Guess I'll be the first U.S. resident to take a shot at these loaded questions. Philip, you asked "can changing the word used to describe a condition actually change general attitudes?" I will give a qualified "Yes" to this, the qualification being, "as long as you know I don't mean
quick or widespread change in attitude." Many times I have
heard individuals say, after learning of a new way of seeing
something (or someone) that they had never before been aware
of the ramifications of their old view, and that they
intended to change for the better. The phrase I used in my
first sentence is an example: In the past, I would have simply said I was an "American", with no further thought, before it was pointed out to me that there are, in fact,
people actually living in Central and South America!
I hope, optimist that I am, that gradually this change will
spread to include the majority of folks everywhere. I also
hope that more of these folks will speak up, since it seems
that the loudest voices, which are often negative, often
sway the crowd's opinions. There is an old song that goes,
"One man's hands can't tear a prison down; two men's hands
can't tear a prison down; but if two and two and fifty
make a million, we'll see the change come 'round".
Wsieber, I agree that "we" (whoever that is) are not in a
position to judge "them" (whoever they are). Not many of
us can understand another's problems with little or no
frame of reference. If I look at trying to resolve the
problem from the underdog's (victim's?) position, the main
problem seems to me that there are too many different ideas/opinions, in a lot of cases, to form one strong
"This is what we want" slogan or whatever to stand behind.
My main question to you, though, is about your "budgetary
restraint" comment: surely you did not mean that literally, to cover all situations? Could you clarify?
I am assuming (oh, here I go again, probably making an a--
out of me but not u, I hope) that when you said,
"Renaming things is still cheaper than solving a problem.",
you did not mean strictly that a lack of money is the only
barrier. Your comment made me think of entirely too many
"leaders" who essentially do nothing but rabble-rouse:
make incite-ful (is that a word?) speeches but have no
real answers or even starting points to offer. The result
of this is usually that the crowd splits into various groups, each of which comes up with a different idea, and
no one person or group has enough clout to accomplish much.
