often for a lunchtime training session (in-house or otherwise).  It's a bit condescending, but whatever.  I don't hear "brown-bag lunch" used for group meeting announcements much.  Mostly it's used by individuals who bring a lunch from home to work or school.

[OnTheBrink]

Pretty soon, crayolas will be completely outlawed. 

 

Red=Native Americans

Yellow=Asian

Green=Extra Terrestrials

Blue=Smurfs

Purple=Zombies

Orange=Oompa Loompas

Brown=Middle Eastern 

Black=African American

 

Where does the madness end?

 

(I hope people realize I'm being tongue-in-cheek here. No offense is intended towards anyone, except maybe Zombies)

[Violet Crown]

As a person with many immigrant friends and colleagues, I can clearly see the citizen/resident issue. "Pretty City is holding a health fair Monday at 6. Free to all ____." Fill in "residents" vs. "citizens" and if you're a visa or green card holder, it makes all the difference in the world.

 

As for "lunch and learn," being in the corporate world, that term is used quite often for a lunchtime training session (in-house or otherwise). It's a bit condescending, but whatever. I don't hear "brown-bag lunch" used for group meeting announcements much. Mostly it's used by individuals who bring a lunch from home to work or school.

Well, yes, if the context makes it clear both that "citizen" carries the restricted meaning of "US citizen," and that that usage is inappropriately exclusionary.

 

But "citizen" is a broader word than that. It can mean city-dweller or civilian:

 

"The words 'countryman ... villager', still signify a rude and untaught person, as opposed to the words 'townsman' and 'citizen'."

-Ruskin

 

"When he speaks not like a Citizen you find him like a soldier."

-Shakespeare

 

"O sing, all ye citizens of heav'n above."

-John Wade

 

By agreeing to avoid the word because (like all words) it can be used to give offense, we hobble our language and diminish the rich multiplicity of meaning that "citizen" has had in English by implying that its true or primary meaning is the narrow, bureaucratic and political one; and that even in that narrow sense, the word has no real use other than to cause offense.

[SKL]

Well, yes, if the context makes it clear both that "citizen" carries the restricted meaning of "US citizen," and that that usage is inappropriately exclusionary.

 

But "citizen" is a broader word than that. It can mean city-dweller or civilian:

 

"The words 'countryman ... villager', still signify a rude and untaught person, as opposed to the words 'townsman' and 'citizen'."

-Ruskin

 

"When he speaks not like a Citizen you find him like a soldier."

-Shakespeare

 

"O sing, all ye citizens of heav'n above."

-John Wade

 

By agreeing to avoid the word because (like all words) it can be used to give offense, we hobble our language and diminish the rich multiplicity of meaning that "citizen" has had in English by impying that its true or primary meaning is the narrow, bureaucratic and political one; and that even in that narrow sense, the word has no real use other than to cause offense.

 

But the memo referred to official government communications.  In that context, "citizen" does - or should - have a specific meeting.  It is pertinent.  If you are not a citizen (in the formal sense of the word) you need to know what applies to you and what doesn't.

[SKL]

I would have liked to see the actual letter without all the spin being added to it.  Did they actually say "citizen" is "offensive" or is it just unhelpful, inaccurate, confusing, and sometimes exclusionary?

[SKL]

I also think it isn't too much to ask a government employee to use accurate terms in documents that are going to be read by the public.

[Alessandra]

In the article that I read, it stated that apparently at some point those brown lunch bags were held up against skin and you had to be lighter than one to do xyz (can't recall what xyz were), which is why the official thought that term was potentially offensive..

 

I generally am in favor of people in the majority culture giving deference on things that have been and are hurtful to other ethnicities because I do think 1) we've been privileged and 2) it's easy to discount others' experience by running it through the grid of your own and 3) I think love requires putting others first. . The brown bag reference is a new one to me. I don't know what to think in this case. I am pretty much Scottish-English in ancestry and even I get darker than a lunch bag when I get tan. In fact, when working with kids on crafts that are about people, I often used brown bags as the "skin" because it's close to a lot of skin tones.

 

If a significant number of people in that area have that memory of brown bags being associated with racial discrimination and the term actually is hurtful, then I think it's reasonable for gov't employees to avoid terms with those connotations. However, like I said, I've never heard of it, so I don't know if that was perhaps based on an isolated complaint that he's generalizing from, or if it's more widespread.

 

There are some things that have racial connotations that I became aware of only as an adult through the news. One is that calling children "monkeys" could be racially offensive. I would have had no clue since my Scottish-English mother called us "little monkeys" all the time. It denoted a certain animated silly behavior or things like swinging upside down on the swingset, etc.  I learned it was racially charged when that Democratic council woman (can't recall her exact office) in PA (that's where I grew up) used it to tell a child to get out of a tree in her yard. The child was AA  and it hit the news. It came out that many African Americans had been the brunt of it being used in a racial way. So I try to remember not to use it now, even though for me it has no racial connotations. It's no big harm to me to try to change a word and if it is an expression that has a significant chance of hurting someone of a different ethnicity, I'd rather avoid hurting them than exercise my "right" to use the word.

 

Just some thoughts. I don't know what to think about brown bag yet. I'll wait to see whether that actually is a widespread connotation.

:iagree:

 

It's pretty easy to say resident and packed lunch. If words have threatening or shameful connotations to a significant number of people, I generally make an effort to avoid those words. When I think of some of the words my parents generation used for people of different races and religions and for people with certain handicaps, it makes me cringe. It reminds me of men who talk about the "girls" at the office and don't get that it could be offensive. As for myself, I remember visiting a Wampanoag village and using the word 'hut.' I was told (very politely) that 'home' was the preferred word. I have avoided 'hut' ever since; it's not a difficult thing to do.

 

My reaction is that I am glad to have a heads-up about these words.

[Dandelion]

It's clear the memo was an internal memo to government employees. But based on what we know so far, I still think it's ridiculous.  

 

Even if the brown bag has been used in a discriminatory fashion in the past (this thread is the first I've heard of that), the brown bag itself is not inherently discriminatory.   It is...a brown bag.  The easiest reference to a brown bag is...brown bag.  There are many everyday objects that have been used to hurt and discriminate against people throughout history. People of all colors and races. Does that mean we need to rename all of these objects or avoid using/referencing them at all?  

 

As for the word "citizens", that word has a specific legal meaning.  It is not discriminatory when used properly.  If something is intended just for citizens (as many things are), then it's the right word to use.  If something is for a broader group that includes non-citizens, by all means use the word "residents" or another word that accurately describes the target audience.  

 

IMO this is just another example of political correctness gone too far.  We supposedly live in a "post-racial society".  And yet, people (most notably government officials) keep looking for ways to prolong racial issues or dredge up racial division where none exists.  Plenty of African Americans I used to work with brought their lunch in a brown bag, and referred to it as such without any noticeable discomfort. 

[Violet Crown]

But the memo referred to official government communications. In that context, "citizen" does - or should - have a specific meeting. It is pertinent. If you are not a citizen (in the formal sense of the word) you need to know what applies to you and what doesn't.

I wasn't addressing the memo, but your posts.

 

ETA:

Well, I agree that people need to understand the difference between citizen and resident, and be considerate about it. Not because "citizen" is offensive, but it can sound exclusionary or just plain ignorant.

I don't agree that people need to understand the difference, because they're often - even usually - used synonymously. And I submit that whether words sound exclusionary or ignorant is very much shaped by things like bureaucratic announcements that they are shibboleths, even in limited contexts.

 

EagainTA: I don't mean to be picking on you, SKL, and this post on re-reading sounds harsher than I intended. I mean to say that I'm not so very interested in the memo that started all this, but concerned about the well-meaning but culturally destructive idea that a community should consciously diminish its language because a flurry of "news" items have suggested that some vague group of people are offended.

[SKL]

I do think the "brown bag" thing is probably over the top (unless they have a particularly unpleasant history with the word over there).  But it is just a word of convenience, not a descriptive term.  I would venture a guess that most "brown-baggers" use something other than a brown bag to bring their lunch.  A reusable container, a plastic grocery bag, a Chick-Fil-A bag saved from a recent kids' meal, . . . .  Brown lunch bags are too small for most adults' lunches anyway.

 

I assume someone complained and there must have been a reason for that.  I don't think that most people go through life looking for excuses to be offended.  I wonder how raw racism is over there, too.  That would make a difference IMO.  In my neck of the woods, where "minorities" are the majority and racism is hardly news, the brown bag thing would be ridiculed by people of all colors, I'm pretty sure.  Then again, I don't recall ever seeing the term in a government newsletter, so who knows?

[Word Nerd]

If words have threatening or shameful connotations to a significant number of people, I generally make an effort to avoid those words.

I assume most would agree. But is there any evidence that these words are threatening to anyone? The offense caused by "brown bag" is mostly imaginary. I don't see anything moral or right about shaming people or implying they are offensive or insensitive for using ordinary words and phrases innocuously and in exactly the way they are meant to be used. When people say "brown bag," they are almost always literally describing a brown bag--there is no deeper harmful meaning.

[SKL]

I wasn't addressing the memo, but your posts.

 

Well, my post (the one you replied to) was clearly talking about government communications.  Your response seems to be talking about all kinds of casual and literary uses of "citizen."  I don't necessarily agree with you on all that, either.  I mean, citizen has a specific meaning.  Especially nowadays when illegal immigration is such a hot topic.  "Why should we pay for benefits for non-citizens," "should we have an easier path to citizenship," etc.  Of course if you're writing poetry or something then you can say pretty much anything you want, but that's not what this is about.

[mlbuchina]

It's clear the memo was an internal memo to government employees. But based on what we know so far, I still think it's ridiculous.  

 

Even if the brown bag has been used in a discriminatory fashion in the past (this thread is the first I've heard of that), the brown bag itself is not inherently discriminatory.   It is...a brown bag.  The easiest reference to a brown bag is...brown bag.  There are many everyday objects that have been used to hurt and discriminate against people throughout history. People of all colors and races. Does that mean we need to rename all of these objects or avoid using/referencing them at all?  

 

As for the word "citizens", that word has a specific legal meaning.  It is not discriminatory when used properly.  If something is intended just for citizens (as many things are), then it's the right word to use.  If something is for a broader group that includes non-citizens, by all means use the word "residents" or another word that accurately describes the target audience.  

 

IMO this is just another example of political correctness gone too far.  We supposedly live in a "post-racial society".  And yet, people (most notably government officials) keep looking for ways to prolong racial issues or dredge up racial division where none exists.  Plenty of African Americans I used to work with brought their lunch in a brown bag, and referred to it as such without any noticeable discomfort. 

:iagree:  with the bold 100%, and would add people in the media to the list of most notably.

 

When are we going to start hearing people complain about crackers?   :leaving:    :lol:  :lol:

[SKL]

I don't agree that people need to understand the difference, because they're often - even usually - used synonymously. And I submit that whether words sound exclusionary or ignorant is very much shaped by things like bureaucratic announcements that they are shibboleths, even in limited contexts.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.  I was always taught that in writing, accuracy in word usage is desireable.  The exception would be if you were trying to make a point by using a different word.

 

Maybe there are people in the USA who will never need to know the difference between a resident and a citizen.  It sure doesn't hurt, though.  It's relevant when you travel.  It's relevant when you do your taxes.  It's relevant when you buy property, when you apply for many kinds of benefits, when you run for office.  It's relevant when you apply for a job and when you hire someone to do some work for you.  Eventually it may be relevant when you take your kid to the doctor.

 

In my opinion "citizen" is not an offensive word, but it should still be used accurately.

 

[Dandelion]

:iagree:  with the bold 100%, and would add people in the media to the list of most notably.

 

When are we going to start hearing people complain about crackers?   :leaving:    :lol:  :lol:

 

LOL.  I was debating posting something about crackers.  Unlike the (IMO extremely obscure) discriminatory usage of brown bag, a large number of people today actually know that "cracker" is used as a derogatory term, and it's even been in the news quite a bit recently.

[Violet Crown]

Well, my post (the one you replied to) was clearly talking about government communications. Your response seems to be talking about all kinds of casual and literary uses of "citizen." I don't necessarily agree with you on all that, either. I mean, citizen has a specific meaning. Especially nowadays when illegal immigration is such a hot topic. "Why should we pay for benefits for non-citizens," "should we have an easier path to citizenship," etc. Of course if you're writing poetry or something then you can say pretty much anything you want, but that's not what this is about.

We probably agree on a lot, and our areas of disagreement should give rise to healthy discussion. And I want to apologize for the tone of my post above (see the edit I added).

 

But I heartily disagree that English words have real or "specific" meanings, determined in part by the issues of the day or by bureaucratese, and less real meanings consisting of their use by English speakers in a variety of places, times, and contexts.