Jew's Harp

[watervole]

I was taking a random stroll around the web, looking up the definitions of obscure phrases and found another entry for Jew's harp.  As the definition says that they were probably sold or imported by Jews, I shall consider this a non-defamatory use of the word 'Jew' and use that name rather than the alternative 'jaw's harp'.  (I dislike it when words are changed for PC reasons without even checking to see if the usage is actually intended to be offensive.  It actually removes positive versions of words.)




Anyway, I digress.  I've never heard anyone get a decent sound out of a Jew's harp, so I took a hunt on YouTube and found this guy!

Comments

[makyo.livejournal.com]

I've never heard anyone get a decent sound out of a Jew's harp, so I took a hunt on YouTube and found this guy!
He's pretty good - thanks for posting this.

(I dislike it when words are changed for PC reasons without even checking to see if the usage is actually intended to be offensive. It actually removes positive versions of words.)
I've wondered for a while now whether it's actually true that anywhere at all has banned the word "blackboard" in favour of the alternative (American) form "chalkboard", or whether it's one of those "political correctness gone mad" urban legends. (As a mathematician, I consider blackboards to be far superior to whiteboards.)

[jophan.livejournal.com]

Well, there are changes made for PC reasons, and there are changes made for PC reasons. Two popular pieces of confectionary in Sweden used to be known as Negro kisses and Negro balls, respectively... they are no longer.

Jew's harp is a different thing. Jew is not a derogatory word, or shouldn't be anyway. In Swedish they are called mouth fiddles (mungiga).

[rockwell-666.livejournal.com]

Jew is not a derogatory word in the context you mention, but it is has been used offensively in other ways.

Eg there was an expression "to Jew (someone) down" which meant to drive a hard bargain, but with an underlying implication that the person doing it was also trying to cheat you.

[vjezkova.livejournal.com]

Interesting!Ah, there seem to be plenty of "obscure" words or phrases in all languages.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

without even checking to see if the usage is actually intended to be offensive

Whether the usage is intended to be offensive or not is surely irrelevant if people actually do find it offensive now.

Which they don't (afaik) in this particular case, but I would be very wary of generalizing on that basis.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I find that some people tend to avoid almost anything with a racial/religious word in it as an over-caution.

If people find it offensive than that's another case - though I wouldn't change a word on one or two complaints, if a majority of the group found it inoffensive.

eg. As a woman, I don't find 'history', 'mankind' or many other words of that ilk to be offensive and actually find it annoying when well-intentioned people try to change them.

There are also phrases that have the potential to be very positive and are lost for PC reasons. I was rather saddened to see (in another comment) that the confectionary 'negro's kisses' had been re-named. That suggests that kissing a negro is no longer desirable. I think the 'kiss' had more gain than 'negro' had loss. I'd be curious to have a black person's view on that one.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

The word "Negro" is attached simply because they are a dark variant on this kind of sweet. I don't think you can really read that as primarily connoting Negro = kissable. Any more than if a yellow version were called a Chinese kiss.

I'm not Negro, but I would be pretty peeved if they were called an "Indian kiss" for that reason. I think that any use of a racial epithet to signify an object's colour is likely to be found offensive.

[rockwell-666.livejournal.com]

Except that Negro simply comes from the latin word meaning "black" and was originally simply a descriptive term, rather than a derogatory one.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro for more details.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

You seem to be saying that as though you believe it somehow invalidates the argument I'm making -- is that right? If so, can you please explain how? I'm maybe being dense, but I can't see its relevance.

[rockwell-666.livejournal.com]

[quote=undyingking] I think that any use of a racial epithet to signify an object's colour is likely to be found offensive.[/quote]

Negro was not originally a racial epithet, but then it *became* a racial epithet because some people found it offensive.

The question then becomes "just *who* found or considered the name "negro's kiss" to be offensive?"

You see, this is the problem with political correctness, in this case I'd guess that it was not that a black person was offended, but that someone else *chose* to be offended *on behalf* of black people whether the black people wanted it or not.

Terry Pratchett takes the pi$$ out of this rather nicely in his Discworld books with the "Campaign for Equal Heights" which is actually mostly run by Humans who are concerned that Dwarves are being exploited or looked down on (erm...)

Meanwhile the Dwarves are mostly not interested and just get on with their business.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see what you mean. I was using epithet in its primary meaning of 'an adjective describing an attribute', which is value-neutral. I guess it is sometimes used to mean 'a derogatory term', but I don't myself. Obviously, I don't think "Chinese" or "Indian", my other examples, are derogatory any more than I do "Negro".

I'd guess that it was not that a black person was offended

You're free to guess as you please, of course, and neither of us know the facts. But as I said I would be offended by a sweet called "Indian kiss" because of its brownness. So I don't find it hard to believe that a black person might be similarly offended by the "Negro kiss".

this is the problem with political correctness

It certainly might be a problem. More of a problem, though, I think, is that the notion of politeness and consideration in language use is so systematically and routinely attacked not just by overt racists but also by other people who are simply credulous, thoughtless and lazy enough to buy into this reactionary backlash.

[rockwell-666.livejournal.com]

A guy I used to know, Nathan, was in the USA and referred to himself as "coloured". There was an instant reaction of shock and comments of "you can't say that, it's offensive".

His reply was "I'm black and I'm not offended by it, so why should I not say it because you white people don't like it?"

The trouble with a lot of the "Political Correctness Gone Mad" stories you see in the media is that outlets with an agenda to push (the Sun or the Daily Mail come to mind) tend to take a story and exaggerate it to the point of absurdity such that a suggestion that eg a local council have due regard for the festivals of religions other than Christianity becomes "COUNCIL WANTS TO BAN CHRISTMAS!" and goes into a rant about this and sources "outraged" quotes from who have been fed a one-sided view of the facts.

Unfortunately a lot of people don't bother to look beyond the headlines... :-(

[watervole.livejournal.com]

You're totally right. But then people set their own actions by what they percieve others to be doing, so the papers exaggerate it and then people assume they have to do likewise.

[temeres.livejournal.com]

I bought a field guide to fungi the other week and noticed that the Jew's Ear fungus has now been renamed the Jelly Ear fungus. But they can't touch the Linnaean name - it's still Auricularia auricula-judae.