Wordwork|play

Anti-Arab Bias in Dictionary Definitions

Though not much has happened on Wordwork|play for a few months, it has not been abandoned. It has merely been left to lie fallow for a while. I have continued to read, watch, think, and yes, cook, but I haven't done much writing. There is still more change afoot at my day job, and I'm moving to Hamilton at the end of June, but the change is now more measured and controlled. I think I'm almost ready to resume more regular writing here.

As for watching and thinking, my partner and I watched the 1997 biopic Wilde recently, a fascinating and ultimately frustrating biographical story in which two terms, used quite casually, got me thinking again about anti-Arab bias in dictionary definitions. On a few occasions, the dialogue contained the terms arab and street arab, terms with which neither of us were familiar, though negative connotations were clear.

A few days later, indeed within the same week, I came across this article from the Jordan Times about Merriam-Webster's decision to drop entries considered offensive to Arabs and Muslims. The terms at the center of the protest to Merriam-Webster, by Zarka University president Ishak Ahmad Farhan and the Professional Associations Council president Wael Saqqa, were anti-Semitism and arab. They would like to see the entries for these terms changed and/or dropped from the next edition.

While I would never suggest the dropping of entries from a dictionary or thesaurus, and indeed find it of the utmost importance that they be retained, I do believe that, as with other offensive and racist terms, the entries need to be clear about the fact that they are offensive and reference the context out of which they arose. Leaving them as they are serves not only to perpetuate negative racial stereotypes, but leads the reader to believe that these negative images are still held by the editors and publishers.   

So I did some investigating. My 2003, 2nd Edition Oxford Dictionary of English does not list the lowercase arab on its own, but does list street Arab as "noun archaic a raggedly dressed homeless child wandering the streets." The online Webster Dictionary lists Arab as "n. 1. One of a swarthy race occupying Arabia, and numerous in Syria, Northern Africa, etc.," and as a subcategory, "Street Arab a homeless vagabond in the streets of a city, particularly and (sic) outcast boy or girl." YourDictionary has, as definition 5 under Arab, "a waif left to roam the streets; street Arab." It lists street Arab separately as well. In my cursory search, only the Free Dictionary mentioned, in its definition, that it was 'sometimes offensive'.

The definition of anti-Semitism is another example. Semite is defined, in the Oxford Dictionary, as "noun a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs." It is followed by an etymological reference to "Sem 'Shem', son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended." Semitic is defined as "adjective 1 relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family. 2 relating to the peoples who speak these languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic."

The prefix anti-, as most of us know, stands for against, or opposed to. But put it in front of Semitic and it doesn't simply mean opposed to or against Semites. As pointed out in the aforementioned article, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines anti-Semitism as: “opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel.” What of the anti-Arab sentiment in which a great deal of the Western media and Hollywood blockbusters are soaked? Is this almost fashionable opposition to Arabs and Muslims, a people clearly defined as Semitic, not then anti-Semitism? It clearly is. But not according to our dictionaries.

I checked the definitions for a number of other offensive and racist terms -- Chink, gook, Jap, Kraut, nigger, and wop -- in my Oxford English dictionary and found all of them prefaced with 'informal, offensive' or some such acknowledgment. I think it's time the editors and publishers of modern English dictionaries did the same for terms offensive to Arabs. Leave the terms and definitions in the dictionaries, but at the very least be clear about the fact that they are offensive. And why not include a little historical context? Check arab and anti-Semitism at the Online Etymological Dictionary. There we find that the offensive definition of arab has to do with a settled people's bias against nomadic peoples. As for anti-Semitism, it is acknowledged that, though most commonly used to mean anti-Jewish, the term is not restricted to such use. It even suggests that "[t]hose who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882)." Why not use anti-Semitism as a general term for 'theories, actions, or policies' that are against Semites in general, and use more restrictive terms with reference to a specific Semitic people, i.e. Judaeophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Jewish, anti-Arab, anti-Assyrian, and so on?

Extended Break from Reviewing

It's been over a month since my last review. I feel bad about it, sometimes, but then remind myself that it is unpaid and entirely voluntary. It's a hobby, for now. But this type of hobby demands a lot in terms of time, focus, and energy.

Lately there has been a lot of change (I know, lead change, change is the only constant, etc.) at work and a fair bit of stress. While I don't usually take work home, the business and stress while at work makes me want to just relax once home. I have little energy left for serious writing. And yes, I do classify reviews as serious writing.

Anyway, when energy and focus are low, I end up working with and writing about food. People often talk about comfort food, but they are referring to particular dishes that give them comfort. I find working with and writing about food itself comforting. So most of what little energy I have left after work has lately been directed towards sprouting, cooking, and my food blog, Vegan Miscellanies.

On Old Books, Fungus, and Inspiration

What's not to love about books? I have always loved books. I love the feel of books, the look of books, and yes, the smell of books. Particularly old books. The older the better--old books look, feel and smell better than modern ones.

Oh how I love hanging out in and walking through library stacks (read about the long history of libraries here), inhaling deeply the musty smell of old books. For that, and the intellectually stimulating atmosphere of course, I miss university life. I used to think I liked the smell of books for psychological reasons--I love the idea of books, therefore I like the smell of books. But an article I came across recently suggests something more physical.

Ellen Warren writes, in the Chicago Tribune, that there may well be more to getting high on great literature than the love of literature or learning itself. In "Book Fungus Can Get You High," Warren writes that "[e]xperts on the various fungi that feed on the pages and on the covers of books are increasingly convinced that you can get high - or at least a little wacky-by sniffing old books. Fungus on books, they say, is a likely source of hallucinogenic spores." Hmm. So that could explain some of the great works of literature--the authors, spending hours upon hours in dank libraries full of old books, especially in the days before high-tech humidity control, got high off fungus spores. Their inspiration may have come from what they were inspiring (breathing in).

I really need to surround myself with more old books. Take a good whiff of old book, then get back to the computer to write. That may be another downside of digital literature--no hallucinogenic fungus to inspire.

Failed Experiment: Writing in Early Morning

A number of things robbed me of my time over the weekend, so I did not get my review of Something About the Blues written. And last night I was feeling really tired, so I came up with the plan to hit the sack early
to get up at 0400 and get a couple of hours of writing done before going to my day job.

No, I did not sleep through the alarm. I actually got up at 0400, turned on the computer, and came up with a prodigious amount of nothing. I didn't really feel tired. In fact, I was well rested. What I did discover was
this: inspiration does not strike me early. Creativity is at near zero in the wee hours. Whatever I managed to squeeze through the keyboard came out flat and lifeless. The lesson? If I want to get more than a few flaccid
sentences onto the page, I must do my writing in the evening. With my day job, of course, staying up late or pulling all-nighters is not really an option. Certainly not a wise one.

So, for anyone awaiting that review, please accept my apology. It will have to wait a bit longer.

The Life of a Creative Offering: Independent and yet Dependent

I was doing some research on Ecotecture (word-blend of ecology and architecture) and came across the following quote from Picasso that can be equally well applied to literature--to poetry, short stories, and novels.

A picture is not thought out and settled before hand. While it is being done, it changes as one's thoughts change. And when it is finished, it still goes on changing, according to the state of mind of whoever is looking at it. A picture lives a life like a living creature, undergoing the changes imposed on us by our life from day to day. This is natural enough, as the picture lives only through the man who is looking at it.

Picasso from a 1935 interview with Christian Zervos. (found at Ecotecture Canada)

A work of fiction is the same way. No matter how much thought and effort a writer may have put into a story-- perhaps growing it out of, and around, an overarching concept or leitmotif, forming and refining characters, laying out plot elements, and then revising, refining, focusing, clarifying, culling, and polishing--to bring it to life, as soon as it is published and out of the author's hands, out of the author's control, it begins a life of its own. It is an independent, living creature. As long as it has a reader, it is alive. But it grows and changes.

People change from childhood into adulthood, and continue to change and grow and be modified by the impact of life experience. People change when they cross national, cultural, religious, linguistic and political borders, even if certain core elements remain relatively fixed. And so it is also with the work of fiction. Even if unchanged in a literal sense, an ancient Arabic, Greek, Indian, Persian, or Roman story, an Old English or Norse poem, or for that matter a Victorian, or even modernist novel, is a different creature now. It no longer means what it did in its own time and place. It has a life of its own, but is utterly dependent upon the reader. The author gives it birth, but it is the reader alone who keeps it alive, the reader alone who nurtures it, changes it, and sometimes revives it.

Blogcritic of the Day

I had a busy day today, so I didn't realize there was a nice, though fleeting, surprise waiting for me online.

I came home briefly after work to eat a little before heading off to donate blood (I have Type O-, so they really want/need mine).

When I got back home, I went through my e-mail and visitor stats routine and then browsed the internet a little. I noticed a few people had come via BC Magazine. To my surprise I saw my name highlighted at the top of the site. I had been chosen Blogcritic of the Day!

Thanks Blogcritics! And a big thank you to my readers!

From Letters to E-mail: What is Lost and What Gained?

I stumbled across an interesting site today to do with letter writing. I wrote not so long ago, in "Letters of Ted Hughes," that I am interested in the letter as an artifact. Rick Schrager has created "The Letter Project." Rick will write a letter to anyone requesting one. Because he does not know most correspondents, of course, the content may well be rather mundane. Stop by to check it out.

Modern methods of communication--from the telegram to the telephone and cellphone, from radio to television and internet-based chat programs and e-mail--are saving us a great deal of time. They connect more people, more quickly, across greater distances than ever before. Drafting our letters, if we may call e-mails that, now takes up most of the time, whereas in times past, in the days of letter writing, it was the long and sometimes risky journey that took the most time.

While we have certainly gained things, most notably time, through the digital world, I cannot help but feel we have also lost something significant. For one thing, because of the ease and speed of digital communications, we often care less about what, and how, we communicate. Letter writing was a craft. Time had to be taken to think things through and to find just the right words to express ourselves. And because feelings are often intensified over both time and distance, and the response to a poorly formulated and thus misunderstood letter took just as long to come back, letters were often both more clearly, and more passionately, expressed. Digital communication may be faster, but it is also, like much of modern life, increasingly evanescent, easily erased, and quickly forgotten.

Holiday Productivity

I haven't posted or published anything in a few days, aside from NODs. My day job has kept me rather busy the past week in preparation for the holidays, leaving little time or energy for reading or writing. Though I will spend some time with family over the holidays, I hope to get at least one review written and published, that of Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets, and get some reading done as well.

I don't celebrate Christmas. And I don't accept the oft-advanced argument that Christmas -- a holiday imposed on all of us through the audiovisual pollution of flashing lights and tinseled trees, Christmas carols, product pushing and the cheery-fake 'Merry Christmas' -- is merely a cultural affair. It is not. It is a Christian affair and should not, in a society that claims to have secular government and continues to welcome new immigrants from all parts of the world with the promise of religious freedom, equality and multiculturalism, be State-sanctioned. A secular government in a multicultural society should hold no religious event above any other. Either institute official holidays for the significant events and celebrations of all religions or stay out of it altogether!

Since the State is involved in pushing Christianity by making Christmas an official holiday, I choose to take advantage of the extra time to withdraw, as much as possible, from all things Christmas-y to get some reading and writing done. Of course I take advantage of any holiday to relax a little with good food, drink and company. However, the list of upcoming books for review is getting longer than I like to see it and there is some exciting reading (and listening) ahead. After Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets I get to immerse myself in Al Young's Something About the Blues.

Prolific Professors

I have often wondered about very prolific writers, especially professors who also write books. Thinking about them, I always felt a mixture of admiration, jealousy, and shame. I admired their dedication, energy, and output, and bemoaned my lack.

I am still too angry to write about it properly. Read "A Million Little Writers" on how many writers, especially, though not exclusively, professors, manage to be such prolific writers. I too could be prolific if I had a host of minions to do the work for me--I come up with an idea and they do the research and writing to which I can affix my name.

Following Developments of E-Ink Technology

For a few years now, I've been watching developments of electronic paper display, or electronic ink technology. I checked the E Ink Corporation web site from time to time, hoping to see products on the market useful to readers and writers. Suddenly now, there seems to be an explosion of devices on the market making use of this technology.

The resolution is not yet very high, and they don't have video or even colour. But being able to carry with you one device about the size of a paperback novel (maybe a little smaller) that can hold hundreds of books, and that, unlike previous generations of e-book readers, despite being digital, is as easy on the eyes as paper, is exciting. Before e-ink, digital books simply were not appealing to me because of the strain on the eyes of looking at a screen. PDAs, though fun, were not viable as readers either, for the same reason.

A recent e-mail from Amazon.com introducing Kindle, their own reader with electronic paper technology, got me going again. Since I cannot afford to go out and purchase it now, especially since I need to research different options first, rather than jumping on the bandwagon with the first product placed under my nose, I will hold off a bit.

What I did do instead of running to the store to purchase Kindle, was a little research. I found the following companies offering readers with electronic ink displays (listed in no particular order):
- Amazon--Kindle
- eREAD--STAReBook
- 3GC, llc (dba. MyAirplane.com)--eFlyBook
- Emano Tec, inc.--MedTab
- iRex Technologies--iLiad
- Polymer Vision--READiUS
- Sony--Sony Reader
- Tianjin Jinke Electronics Co., LTD--Hanlin eReader

If I can arrange it, given my limited income, I shall be reviewing these items here as I can get a hold of them. I normally wouldn't review electronic gadgets on this site, as it is firmly a litblog, but these are alternative book technologies (for reading and writing) and thus directly relevant to this site.