[stone]

washing dementia patients or whatever.

This more of an educational post in general. Having been a clinical lead for a complex dementia unit and seen how the disease impacts people, I have a strong stance about the term dementia patient.

Please don’t refer to people as dementia patients.
They are people first and foremost and remain that way until they die.

Reducing their worth to a term of a disease is degrading and dehumanising.
It’s tragic when dementia impacts on a person’s life and that of their loved ones, let’s keep recognising that they are a person with a life story, not a refer to them as a disease.

Language is powerful

Noted, thanks, I hadn't realised all the issues with my wording.
Would "people with dementia" be the way to phrase it ?

I'm sort of taken aback by your correction since I've very much viewed myself as being a patient when ill. I still feel a sort of vague tribal solidarity with "cancer patients" and "psychiatric patients" much as I do with eg other climbers. I do consider it a facet of my identity I guess.

Part of me wonders whether by tip-toeing around something we are implicitly casting it as being shameful. When we refer to someone as "a climber" we are not reducing their worth to just the past time they enjoy, it is just the aspect of them that happens to be relevant in that context.

[Aussiegav]

Just to be explicit,
I took it as an opportunity to raise awareness of the terminology and its impact.

I work in the NHS and I hear dementia patient used a lot and often extends into terms such aggressive, violent, & old silly Sod etc…
These behaviours are a symptom of the disease, not a personality trait.


A more person centred phrase used is living with dementia/cancer etc……

Anyway, 


Let’s get back to the subject of bouldering, climbing and using big grades for bad beta.
 

[SA Chris]

when Charles went to Rocklands he was staying in a cave.

Clearly not concerned about the wildlife! I've seen enough slithering and crawling things about to put me off.

[Ged]

washing dementia patients or whatever.

This more of an educational post in general. Having been a clinical lead for a complex dementia unit and seen how the disease impacts people, I have a strong stance about the term dementia patient.

Please don’t refer to people as dementia patients.
They are people first and foremost and remain that way until they die.

Reducing their worth to a term of a disease is degrading and dehumanising.
It’s tragic when dementia impacts on a person’s life and that of their loved ones, let’s keep recognising that they are a person with a life story, not a refer to them as a disease.

Language is powerful

Noted, thanks, I hadn't realised all the issues with my wording.
Would "people with dementia" be the way to phrase it ?

I'm sort of taken aback by your correction since I've very much viewed myself as being a patient when ill. I still feel a sort of vague tribal solidarity with "cancer patients" and "psychiatric patients" much as I do with eg other climbers. I do consider it a facet of my identity I guess.

Part of me wonders whether by tip-toeing around something we are implicitly casting it as being shameful. When we refer to someone as "a climber" we are not reducing their worth to just the past time they enjoy, it is just the aspect of them that happens to be relevant in that context.

I hate being referred to as a climber.  Genuinely. 

My wife teaches Health and Social care, and they talk a lot about referring to "people with a disability" rather than "disabled person".  Quite a big difference I think.

[M1V0]

I hate being referred to as a climber.  Genuinely. 

Why do you think that is? I'm inclined to agree, and I think that's from my own perception of the general climbing population, of which I feel I share minimal values with (and yet, I would probably fit into most other people's perception of what a climber is). I might tell people that I climb, but not that I am a climber.

I think that broadly, referring to people in a reductionist attitude (climber, patient, etc.) is not necessarily harmful in and of itself, but it is the changed perceptions that come with it. In clinical settings, making someone's social identity solely concentrated on their diagnosis will allow others to make disconnections with those people through an absence of shared values and not identifying with those groups of people. In a sense of, "I don't have this diagnosis, so we are different to each other".

[jwi]

You guys might be overly sensitive?

[stone]

Having been a clinical lead for a complex dementia unit

It struck me that Assiegav seemed happy to say was a clinical lead. He proudly embodied that role (hats off to him). He didn't say "having worked as a clinical lead" or "having lived as someone working as a clinical lead".

[stone]

"Holocaust survivor" and "Vietnam vet" are examples where people proudly embody positions subject to utmost grim adversity.

[Dingdong]

You guys might be overly sensitive?

Maybe they have vastly different experiences and history surrounding specific subjects which means they see it from a different perspective and thus are more sensitive? It doesn’t invalidate their feelings…

[M1V0]

"Holocaust survivor" and "Vietnam vet" are examples where people proudly embody positions subject to utmost grim adversity.

It is all entirely subjective and boils down to how individuals perceive and determine their own identity. For some, grim adversity can become a defining characteristic and it gives them a sense of community with others who share similar experiences and values. Gav may view their time as a clinical lead as an identity that they do associate with and are happy to refer to themselves as. Dementia patients, less so - as it can cast people as an outgroup, particularly when it isn't those with a dementia diagnosis who are using the term. Even the term 'patient' doesn't tend to have positive connotations associated with it, when referring to others. People's social identities are individually defined and allow them to perceive their association with others through these identities forming social groups. Perceiving people as not being part of your group often leads to less prosocial behaviours in general.

As for the lighter term 'climber" - I think my view of people who probably refer to themselves solely as "a climber" is, to me at least, probably more for indoor boulderers who don't/haven't climbed outdoors. I also appreciate the idea that I have at least more than one facet to my person. Not many, but probably more than just one.

[M1V0]

You guys might be overly sensitive?

How dare you!

But in seriousness, I think I identify more strongly with a subset of those who climb, and being cast into a broad generalisation of a group doesn't define my self-perceptions well enough.

[stone]

Back in the 1950s, white people presumed that it was "nicer" to refer to black people as "coloured" and so did so.  We now recognise that as wrong.

Often people facing oppression don't like to have the characteristic targeted by oppression talked about in a euphemistic way.

So Aussiegav's point isn't clear to me. I'll defer to his expertise and not use the term "dementia patient" in future, but that is despite me not being convinced.

[mrjonathanr]

I hate being referred to as a climber.  Genuinely. 

Why do you think that is?

Because people don’t like reductive categorisations? Exceptions being where someone strongly  identifies with a particular identity and wants others to know it, as per Stone’s examples.

Edit-crossed posts- @ Stone: the patient term is reductive, that’s the nub of it.

[spidermonkey09]

Whilst obviously this is all very admirable in terms of thinking about how people want to be perceived, is there not a risk that to the average person it just amounts to over-theorisation and speaking in riddles? I confess that I don't see referring to someone as a patient is in any way derogatory but happy to bow to others expertise.

Edit, what nails said.

[Nails]

I think there's a great difficulty in focussing on terminology rather than meaning when using language. Yes, language is powerful, but huge swathes of that power is derived from context, tone and the pragmatics of language. Language is inherently teleological, so ignoring the goals and purpose of someone’s language and focussing upon a specific word or phrase is wilfully denying what they were actually attempting to say.
To insist that calling someone a “Dementia Patient” whilst they are receiving dementia care is somehow denigrating, is frankly ridiculous. Clearly in that situation they are a “Dementia Patient” but no one is suggesting that is all they are. Messing about with the phrase and saying “patient receiving dementia care” doesn’t change anything. Are they only receiving dementia care? Surely they aren’t just a patient? (Reductio ad absurdum). A “Football Supporter” probably has other facets to their life. When they’re sat in a football stadium we don’t think there’s anything wrong with calling them a “Football Supporter”.
Having spent years helping to manage my father’s dementia and also terminal cancer (he was a “Dementia Patient” as well as a “Cancer Patient”), I find this pettiness around terminology ridiculous. The reality of his final months in a  “Care Home” ( a “Home” that doesn’t just give care), meant that our concerns weren’t really about terminology. We were concerned about whether he’d been sat in his own piss and faeces for a prolonged period. Or the extent to which he was suffering when he weighed only 4 stone in the period before he died.
So I think we need to focus on meaning and not word-policing.

[mrjonathanr]

Hi Nails, I’m sorry to read about your experience. Having family members experience dementia I’m well aware how traumatic that must have been.

The internet is a great for losing nuance, isn’t it? How words are used is context specific. Same sounds, different context, different meaning. My reading of Gav’s posts is an objection to the dehumanising effect of labels thoughtlessly used. I’m on board with that: the language we use shapes our understanding, for good or ill. Words matter because they give shape to our ideas and so to our behaviour. There’s no need to wrap ourselves in knots about it, just avoid lazy labelling of people.

[Wellsy]

If pressed I'd describe myself as a Boulderer

But typically I'd say something like "I'm a keen boulderer" I.e I do it a lot. I wouldn't say I'm a "climber" because that implies routes and such, which I don't do.

It's probably not very high on my list of self-identifications, though it's definitely there.

[jwi]

People,

I know some guys with great empathy and very limited vocabulary. It is ridiculous to require that they should use words with subtle difference in meaning depending on your feelings. As long as a label not used exclusively in a derogatory way (gipsy, spic, etc...) it is fine to use.

[Nails]

I don't think my own experience with my father's dementia is actually particularly rare these days. I know plenty of people with similar experiences. All part of increased life expectancy meaning that people are more likely to suffer from dementia as they have survived longer than previous generations.

I agree we shouldn't tie ourselves in knots. I think Gav's point about reductive terms is probably entirley appropriate in his role as a Clinical Lead in a Dementia Ward. But that's context again isn't it. He's being careful with his words in order to avoid the risk of offence in that setting. This doesn't mean that we all have to use the same wording in every setting. I think the main point is that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Stone's original words or meaning, and he didn't deserve to be picked up on them.

[seankenny]

I have long covid and absolutely no problem with being called a long covid patient. I am perfectly well aware that there are other aspects to my life and I want healthcare staff to concentrate on:
a) not treating me like a piece of meat
b) fixing the problem

I’m sure they all get lots of training in using the right words and so on but those two criteria don’t get met all that often for long covid patients. This is usually due to ignorance, a lack of curiosity or the fact that many doctors are actively hostile to things they don’t understand. (Never present a test-passer with a test they can’t pass.) I guess my concern is that excessive language policing can give the appearance of treating people humanely without any of the substance.

[M1V0]

I think my main intended point got lost in my writing.

I am by no means advocating for the policing of language, or mandating specific terms to use. Group identities are more complex than that. E.g., I use UKB, read it frequently, and possess some self-identification with many of you as other users of the site and that we share common ground on a passion for our pasttime. I am not though, indicating I am a "UKBer" or anything of the like. My identity is far more nuanced.

My point was that our social identities and how we see our membership of particular social groups, which can be defined by medical diagnoses, activities, political views, employment, etc., affects the way that we can treat others. These identities, not the terms, are what shapes our actions towards others, and in particular instances, it is necessary to use language that does not strictly place others in a social group outside ones that we may share common ground.

[seankenny]

Nah, it’s not our identity that “shapes our actions towards others” - it’s our relationship with the means of production! Or at least our position in various hierarchies of economic, cultural and physical power.

Over emphasis on identity in a medical context is a handy way of obscuring who has the power in the relationship between healthcare worker and patient (clue: it’s not the patient) whilst pretending to do something about it.

[mrjonathanr]

Nah, it’s not our identity that “shapes our actions towards others” - it’s our relationship with the means of production! Or at least our position in various hierarchies of economic, cultural and physical power.

I'd agree with that to the extent that our relationships shape us and so create the sense of who we are in a given context. The world shapes us. Who we think/feel/believe we are does shape our behaviour too, there is a tension between all these forces.

Sorry to read you have not recovered Sean. Thinking positive thoughts for you.

[seankenny]

Thanks! Really appreciate the positive thoughts Recovering but not recovered is the order of the day, I think. Small steps and all that.

[SA Chris]

Hang in there!

[stone]

Sean: may the force be with you versus long covid!

About wording etc, I'm struck that this guidance from Disability Rights UK recommends NOT using the term "people with disabilities" but instead "Disabled people".

Using the term ‘Disabled people’ or ’Disabled person’ is therefore a political description of the shared, disabling experience that people with impairments face in society. It brings together a diverse group of people and helps to identify the causes of our discrimination and oppression, communicate shared experience and knowledge, and create social change.

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/social-model-disability-language

[Oldmanmatt]

Sean: may the force be with you versus long covid!

About wording etc, I'm struck that this guidance from Disability Rights UK recommends NOT using the term "people with disabilities" but instead "Disabled people".

Using the term ‘Disabled people’ or ’Disabled person’ is therefore a political description of the shared, disabling experience that people with impairments face in society. It brings together a diverse group of people and helps to identify the causes of our discrimination and oppression, communicate shared experience and knowledge, and create social change.

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/social-model-disability-language

I liked the wording on the parking spots in Dubai “People of determination “.

I’m a bit on the fence about this subject. Some “names” are clearly meant to be derogatory, but some are just neutral or customary.
I guess “Widower” grates and I have to tick the box fairly regularly. I describe myself as a widow. I can’t see the point in gendering it and widower makes me feel like I’m in a Jane Austin novel.
I brought that up, because I was shocked at the beginning of my widowhood, how many people think the term is synonymous with “helpless” or “pathetic”. The point being the above, mentioned by others, context, often exists more in peoples heads, than actuality and differs from head to head.
Intent, more than context, would seem the more pertinent factor.
I could make “aren’t you a ray of sunshine” either an expression of utter endearment or a fight starting insult, merely with intonation.
Main problem here is the forum post lacks the critical data, for determining intent, that intonation supplies. I bet the same comment, voiced in conversation, would have passed un-noticed, unless a patronising or dismissive tone was noted by the listener. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[slab_happy]

Sean: may the force be with you versus long covid!

About wording etc, I'm struck that this guidance from Disability Rights UK recommends NOT using the term "people with disabilities" but instead "Disabled people".

Using the term ‘Disabled people’ or ’Disabled person’ is therefore a political description of the shared, disabling experience that people with impairments face in society. It brings together a diverse group of people and helps to identify the causes of our discrimination and oppression, communicate shared experience and knowledge, and create social change.

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/social-model-disability-language

Yes, though that political framework is more favoured in the UK than the US.

And even within that, when it comes to talking about groups of people with specific impairments, different groups can still have very different preferences for "person first" language or not. Some groups may be happy to identify as "disabled people", but then have a strong preference for "people with [specific condition]."

My fellow autistic people are notorious troublemakers in this respect, because many of us (me included) actively prefer being referred to as an "autistic person" and not a "person with autism".

Which is partly because of the long and negative history of treating autism as a disease a person has, which they could potentially be cured from to reveal the normal person supposedly trapped inside. Whereas most of us experience it more as an integral part of who we are.

N.B. I'm not going to be offended if someone calls me a person with autism, and in fact I probably won't even notice.

But I do have a preference, and I will get very annoyed by neurotypical people insisting that "person with autism" is the only "correct" language -- not least because it tells me that they're prioritizing using what they think are the "right words" over listening to the group of people they're talking about.

There's no one-size-fits-all correct answer, beyond trying to listen to the people involved and seeing what they prefer.

[slab_happy]

I guess my concern is that excessive language policing can give the appearance of treating people humanely without any of the substance.

Fervent agreement, from someone who is generally on the "language matters" side.

It's cheap and easy to have a little seminar to teach your staff whatever the current version of "correct" language is considered to be. It's often expensive and really hard work to provide your patients (or clients, or service users, or whatever you call them) with good-quality care.

And unfortunately, sometimes the former is used as a substitute for the latter. And you can swap the language around but still be treating people in a shoddy and paternalistic way.

[Oldmanmatt]

People,

I know some guys with great empathy and very limited vocabulary. It is ridiculous to require that they should use words with subtle difference in meaning depending on your feelings. As long as a label not used exclusively in a derogatory way (gipsy, spic, etc...) it is fine to use.

I don’t find Gipsy derogatory.

I’m proud of my Roma heritage. Gran Glover (my Great Grandmother) was very much the Matriarch of the Glover clan until her death in the early ‘80s. She was a Pearson, though branded Didicai (as I would be) by her family when she married my Great Grandfather. She remained fiercely proud of her roots.
My late wife, being ethnic Romanian, was troubled marrying someone who was part Cigani (Wallachian Roma, in her and her family’s eyes), given the tensions between those two groups. 

So Cigani became less derogatory in her (and her parents) view.

(My dark/olive skin tone earned me the lovely nick name Gandhi or variously Spic, Wop or Dago at school (Cornwall was incredibly WHITE in those days, I wouldn’t get a second glance now).
A few years ago I was doing a CPD course at Plymouth Uni and after the obligatory “introduce yourself to the group” thing, when we broke for coffee, a young fella from Southampton, complimented me on my English, told me I was very well spoken and asked if I’d been educated in England… )

Anyway, it’s intent, not the words themselves. Call me Gipsy in the wrong tone and that sense of pride will manifest itself in a very different way. 

Again, the written format does not make that intent obvious and the reader often applies their own biases, their own imagined intonation. I love the way my kids have adopted emoji’s to colour in that missing detail of online communication.

Which is my usual rambling way of saying what Slabs, MJR, JWI and Nail said far more concisely.

[mrjonathanr]

Cheers Matt. Maybe you’ll like this lady’s take (auto translated subtitles if you jiggle the settings).

[Oldmanmatt]

Cheers Matt. Maybe you’ll like this lady’s take (auto translated subtitles if you jiggle the settings).

Exactly.
Full disclosure though, my Great Grandmothers were Romani, Dutch, Danish and Maltese/Italian (all the males were English). Obviously, none of my Grandfathers were genetically related, but they must have shared a certain, uh, wanderlust and were all military men. I kinda think I’ve inherited that,
Quite proud of my mongrel status, you pure English types are genetically impoverished. 

Truthfully, hardly anyone is “pure” anything. I think we’re just a bit odd in being aware of our ancestry (My mother’s older sister has the family bible, that documents her father’s line ( the Stacy family, originally Ustacius (now the Ustaces and the Stacy’s) back to 1066 and a Genoese mercenary who came over with William. Her family kept marrying back into the Italian line, with the Stacy Matriarch being the Italian/Maltese Great Grandmother. Daughter of an Italian communist who fled to Malta when fascism rose in the 30’s).
 It’s a bit weird knowing this level of detail, but the Christmas period was fucking complicated for me as a kid, with the various branches holding massive gatherings, or the frequent piling into the car for another wedding/funeral etc and having all the stories repeated at me and my cousins, over and over. Shit, when I joined the Navy, my Maltese G.Grandmother came over especially to give me her blessing.

I wish more people were aware of their genetic diversity. It’s hard to be a racist/xénophobe under those circumstances. 🤷‍♂️

I’m just realising, writing this, that it’s the women in my ancestry that shaped who we all became, far more than the men and I know far less about my G.Grandfathers than I do their wives. Also, Gran Glover, wasn’t genetically a Glover, just as Gran Stacy, wasn’t actually a Stacy. 🤣

This might be one of my worst digressions ever. Sorry, as you were.

[stone]

I wish more people were aware of their genetic diversity. It’s hard to be a racist/xénophobe under those circumstances. 🤷‍♂️

Suella Braverman has full-on-multicultural heritage/marriage and yet is hardly the greatest champion of multicultural harmony (IMO)!

[stone]

I wish more people were aware of their genetic diversity. It’s hard to be a racist/xénophobe under those circumstances. 🤷‍♂️

I found this post interesting https://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer.html:

If an alien, arriving on Earth with no knowledge of our social history, wished to categorise human ancestry purely on the basis of genetic data, they would find that any consistent scheme must include many distinct groups within Africa that are just as different from each other as Africans are to non-Africans. And they would find it difficult to identify any natural or obvious subdivision of people into groups which accurately partitions human genetic variation due to the constant migrations of people across the world.

Furthermore, there isn’t really a human ‘tree’. Although we use this arboreal metaphor to describe ancestry and evolutionary relationships, the true structure of human ancestry is far more convoluted. Human populations have continued to diverge, expand and interact throughout the last 100,000 years, resulting in a continuously branching and looping ancestral structure: the real history of Homo sapiens is more like an overgrown thicket than a stately branching tree.

[Oldmanmatt]

I wish more people were aware of their genetic diversity. It’s hard to be a racist/xénophobe under those circumstances. 🤷‍♂️

Suella Braverman has full-on-multicultural heritage/marriage and yet is hardly the greatest champion of multicultural harmony (IMO)!

I don’t believe Braverman is aware of the location of her own arse, nor capable of finding it with two hands and a copy of Greys Anatomy.

[andy popp]

Interesting thread. As has been noted, behaviours are often or very often far more important and consequential than words. But words do do things - they are rarely only words (see J.L. Austin speech act theory, e.g. "How to do things with words").

One recent act of renaming that I'm interested in, because of my work, is the shift from slave and slaveowner to enslaved and enslaver. The former are passive, they just describe a state - those of being either a slave or a slaveowner. In particular, "slave" reduces the enslaved to that identity alone. It defines them completely. Enslaved and enslaver are active. To say someone is enslaved is not to reduce them one identity alone but is to describe an act that has been done to them. Likewise, enslaver describes an action, one that someone chose to undertake - true even for those who acquired slaves through inheritance: they actively chose to maintain the act of enslaving someone. Renaming these subjects completely reframes how we understand their condition and experience.

[seankenny]

It completely reframes one’s understanding… how exactly? The idea that people born into an unjust system have a choice over whether to continue to perpetrate that system or change/abolish it is surely not that new?

[andy popp]

OK, maybe "completely" was a little hyperbolic (and apologies for the rash of italics) but I do think the change from passive to active voice is significant. It's not whether or not an idea is new, but how we talk about it. That's the point.

[Oldmanmatt]

OK, maybe "completely" was a little hyperbolic (and apologies for the rash of italics) but I do think the change from passive to active voice is significant. It's not whether or not an idea is new, but how we talk about it. That's the point.

This reasoning, though sound for a given value, only applies to those who were and would be thoughtful in such matters.
That’s not as many people as some posters here might hope.
What ever form of name the thoughtful try to apply, the thoughtless will add a sneer as they use it.
In all probability, the more thoughtful the form, the deeper that sneer will be.
Quite a lot of people derive their own self worth from the diminishing of others.

[andy popp]

This reasoning, though sound for a given value, only applies to those who were and would be thoughtful in such matters.
That’s not as many people as some posters here might hope.

Trust me, I'm under no illusions.

[SA Chris]

Thread title of "the labels we give / attach to each other" might have been better. Name calling implies insults, which was what I was expecting. Interesting discussion though.

[stone]

Considering how we talk about slavery now and how that relates to present day racism etc I'm most struck by how we seem to have airbrushed out the extent to which white Northern Europeans were themselves captured as slaves throughout much of history including relatively recently. It is as though we want the narrative to be that white brits were always top dogs, nasty but always on top. In reality before the Romans invaded, we were capturing one another to sell to the Romans as slaves. Then Vikings captured people from UK en-mass to export as slaves as far afield as central Asia, then Barbary Pirates captured British people to export as slaves to North Africa. That overlapped with the trans-Atlantic slave trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

I wonder whether telling history as it is might help to deflate white-supremacist nonsense.

[petejh]

Was thinking similar after listening to Melvyn Bragg last week talking about the Barbary pirates. I imagine part of the reason the 'everyone enslaving everyone' narrative isn't talked about in the mainstream as much as the 'white Europeans enslaving Africans' is that white northern Europeans are the more successful and powerful group at this moment in history, relative to the other areas. Might not always be the case.

We also don't talk much about enslaved cheap labour in China producing goods appreciated in the west for their low cost. Recent notable example being forced labour in the processing of polysilicon used in solar panels (possibly including my own made in China 'Trina' panels). https://www.shu.ac.uk/helena-kennedy-centre-international-justice/research-and-projects/all-projects/forced-labour-lab

(company by company assessment in the linked report, my Trina panels assessed as 'very high' likelihood of exposure to forced labour).

[Durbs]

Considering how we talk about slavery now and how that relates to present day racism etc I'm most struck by how we seem to have airbrushed out the extent to which white Northern Europeans were themselves captured as slaves...

Of note, there's a movement (if that's the right word) to stop using the term "slave", and rather "enslaved person" - in keeping with the thread, calling someone a "slave" ties it to their person, rather than having something awful done to them.

[Oldmanmatt]

Considering how we talk about slavery now and how that relates to present day racism etc I'm most struck by how we seem to have airbrushed out the extent to which white Northern Europeans were themselves captured as slaves throughout much of history including relatively recently. It is as though we want the narrative to be that white brits were always top dogs, nasty but always on top. In reality before the Romans invaded, we were capturing one another to sell to the Romans as slaves. Then Vikings captured people from UK en-mass to export as slaves as far afield as central Asia, then Barbary Pirates captured British people to export as slaves to North Africa. That overlapped with the trans-Atlantic slave trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

I wonder whether telling history as it is might help to deflate white-supremacist nonsense.

It is still a thing. Far too many young girls find themselves trafficked (I imagine there are boys, too) for a start.That we gloss over it by not referring to it as simply “slavery” is a good example of the use of language to “change” our perceptions. I’m irked by the term “Modern Slavery”, as if it’s more progressive and less serious, simply because it’s illegal and largely hidden.

Edit:
Posts crossed. Pete, there’s a high probability of someone/people, living in slavery, within a few miles of where you are sitting to read this.
Oh, and the US jail system? That looks pretty damn similar from a certain perspective..

[petejh]

Pete, there’s a high probability of someone/people, living in slavery, within a few miles of where you are sitting to read this.

Aware. Although they aren't involved in manufacturing our solar panels, clothing, consumer tech or car components. Using cheap coal-generated power. Such a thing as scale.

[Nails]

I think the intention of the use of the term "Modern Slavery" is to clarify that it's happening in the present (as many people tend to assume that "Slavery" is something that only occurred in the past). I think "Modern Slavery" is also supposed to be a broader definition that includes more subtle forms of effective enslavement such as tricking people in to inescapable debt, or the threat of deportation, or forced marriage. I think it shows the limitations of attempting to control meaning and narrative simply by adjusting terminology.

[stone]

We don't just enslave by way of Chinese solar panels. UK agriculture via the LWA scheme makes use of workers who get tricked into debt to pay extortionate broker fees:
https://landworkersalliance.org.uk/lwa-report-digs-into-exploitation-of-migrant-workers-in-uk-horticulture/

workers have to contend with the fact they will be spending the entirety of their time in the UK working off debt, essentially receiving less than nothing for their time and labour. Recuperating money, aiming to minimise losses rather than earning as promised: this is the best-case scenario for many workers [quote/]

[cowboyhat]

I hate being referred to as a climber.  Genuinely. 

Why do you think that is? I'm inclined to agree, and I think that's from my own perception of the general climbing population, of which I feel I share minimal values with (and yet, I would probably fit into most other people's perception of what a climber is). I might tell people that I climb, but not that I am a climber.

I think that broadly, referring to people in a reductionist attitude (climber, patient, etc.) is not necessarily harmful in and of itself, but it is the changed perceptions that come with it. In clinical settings, making someone's social identity solely concentrated on their diagnosis will allow others to make disconnections with those people through an absence of shared values and not identifying with those groups of people. In a sense of, "I don't have this diagnosis, so we are different to each other".

For some reason I kept thinking about this comment, perhaps because it jarred;

the only thing i can say with any confidence, no self consciousness, is that I am a climber.

I can't be concerned with whether or not someone else's perception of a climber is correct. If not that then, what? What are you/ we..? And what is wrong with this label?

I do agree with the point there M1V0 about being lumped in; I ride a bicycle everyday to work or the wall because its cheap and quick, but Geraint Thomas is a cyclist. With cycling in London it does have a peculiar sensitivity because most people ride a bike to work because its cheap and quick, and the tube is minging etc. Not because they're hoping to arrive in Paris on the 23rd of July, or because they want to reclaim the streets and get on an environment high horse about 'motorists', ie; other people who are also merely trying to get to work. But you can easily over complicate things or be reluctant to take ownership of them because of this baggage, hence this thought was formed when I was young so its unencumbered:

Deep within me, it is the only thing. I am a rock climber, and these are my people.

[Ged]

I didn't ask you to be concerned with my perception of a climber. I just said I hate being referred to as one. Largely because, especially in more recent years, I often find I don't have that much in Common with a lot of "climbers".

Or were you replying to M1v0? I which case I'll shut up.

[M1V0]

Deep within me, it is the only thing. I am a rock climber, and these are my people.

That's nice. I'm glad that being a climber resonates with you so strongly

[abarro81]

I'm like Cowboyhat, if I'm anything then I'm a climber

[spidermonkey09]

I didn't ask you to be concerned with my perception of a climber. I just said I hate being referred to as one. Largely because, especially in more recent years, I often find I don't have that much in Common with a lot of "climbers".

Or were you replying to M1v0? I which case I'll shut up.

Out of interest what is it you object to/feel you don't have in common with "climbers"? I would still happily call myself a climber even though I think lots of stuff in modern climbing is bullshit, as I'm sure do loads of people, so i guess you must feel quite disenfranchised which is a shame.

[Bradders]

I'm like Cowboyhat, if I'm anything then I'm a climber

Agreed. In fact for me it's more of a suit of armour than a label. And I wear it proudly. Very strange to hear others are so estranged from it.

[yetix]

Echoing cowboy hat barrows and bradders

[Ged]

I didn't ask you to be concerned with my perception of a climber. I just said I hate being referred to as one. Largely because, especially in more recent years, I often find I don't have that much in Common with a lot of "climbers".

Or were you replying to M1v0? I which case I'll shut up.

Out of interest what is it you object to/feel you don't have in common with "climbers"? I would still happily call myself a climber even though I think lots of stuff in modern climbing is bullshit, as I'm sure do loads of people, so i guess you must feel quite disenfranchised which is a shame.

I'm not really sure. Maybe it's meeting a few too many people that irritated me at crags over the years. Or maybe it's just a simple feeling of being more than just about climbing. I'm also a husband, a dad, a runner, a teacher, a member of the community I live in. I think I probably feel that all of those things define me.

But I've honestly never really thought about it so that might be bs.

[SA Chris]

"The Power of Climbing, it's enormous! It dictates my entire existence"