评论
打印
The problem runs deep. A host of negative words and expressions in English contain the modifier “black”; they are old, and are probably related to a primeval fear of darkness. Nonetheless the constant equation of “black” with danger or evil can weary black human beings: consider black magic, blackguard, black-hearted, black economy and so forth. Some, such as blackmail, are unavoidable fixtures. But not all: the computer types who are replacing “blacklist” (a list of e-mail addresses that cannot reach you) with “blocklist” are making a small but symbolic effort.
这个问题根深蒂固。英语中存在大量负面的词汇和表达带有修饰语“黑色”；这种表达由来已久，很可能与人们对黑暗的原始恐惧有关。尽管如此，“黑色”与危险或邪恶的永恒等式让黑人们不厌其烦：比如黑魔法、恶棍、黑心、黑色经济等等。在一些固定用法的表达中，“黑色”的使用不可避免，比如敲诈勒索这个词。但并不是所有的表达都必须固定使用“黑色”，计算机从业者在使用“黑名单”时用“blocklist”替代“blacklist”（黑名单是指无法联系你的一系列邮件地址的清单），这样的做法微不足道，但意义非凡。
The same tech wizards deploying “blocklist” have proposed new terms for “master” and “slave” in computing (whereby one process or device controls another). This seems justifiable, too. The hunt for “masters” has ranged beyond power relationships, however. Harvard has dropped the name “house masters” for faculty members who live in student accommodation and have a pastoral role. Some property salesmen are ditching “master bedroom” in favour of “main bedroom”. These changes may be inessential, but they are harmless.
提出使用“blocklist”的技术奇才还提出用新术语来替代计算机中的“主”和“从”（“主”和“从”表示一个程序或设备控制另一个程序或设备）。这样的替代似乎也合情合理。但是，对“主”这一术语的取代已经超出了他的权力关系。哈佛大学已经取消了“舍监”这一称呼，“舍监”指代那些住在学生宿舍并承担教牧角色的教职人员。一些房地产销售人员在描述“主卧”时，也弃用了“master bedroom”，转而使用“main bedroom”。这样的改变也许无关紧要，但却不会招惹麻烦。
The harm comes only when sensitivity to offence goes so far that it undermines the assumption of good faith to which people are generally entitled. At a meeting of the Linguistic Society of America in 2018, for instance, Itamar Francez of the University of Chicago spoke on a panel about diversity in the discipline. He decried “formalchismo”: older scholars’ dismissal of new perspectives for being expressed without traditional formality. Many in the audience liked his coinage, but Mr Francez soon found himself retracting it: a listener had complained that it “creates a hostile environment in linguistics for Spanish speakers”. More and more academics say they are afraid to discuss controversial issues; that becomes harder still when even those trying to confront racism are vulnerable to a “call-out” over a triviality.
只有在人们对冒犯的界定过于敏感，以至于连公众普遍认可的善意都无法接受的时候，麻烦就会随之而来。比如，在2018年举办的美国语言学会的一次会议上，芝加哥大学的伊塔玛·弗朗兹在小组讨论中进行发言，对语言学的学科多样性进行探讨。他谴责“形式主义”，即年长的学者们因为新观点不符合传统的表达形式就不屑一顾。许多观众喜欢弗朗兹这一新创造的词汇，但他自己很快就觉得这个词不能使用，因为一名听众抱怨称，“在语言学上，这个词会对讲西班牙语的人造成不良影响”。越来越多的学者表示，他们害怕讨论有争议的问题；甚至那些反对种族歧视的人都很容易因为微不足道的小事而受到谴责，讨论由此变得越发艰难。
The losers could be those who need frank discussion most: minority students who should be able to decry the real harms they face, in forms large and small. One student at USC wrote on Instagram that the “nei ge” flap “is going to be used to gaslight us when we try to voice our actual grievances”. An evergrowing list of things you cannot say helps no one. Progress requires more open conversation, not less.
那些最需要进行开诚布公讨论的人可能最深受其害，也就是那些少数族裔的学生，他们应该强烈谴责自己遭受的真正伤害，不论伤害程度的深浅。一名南加州大学的学生在Instagram上写道，“当我们试图表达我们真正面临的苦痛时，由‘内个’引发的骚动事件对我们进行了心理操纵，会让我们噤若寒蝉”。禁言清单越来越长，这无益于任何人。只有广开言论，而非闭口不言，才能取得进步。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
