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

[Violet Crown]

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.

 

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

 

Where do I go to find out the accurate meaning of the word "citizen"?

[Jean in Newcastle]

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?

As far as I'm aware, there have not been any specific local or regional reasons why "brown bag" would be particularly offensive.  This area has been in my experience a fairly inclusive and non-racist area.  There are some exceptions to that, of course, but I'm speaking on what I see on a continuum.  

 

My opinion about the "brown bag" comment is that when it has to be explained by the news anchor to the people watching the news for them to even understand why it might be an issue, then it is a non-issue and the explanation does more harm than good because now it is creating an association where there wasn't one in the first place.  

[sparrow]

This made me recall that when I worked in IT at the University of Michigan there used to be "Brown Baggers",  announced through e-mail, where all the techies were invited to eat lunch and learn some new stuff.  I thought, "How twee. Brown Baggers" and never gave it another thought.  I just found it interesting, since the University of Michigan is well versed in discrimination issues, and had a discrimination case go to the US Supreme Court, they didn't have a problem with Brown Bag.

[jelbe5]

I only have a problem with brown bags when the citizens have bottles in them. :-)

[Halftime Hope]

SKL wrote, "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."

 

To my knowledge, there are no requirements or restrictions for citizenship within a local community.  Some dictionaries seem to indicate that citizen is equivalent to resident in local communities, but others indicate that citizenship implies both rights and responsibilities.  That is why I said that, were I part of local government, I'd want local residents to aspire to be local citizens.

 

If the community's gov't employees are talking about citizens of the community, then it encompasses all who live there, regardless of their nationality.   If they are talking about citizen of the U. S. then it does have a restrictive, exclusionary meaning.

 

The government official might have been well-served by thinking more before writing the memo.

[SKL]

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.

 

Well maybe it's the fact that I'm a lawyer, tax professional, and applicant for government benefits (on others' behalf) that makes me a little legalistic about uses of words in government communications.  Or maybe it's the fact that the majority of people in my household were not born US citizens, and will always have to jump through different hoops even though they now are citizens.  When you have to fill out a visa application for your foreign-born kid and her application package is 20x as thick as your own, you notice these things.

[SKL]

Where do I go to find out the accurate meaning of the word "citizen"?

 

I'm sure the definition is available on many government websites, because "are you a citizen" is a question on many government forms.  Try IRS.gov for one.

 

Or you could try a 9th grade civics book for starters.

 

[Dandelion]

This made me recall that when I worked in IT at the University of Michigan there used to be "Brown Baggers",  announced through e-mail, where all the techies were invited to eat lunch and learn some new stuff.  I thought, "How twee. Brown Baggers" and never gave it another thought.  I just found it interesting, since the University of Michigan is well versed in discrimination issues, and had a discrimination case go to the US Supreme Court, they didn't have a problem with Brown Bag.

 

Exactly.  When I worked for Intel Corporation (a company that is very progressive in terms of ensuring an inclusive, non-discriminatory workplace and has been recognized for its diversity programs), we regularly had "Brown Bag Lunches".  They were lunch-time workshops or seminars on different topics to which employees brought their own lunch.

[SKL]

SKL wrote, "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."

 

To my knowledge, there are no requirements or restrictions for citizenship within a local community.  Some dictionaries seem to indicate that citizen is equivalent to resident in local communities, but others indicate that citizenship implies both rights and responsibilities.  That is why I said that, were I part of local government, I'd want local residents to aspire to be local citizens.

 

If the community's gov't employees are talking about citizens of the community, then it encompasses all who live there, regardless of their nationality.   If they are talking about citizen of the U. S. then it does have a restrictive, exclusionary meaning.

 

The government official might have been well-served by thinking more before writing the memo.

 

Many US government services are administered at the local level.

 

It may not matter to you if you have always been a citizen of the US, but why not make things clearer for those who have not?  It doesn't cost anything.  And I see nothing wrong with a heads-up to government employees to be accurate for clarity's sake.

 

I'm not sure there actually is such a thing as legal "citizenship" of a local community.  That is not something I have run across.  I have seen "members of the community" when there is an intention to be inclusive of everyone there.  And I've seen "resident" when there isn't (e.g., access to membership at our local rec center).

[Violet Crown]

Well maybe it's the fact that I'm a lawyer, tax professional, and applicant for government benefits (on others' behalf) that makes me a little legalistic about uses of words in government communications. Or maybe it's the fact that the majority of people in my household were not born US citizens, and will always have to jump through different hoops even though they now are citizens. When you have to fill out a visa application for your foreign-born kid and her application package is 20x as thick as your own, you notice these things.

I have a couple of qualifications for this discussion also. :) And at the risk of repeating myself, I haven't been addressing government communications; nor did I understand your posts (among others) as limiting the discussion to such communications. I fully expect "government communications" (in real English, we say "writings") to be sinkholes of jargon, bureaucratese, puffery, and confused verbosity, and only bestir myself to resent their assaults on English when they start to persuade perfectly nice people that such "communications" are the guardians of Accurate English, while the rest of us are limping along in ordinary conversation with no real idea of what our native language means.

 

I don't know quite how to address your more personal observation. I hadn't been intending to raise any sort of ad hominem argument. But I would think that those who are foreign-born deserve, just as much as the natives, to inherit this country's language in a non-crippled condition.

[Violet Crown]

I'm sure the definition is available on many government websites, because "are you a citizen" is a question on many government forms. Try IRS.gov for one.

 

Or you could try a 9th grade civics book for starters.

 

Silly me. I was looking in the OED.

[SKL]

...That is why I said that, were I part of local government, I'd want local residents to aspire to be local citizens....

 

Certainly many of them aspire to be local citizens, but it is not a possibility for many of them.  The implication that non-citizens don't care enough to become citizens is unfortunate IMO.

 

[Hikin' Mama]

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.

Aha! Thank you for teaching me my new thing for the day. :)

[Chris in VA]

http://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+citizen&rlz=1Y3NDUG_enUS516US520&oq=definition+of+citizen&client=tablet-android-asus-nexus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8

 

Using the word to mean "inhabitant of a particular place" is correct. Why not allow language some depth instead of trying to dumb everything down?

[unsinkable]

 

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

 

Zombies were people, too.

 

:lol:

[Dandelion]

Zombies were people, too.

 

:lol:

 

Yes, but once you are undead, do you retain your citizenship or do you become merely a resident?  :D

[SKL]

http://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+citizen&rlz=1Y3NDUG_enUS516US520&oq=definition+of+citizen&client=tablet-android-asus-nexus&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8

 

Using the word to mean "inhabitant of a particular place" is correct. Why not allow language some depth instead of trying to dumb everything down?

 

It can mean that in certain casual contexts (especially in the past), but the context here is government communications (and I think they mean written communications specifically).

 

So would you say that everyone living in the border states (with Mexico) is a "citizen" of whatever place they inhabit?  Maybe even then in certain contexts it would make sense, as in "the citizens of the town are protesting the layoff of 25 firemen."

 

I just don't see the harm here when we're talking about government communications.  We generally want them to be clear/accurate, not poetic.  I don't see how using the word "residents" instead of "citizens" is going to ruin the city's quality of life.

[SKL]

I do think undead who used to be citizens should still be considered citizens.  I've never heard of a law to the contrary.  :)

[SKL]

Then again, has anyone made sure that "undead" is not offensive or is even accurate?  Shouldn't it be "previously dead" or something?

[Dandelion]

I do think undead who used to be citizens should still be considered citizens.  I've never heard of a law to the contrary.  :)

 

I agree. But I'm appalled that the rights of the undead have yet to be codified into our laws.   :tongue_smilie:

[Dandelion]

 

Then again, has anyone made sure that "undead" is not offensive or is even accurate?  Shouldn't it be "previously dead" or something?

 

You're right - that needs to be considered.  Let's have a Brown Bag...errr, I mean Lunch and Learn to discuss that. 

[unsinkable]

Then again, has anyone made sure that "undead" is not offensive or is even accurate?  Shouldn't it be "previously dead" or something?

 

In the book Raising Stony Mayhall, they suggest calling themselves "living challenged."

[mom2scouts]

I hate political correctness and causing people to fear that every innocent statement they make could offend someone. That kind of suggestion causes people to walk on eggshells around people who are different than themselves and only magnifies differences. I refuse to spend my life censoring every bit of speech because someone might take it the wrong way. As far as I'm concerned, all the citizens of Seattle, including government employees, can brown bag it anytime they want.

[Dandelion]

In the book Raising Stony Mayhall, they suggest calling themselves "living challenged."

 

LOL  :lol:

[Chris in VA]

It can mean that in certain casual contexts (especially in the past), but the context here is government communications (and I think they mean written communications specifically).

 

So would you say that everyone living in the border states (with Mexico) is a "citizen" of whatever place they inhabit? Maybe even then in certain contexts it would make sense, as in "the citizens of the town are protesting the layoff of 25 firemen."

 

I just don't see the harm here when we're talking about government communications. We generally want them to be clear/accurate, not poetic. I don't see how using the word "residents" instead of "citizens" is going to ruin the city's quality of life.

I'm saying it IS accurate. I don't think using residents is any more accurate. I think it shows a lack of education to have a narrow vocabulary, and I would like to have a gov't that doesn't dumb everything down.

As far as the Big Picture, sure, it doesn't "matter" and I'm not overly concerned. It's more of a pet peeve, I guess. Except, it would be nice if the country didn't automatically leap to the conclusion that we are all simpletons who can't figure out that some words have more than one meaning or connotation. Maybe it's a product of schooling. (:-) )

[SKL]

I'm saying it IS accurate. I don't think using residents is any more accurate. I think it shows a lack of education to have a narrow vocabulary, and I would like to have a gov't that doesn't dumb everything down.

Being precise is the opposite of "dumbing it down" IMO, especially in contexts where it matters.

 

If you were NOT a citizen from a legal standpoint, you would want to know whether or not a government communication applies to you.  If it says "citizen" when it means "resident," noncitizens will (a.) have to ask individually for clarity, or (b.) miss an opportunity, based on the assumption that "citizen" means legal citizen, or just because it isn't worth the trouble and potential embarrassment of asking.  Either way, government resources don't end up getting spent as originally intended.

 

Being a resident is completely different from being a citizen, though you can be both at the same time.  (Kinda like you can be both a female and a human.)  To be allowed to swim in a local pool, I have to bring a copy of my utility bill to prove my butt resides here.  To be legally hired for a job, I show proof of citizenship, i.e. my passport, which doesn't even have my address on it.  When I fly home from abroad, I go to the "US Citizen" line in immigration; there is no "US Resident" line.  But when my non-citizen friends file their taxes, they file as residents even though they are not citizens.  (And citizens abroad have to file even though they are not residents.)  There really is no confusion over the difference between a citizen and a resident in the sense that the government cares about.  "Dumbing it down" would be what I'd call an insistence on using the words interchangeably.

[vonfirmath]

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.

 

Agreed. I worked for a engineering company in the Seattle area.

 

"Lunch and learn" meant that the meeting was on the lunch hour and a lunch would be provided if you were attending.

 

"Brown bag" meant to bring your own lunch.

[Arcadia]

If you were NOT a citizen from a legal standpoint, you would want to know whether or not a government communication applies to you

I agree. As a resident alien, I can't vote for my school board members and we tend to get lip service because of that. When a document says "citizen", I assume there is voting involved. When it says "resident", I know all I need is my DMV id to partake in the event.

 

ETA:

While I know what "brown bag" means, I have now heard it used here. We hear "to go" or "packed lunch" for work, and "bring your own lunch" or "have something to eat before you come" for casual non-work meetings.

[Laurie4b]

I hate political correctness and causing people to fear that every innocent statement they make could offend someone. That kind of suggestion causes people to walk on eggshells around people who are different than themselves and only magnifies differences. I refuse to spend my life censoring every bit of speech because someone might take it the wrong way. As far as I'm concerned, all the citizens of Seattle, including government employees, can brown bag it anytime they want.

 

What you've written here expresses the views of many people. IOW, I'm quoting you but this is not directed at you, okay? This is just another side of the issue, a different perspective.

 

If a person in this country is part of the majority culture (currently predominately white culture), everything just "fits". IIt's hard for folks who are white to notice white culture because it is all around them. Often it just seems "normal" and any adjusting we're asked to do seems an imposition.

 

On the other hand, people from various nonmajority cultures have to adjust their words, actions, etc. to fit the majority culture. This is the way it is for them. They are adjusting constantly. They have their way of interacting in the majority culture and get home to family and friends of their same culture and have a second way of interacting that feels normal.

 

As a white person, I don't adjust to the majority culture; it's the way I was brought up. For instance, being on time means hitting the time within 5 minutes with a grace period of up to 15 min. And it's rude to do anything else, the way I was brought up. Come to find, there are actually other ways to look at time, ones that might say, "It's rude to cut off the current activity and interactions with people you are having in order to get to the next activity." In other cultural frameworks, being "on time" can be within an hour or so for this reason. 

 

So one could say that nonmajority cultures already have adjusted to being majority-correct, walking on eggshells and censoring their speech lest they violate the white culture's sense of being on time, volume of speech/laughter, acceptable words and phrases, manners, etc.

 

So any time I, as a white person, have to make an adjustment to what I'm used to, and it bugs me (and sometimes it does bug me), I'm just getting a taste of what nonmajority folks have been doing all along--adjusting to cultural values that are different than what they grew up with--and I am absolutely talking about people born and raised in the US, not just recent immigrants. But there are cultural differences often based on ethnicity.  Does that make sense?

 

It's worth noting that white culture will not be the majority culture very much longer. We're already in a transition period.

[LucyStoner]

The memo writer means well. It's Seattle. When in Rome.

 

Seattle is not post-racial city or one without racial tension (no American city is really). Seattle has recently been under federal oversight over racial factors in excessive police force complaints, including the shocking shooting death of a known harmless native american man. I think making a deal over this is silly. Though maybe we will get the privilege of seeing Pete Holmes go all Seattle nice smack down on Fox News again, like we did when they were making a big deal over a different city memo on non-discrimination.

[LMA]

Another example of trying to be "inoffensive" with freedoms being taken away. This is censorship. I love how everyone tries to be PC about racial words, but cuss words are said so freely. 

[marbel]

If a person in this country is part of the majority culture (currently predominately white culture), everything just "fits". IIt's hard for folks who are white to notice white culture because it is all around them. Often it just seems "normal" and any adjusting we're asked to do seems an imposition.

 

On the other hand, people from various nonmajority cultures have to adjust their words, actions, etc. to fit the majority culture. This is the way it is for them. They are adjusting constantly. They have their way of interacting in the majority culture and get home to family and friends of their same culture and have a second way of interacting that feels normal.

 

 

Anyone who moves around at all, either within one country or throughout the world, has adjustments to make as they enter a different culture.

 

When my family moved from Oregon to Philadelphia, we had to adjust certain expectations of how people do things, we had to learn new words and new pronunciations of familiar place names (the "w" in Keswick is not silent as it is in the UK and as I had always pronounced it), and deal with other cultural differences (most pretty minor).  When we traveled in the UK, we also had to adjust to the majority culture. I quickly learned, while shopping for my son, to say "trousers" rather than "pants."   I only tipped in a pub once before remembering that that isn't done there - but the odd look I received still stung.

 

If I was to move to a culture where being on time meant anywhere within an hour of the stated time, I would have to learn not to get frustrated when it seemed people were late, because according to their cultural norms, they wouldn't be late at all. 

 

There's nothing racial about it (or there doesn't have to be).  But of course people are going to adjust to the dominant culture.  I don't know why that would be considered a bad thing. 

 

ETA: that doesn't make it OK to be rude to intentionally hurtful to someone.

[mom2scouts]

I've lived in racially diverse neighborhoods my entire adult life and I live in a University community that has one of the largest international student percentages of any school in the country. I meet people from many different cultures. It works far better to talk, learn, and even laugh about cultural differences rather than trying to avoid anything that might offend someone. I still maintain that this memo is silly political correctness.

[Catwoman]

I can not, for the life of me, imagine why anyone would believe that this entire thing is anything but silly, unnecessary, and ridiculous. 

 

I am so sick and tired of political correctness, once again, being taken way over the top, and the Seattle Office of Civil Rights should be ashamed of themselves for trying to start controversy and establish divisiveness where absolutely none existed until they wrote their idiotic memo. Don't they have anything better to do with their time than worry about the potential major social and racial crisis that will undoubtedly be incited the next time someone brown bags their lunch? .....or perhaps they're just trying to drum up some business for their department.   ;)

 

 

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

 

:rolleyes:   :rolleyes:   :rolleyes:

 

I guess a lot of irate pets must have petitioned the city government or something. :D

[Halftime Hope]

Certainly many of them aspire to be local citizens, but it is not a possibility for many of them.  The implication that non-citizens don't care enough to become citizens is unfortunate IMO.

 

but SKL, that's my point, if you look at all my posts.  Anyone can be a local citizen, there are no restrictions or qualifications other than living in a location.  There are only restrictions on national citizenship.  

 

That distinction aside, to some of us, and this is verified in some of the dictionary definitions, citizenship involves a sense of accepting both the responsibilities and the obligations of being a citizen.   If I call myself a citizen of my suburb, there are no legal qualification that must be met, but I am going to expect to guard and protect and care for my suburb, adding my gifts and talents to make it a better place, as well as reading the benefits of living here just like residents do.   

[Lisbeth]

I hate political correctness and causing people to fear that every innocent statement they make could offend someone. That kind of suggestion causes people to walk on eggshells around people who are different than themselves and only magnifies differences. I refuse to spend my life censoring every bit of speech because someone might take it the wrong way. As far as I'm concerned, all the citizens of Seattle, including government employees, can brown bag it anytime they want.

Yes!! I wish people who are so easily faux-offended realized how insecure and weak they come across.

[justamouse]

I will now use Citizen and Brow Bag in every sentence I utter. I will work it in there if it's the most convoluted sentence you ever heard. 

 

They should all be glad I'm not a CITIZEN of Seattle, or I'd be standing on a corner with a bullhorn and saying Brown Bag and Citizen all day long.

I'll say it's free speech, they'll say it's hate speech and I'd love to see how that one held up in court. 

[aggieamy]

I will now use Citizen and Brow Bag in every sentence I utter. I will work it in there if it's the most convoluted sentence you ever heard. 

 

They should all be glad I'm not a CITIZEN of Seattle, or I'd be standing on a corner with a bullhorn and saying Brown Bag and Citizen all day long.

 

I'll say it's free speech, they'll say it's hate speech and I'd love to see how that one held up in court. 

 

Hear hear!  I agree with the remarks that citizen made and now if you excuse me I have to go and see what is in this brown bag DH brought to me for dinner.

[Jenny in Florida]

And at the risk of repeating myself, I haven't been addressing government communications; nor did I understand your posts (among others) as limiting the discussion to such communications.

Then, I'm not sure what the relevance of your comments is to this discussion, since the memo in question was addressed to government employees.

[Violet Crown]

I was addressing comments made in the course of the discussion.

[Jenny in Florida]

Another example of trying to be "inoffensive" with freedoms being taken away.

 

Excuse me, but I fail to understand how a simple memo, encouraging -- not requiring, but encouraging -- government employees -- not the public at large, but government employees -- to use language that is clearer and/or more inclusive is "taking away freedoms?"

[Jenny in Florida]

I will now use Citizen and Brow Bag in every sentence I utter. I will work it in there if it's the most convoluted sentence you ever heard. 

 

They should all be glad I'm not a CITIZEN of Seattle, or I'd be standing on a corner with a bullhorn and saying Brown Bag and Citizen all day long.

 

I'll say it's free speech, they'll say it's hate speech and I'd love to see how that one held up in court.

Actually, I suspect you'd be pretty much ignored (or written off as a crank), since all we're talking about is a memo, addressed not to the general public but to government employees, discouraging but not forbidding the use of certain words or phrases.

 

I hardly think this is cause for public demonstration.

[Jenny in Florida]

Yes!! I wish people who are so easily faux-offended realized how insecure and weak they come across.

I think that may be a knife that cuts both ways.

[BigMamaBird]

Another example of trying to be "inoffensive" with freedoms being taken away. This is censorship. I love how everyone tries to be PC about racial words, but cuss words are said so freely. 

 

THANK YOU!!!!

[Dandelion]

I just researched the brown bag issue a bit more.  Throughout this discussion, I was assuming that the brown bag test had been a method used by white people to discriminate against people with brown or black skin.  

 

In fact, it appears that it was primarily a way that African Americans discriminated against each other. I don't normally cite Wikipedia, but this entry appears to be well-researched and documented.

 

 

Brown paper bag test

 

The phrase “brown paper bag test†has traditionally been used by African Americans throughout the twentieth and twenty-first century with reference to a ritual once practiced by certain African-American sororities and fraternities who would not let anyone into the group whose skin tone was darker than a paper bag.^[22] Also known as a paper bag party, these lighter-skinned social circles reflected an idea of exclusion and exclusiveness. The notion of the “paper bag†has carried a complex and obscure meaning in black communities for many decades.^[22] The reason for the usage of the "paper bag" is because the color of the paper bag is considered to be the "center" marker of blackness that distinguishes “light skin†from “dark skin†on a continuum stretching infinitely from black to white.^[22] Also, the brown paper bag is believed to act as a benchmark for certain levels of acceptance and inclusion.^[22] Spike Lee's film School Daze satirized this practice at historically black colleges and universities.^[23] Along with the "paper bag test," guidelines for acceptance among the lighter ranks included the "comb test" and “pencil test,†which tested the coarseness of one's hair, and the "flashlight test," which tested a person's profile to make sure their features measured up or were close enough to those of the Caucasian race.^[22]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color

[Ravin]

I get the point of the "citizen" one. Cities don't have "citizens", they have "residents", not all of whom are citizens of the United States, so "residents" is properly inclusive of everyone living in the city.

 

But I do NOT get the "brown bag" thing. I have never heard it as in any way shape or form a reference to skin color. I suppose I haven't heard them all, of course, but that just strikes me as ridiculous.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Applying a reference that black sororities used in a certain negative context to a totally different context in which the brown bag is used appropriately and generically to transport a lunch doesn't make sense.  That would make as much sense as telling city employees not to wear neckties because at one point hangings/lynchings were called "necktie parties".  The brown bag lunches did not have a negative connotation in and of themselves.  

 

I do agree that in some contexts "residents" might make more sense and be more inclusive.  

[unsinkable]

I think some government employees have a bit too much time on their hands...

I just saw a news brief about tornados in CO... But i guess not near uou?

[SKL]

Just curious - when was the last time (before this thread) that any of us members used the term "citizen" to refer to residents of a city who may or may not be citizens of the USA?  It's certainly not a word I use in that context, ever.

[Laurie4b]

Anyone who moves around at all, either within one country or throughout the world, has adjustments to make as they enter a different culture.

 

When my family moved from Oregon to Philadelphia, we had to adjust certain expectations of how people do things, we had to learn new words and new pronunciations of familiar place names (the "w" in Keswick is not silent as it is in the UK and as I had always pronounced it), and deal with other cultural differences (most pretty minor).  When we traveled in the UK, we also had to adjust to the majority culture. I quickly learned, while shopping for my son, to say "trousers" rather than "pants."   I only tipped in a pub once before remembering that that isn't done there - but the odd look I received still stung.

 

If I was to move to a culture where being on time meant anywhere within an hour of the stated time, I would have to learn not to get frustrated when it seemed people were late, because according to their cultural norms, they wouldn't be late at all. 

 

There's nothing racial about it (or there doesn't have to be).  But of course people are going to adjust to the dominant culture.  I don't know why that would be considered a bad thing. 

 

ETA: that doesn't make it OK to be rude to intentionally hurtful to someone.

 

It's not a bad thing. I'm pointing out that different ethnicities adjust to the dominant white culture in the US and yes, whites who move around may have to make some adjustments, too. However, when people start getting peeved about political correctness, there is often a nonmajority ethnicity involved that the majority is being asked to adjust some part of their speech usually.  it doesn't seem like it should be a huge big deal. Just a small bit of reciprocation of what the other group has done all along. It's not that big a deal to adjust a few words or phrases or whatever especially to be make someone else more comfortable.