Who owns words? Does usage trump meaning? Are we justified in being offended by the use of a word that simply sounds like an offensive word, but is clearly not, given the context?
Jurassic World, the summer blockbuster eclipsing even Pixar openings, has run afoul of the word police. In the movie there is a species of dinosaur called a Pachycephalosaurus. I think you can see why people wouldn’t want to say the entire word, and shorten it to “Pachy”:
In the film, Lapkus says: ‘Another pachy roaming outside his zone, but he’s ready for relocation.’
She later says: ‘The pachy shawed off their implants when they butt heads.’
Jake Johnson, who plays Lowery, then responded saying: ‘He’s very stoned. So why don’t we show them a little sympathy.
‘You do understand these are actually animals.’
Evidently in the UK people are calling Pakistanis “Pakis” in a derogatory way, and assuming a movie about dinosaurs is somehow singling out and mocking Pakistanis.
The Pachycephalosaurus genus was established in 1943, according to Wikipedia. And apparently a great many people in the UK are ignorant of that fact. So when they hear the word “Pachy” in a movie about a dinosaur research park they automatically think people whose jobs are to keep track of dinosaurs, are talking about Pakistanis. Are they right to think so–and therefore be offended–or do we have the right to ridicule these people as Watching While Stupid? At what point does someone’s coining of a word obligate everyone else to discard their use of a homophonic but completely unrelated word? Are the writers of Jurassic World, who were likely all American and who probably have never heard the anti-Pakistani ephithet, responsible for what people in the UK thought they said, despite context clues to the contrary?
Like it or not, the word “gay” no longer means “having or showing a merry, lively mood,” or “bright or showy”, despite that being the legitimate definition of the word for most of the span of the English language. I can no longer use that word in connection with anything else but homosexual individuals or behavior thanks to a few people who subverted a perfectly good word. But I can’t claim ignorant usage any more. The word change is just too prevalent. I’d come up with another way to say, “Oh, those flowers are so gay!”
When I lived in Australia and complained of having a “bloody nose” everyone, knowing I was an American, realized I was not cursing my own body part. (For the uninitiated, that would be the equivalent of saying, “I’ve got a damned nose!”, which would probably make them think, “Just figure that out there, mate?” Aussies instead say, “I have a blood nose”.) Americans, on the other hand, have little idea that when an Aussie declares he/she is p!ssed they mean they’re drunk, and might get offended, or at least surprised. (Actually, these days they’d probably not even blink, but might ask why they’re upset.)
But in both cases no offense was intended, and only the truly judgmental would continue to be offended once they understood the source of the miscommunication. So at what point are the writers of Jurassic World responsible for the offense taken by British viewers who ignored the context clues and insisted on assuming the characters were being racist? And since the heart of the miscommunication has undoubtedly been explained to them by now, are they still justified in being offended? And is it okay for us to mock their lack of scientific knowledge and unsophisticated world view?
Or are we entering an era of guilt by lack of due diligence? Is every screenwriter now required to research any possible direct or extrapolated/homophonic alternative meanings in any country the resulting movie might be released in? Do we seriously need to worry about people out there, when hearing that raptors are vicious predators (ie. short for velociraptors, another kind of dinosaur), thinking they’re referring to the Toronto Raptors (basketball team), the Ogden raptors (baseball team), eagles and like birds, or the F-22 Raptor (a military jet)? Do they seriously think Chris Pratt’s character is holding a basketball training camp out on some remote island in a movie about dinosaurs?
Perhaps so. Because even though the outrage in the UK over “pachy” started as a tongue-in-cheek joke, a lot of people have taken it seriously and are burning up social media over it.
I suppose I should be offended by their obvious insult to the human race. Since when did Americans have to educate the British on their own language?
Good points. I agree that context does make a difference. But your post reminded me of one I wrote a while back called “When Attempts at Inspiration Hurt.” What that post addresses was a different situation, but I think these words are still how I feel about those touchy situations.
“Should we never share anything that inspires us because it may hurt someone else? I don’t think that that is necessarily the answer, but we do need to be open to the fact that our feelings and perceptions are not the same as those of everyone else. If we speak our truth, we need to be open to feedback from others about how it hurts them. When we shut others down rather than listening to their pain, no one grows, no relationships are created.”
Yes, I think we’re talking about different situations. I’ve not seen Jurassic World, but it seems rather extreme to, with no context to imply they were talking about Pakistanis, assume they were, rather than using some context-specific jargon. While it’s helpful if writers not assume their readers/viewers know more than they do, it’s also not safe to assume your readers/viewers are idiots.
But in what you are talking to I agree. There is always the potential for differences of perspective to result in pain, and we would do well to be open to feedback. It would also be ideal if those hurt could communicate their pain while understanding that the pain was not necessarily intended. When I read about someone having a great, inspiring conversation with their father it does cause me to ache a little bit that I don’t have that opportunity any more. There is certainly pain there, and I suppose it could be beneficial to communicate it to that person–if I handle it well. But I see no reason to make that person feel bad simply because their father IS alive and they have a good relationship. Perhaps this is not the best example, but it’s the first one that comes to mind.
Unfortunately, the culture we’re building these days makes meaningful, well-intentioned sharing increasingly difficult. We’re more inclined to lash out than reach out when someone causes hurt, assuming the worst of them and their motives. We’re too quick to want to hold them responsible for their actions/words and too slow to take responsibility for our reaction.
A lot of that, I believe, is due to the nature of social media. It is practically impossible to consider your audience every time you post. I can’t even remember who all is on my friends list and who will see what I post. It’s easiest to assume you’re speaking to the ones you most regularly–and positively–engage with, not the full gamut of people who want your virtual attention. It was much easier to communicate meaningfully when we had to communicate in person, where we could see our audience and control our message/volume accordingly. Now we type with boxing gloves, so to speak, and blast everything at full volume, and it takes a really skilled communicator to craft their messages to account for everyone that might hear.
I don’t know the answer, other than…be careful out there.
“Niggardly”
This all stems from the culture of victimhood, and the socioeconomic rewards that come from successfully manipulating it.