A couple of songs come to mind: “Language is a Virus” by Laurie Anderson and “Walk a Mile in My Shoes” by Joe South. And you bring up the different interpretations that are possible. “Unhoused” chickens can be targeted by predators. Maybe start using the term “free-range”? Or not.
I was unfamiliar with that Laurie Anderson song, so I watched the video. It brought back lots of memories of the 80s. In retrospect it looks so nutty! Yet it all seemed normal at the time.
Oh yes. This one's a bugaboo for me. Another language edit that seems to have arrived from on high. I noticed the change to "unhoused" in my local paper (SF Chronicle) quite a while ago. "Unhoused" lays the blame for homelessness squarely on society. You're unhoused when society fails to house you. The more neutral term, "homeless" does not carry the same implication. You might be homeless because of bad luck, or because you're a drug addict, or because you choose to live outside. You're only unhoused when somebody didn't do their job. It completely removes personal responsibility, not to mention choice, from the equation. By the way, I like your columns that stray from farming and land management. I hope you keep doing them at least part of the time.
That nuance had escaped me, but, yes, you're right. "Unhoused" subtly puts the responsibility on the government or society in general for taking care of people living in the streets. I don't really have a problem with that aspect, to be honest. I think the government is in many ways to blame for the problem. It created the veterans who are a large portion of the homeless population after all. Of course, the local authorities attempting to deal with homelessness are a different batch. Also, as you say, there are the issues of personal choice and personal responsibility. It's all very sticky.
My personal beef with unhoused, beyond the fact that it's just another silly PC thing, is that it really makes me think of livestock. Homeless people become a faceless mass of bodies that we could simply herd into houses if we only had houses to herd them into. Of course, we DO have empty houses, but that's another issue!
I'm sure I'll be writing lots on farflung topics. I've got to get these thoughts out of head somehow!
I've often been the one presenting an idea that someone else considered repulsive even though it came from what I thought of as my own good intentions. Those intentions were formed by my own particular, peculiar background, which has been quite privileged, to use a word popular among the politically correct set that gave us "unhoused."
At the risk of over-generalizing, I tend to think the use of that word reflects good intentions but also a background specific to an elite class that routinely confuses its own good intentions with reality. I say that as someone who routinely did the same and now regrets it, alas.
I'm glad I made you think! That was my intention. Three subscribers did some thinking also and it led to their unsubscribing. Fortunately I gained 4 more meanwhile.
Oh, man. The curse of Substack, worrying about pleasing or displeasing subscribers. I've decided to just write what I think and the hell with it, but losing a subscriber immediately after a post still sucks.
Whether homeless or unhoused, it’s ridiculous that people are in that predicament in the 21st century.
Yes, absolutely!
A couple of songs come to mind: “Language is a Virus” by Laurie Anderson and “Walk a Mile in My Shoes” by Joe South. And you bring up the different interpretations that are possible. “Unhoused” chickens can be targeted by predators. Maybe start using the term “free-range”? Or not.
I was unfamiliar with that Laurie Anderson song, so I watched the video. It brought back lots of memories of the 80s. In retrospect it looks so nutty! Yet it all seemed normal at the time.
Oh yes. This one's a bugaboo for me. Another language edit that seems to have arrived from on high. I noticed the change to "unhoused" in my local paper (SF Chronicle) quite a while ago. "Unhoused" lays the blame for homelessness squarely on society. You're unhoused when society fails to house you. The more neutral term, "homeless" does not carry the same implication. You might be homeless because of bad luck, or because you're a drug addict, or because you choose to live outside. You're only unhoused when somebody didn't do their job. It completely removes personal responsibility, not to mention choice, from the equation. By the way, I like your columns that stray from farming and land management. I hope you keep doing them at least part of the time.
That nuance had escaped me, but, yes, you're right. "Unhoused" subtly puts the responsibility on the government or society in general for taking care of people living in the streets. I don't really have a problem with that aspect, to be honest. I think the government is in many ways to blame for the problem. It created the veterans who are a large portion of the homeless population after all. Of course, the local authorities attempting to deal with homelessness are a different batch. Also, as you say, there are the issues of personal choice and personal responsibility. It's all very sticky.
My personal beef with unhoused, beyond the fact that it's just another silly PC thing, is that it really makes me think of livestock. Homeless people become a faceless mass of bodies that we could simply herd into houses if we only had houses to herd them into. Of course, we DO have empty houses, but that's another issue!
I'm sure I'll be writing lots on farflung topics. I've got to get these thoughts out of head somehow!
Wow, this made me stop and think.
I've often been the one presenting an idea that someone else considered repulsive even though it came from what I thought of as my own good intentions. Those intentions were formed by my own particular, peculiar background, which has been quite privileged, to use a word popular among the politically correct set that gave us "unhoused."
At the risk of over-generalizing, I tend to think the use of that word reflects good intentions but also a background specific to an elite class that routinely confuses its own good intentions with reality. I say that as someone who routinely did the same and now regrets it, alas.
I'm glad I made you think! That was my intention. Three subscribers did some thinking also and it led to their unsubscribing. Fortunately I gained 4 more meanwhile.
Oh, man. The curse of Substack, worrying about pleasing or displeasing subscribers. I've decided to just write what I think and the hell with it, but losing a subscriber immediately after a post still sucks.