On 2024-02-24 at 08:42, Emanuel Berg wrote: > jeremy ardley wrote: > >>> But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block market" >>> work just fine? >> >> The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45. It has >> nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in the dark, not >> visible, not official. > > I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated with > everything negative that is black in language.
The answer to that would then be to stop making such associations, on the basis that it was a misnomer to label those people as "black" (with whatever pre-existing connotations, negative or otherwise, that may have had) in the first place - not to require that everything negative that has that label be given a different label. That may seem (or even be) unrealistically facile, but that doesn't mean it isn't in some sense the correct resolution. It can hardly be much more unrealistic than getting everyone to change all existing negative-sense usage of "black". > It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such > words. The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin of the *meaning* of the word(s). -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
