The Crowhill Report - Content

Views and opinions on the news, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Sites endorsed by Crowhill:
Crowhill Publishing
The Krehbiel Report on Publishing@gregkrehbiel


by Greg Krehbiel on 8 February 2017

When I was a kid in Lutheran Sunday School we were taught “Jesus loves the little children,” which, in relevant part, went, “Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in his sight.”

When my kids were young they had to expand that. Now the song goes “Red brown yellow black and white.”

Identity politics requires us to create more and more classes of people. It used to be “the gay community.” Then it was LGB. Then LGBT. Now LGBTQIA. Pretty soon there will be five more letters.

So, I wonder what shade of skin color they will introduce next?

2017-02-08  »  Greg Krehbiel

Talkback x 8

  1. William
    8 February 2017 @ 6:56 pm

    Relative to food, we have “hot cakes”. Yet, they are also known as: flapjacks, johnnycakes, pancakes and griddlecakes.

    As for transportation we have a “car”–but it’s also been referenced as an automobile, motor vehicle, vehicle, motorcar and auto.

    Relative to countries, we had the USSR. Now we have 15 other unique countries names that replaced it. We once had Yugoslavia. That has been replaced with Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro and Republic of Macedonia.

    As for clothing, we have “pants”–but they have also been known as trousers, jeans, britches, and slacks.

    Naming conventions change and evolve over time for many things, inclusive of group identities. Even if this dynamic was isolated to group identities, what’s the “real” problem them transitioning?

  2. Robin R.
    8 February 2017 @ 7:11 pm

    Instead of LGBTQ there was just was one letter: Q – for “queer”. Some people no doubt long for the simplicity of those days.

  3. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    8 February 2017 @ 7:36 pm

    There’s no problem with names and words changing. The real problem is the identity politics that underlies it all, and the idea that some group is being left out unless they’re identified the way they think is appropriate.

  4. William
    8 February 2017 @ 9:25 pm

    Robin rightfully indicated the term”Q” use to cover the lot of the LGBTQ community. Yet, it was used pejoratively. So, it makes sense they’d want a different term. Also, they indicate there are distinctions/nuances within that community and they want a term that’s fully descriptive. So, as the nuances evolved in the culture, so did their label. That’s just one example relative to identity groups but there are others.

    It can be sometimes challenging to keep up with the latest terms and some are merely fads. Yet, I don’t see these changes as inherently “problematic”. Just as other social elements evolve over time (without issue), so do the conventions and labels of identity groups. Seems to me that’s just part and parcel of the dynamics within a civilized society. As well, since the label is about a given group, it doesn’t seem outrageous for them to provide terms they feel best describe them.

  5. Greg Krehbiel Crowhill
    9 February 2017 @ 8:02 am

    I’m not convinced there is a LGBTQIA “community.”

  6. William
    9 February 2017 @ 11:36 am

    You may be too sheltered in suburban MD. Visit areas such as SF, LA (West Hollywood), Seattle, Toronto, Central London, Amsterdam, Barcelona and others…you just might have a different experience.

  7. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    9 February 2017 @ 11:38 am

    Washington DC has plenty of “non-heteronormative” people, but the point is that all these groups don’t really have anything in common — except that they’re not straight. It’s like saying there’s a non-white community.

  8. William
    9 February 2017 @ 12:33 pm

    I suspect those that identify as LGBTQIA might disagree. Yet, that wasn’t my initial point. I still don’t find evidence that identity group naming dynamics is inherently “problematic”.