You’ve lost me on this one. In this case, “integrated” is used because it is the antonym of “segregated”. It doesn’t erase the history of segregation, it repudiates segregation in a way that simpler (and perhaps newer & more popular) terms like “mixed” or “diverse” do not.
the term “integration” can also imply a form of assimilation, where black individuals are pressured to conform to white norms
I do agree with that. If one were to use “integrated” in the wrong context, it could imply the old colonial idea of cultural assimilation. In this specific context, though – as a refutation of “segregated” – there’s no risk of invoking the wrong connotation.
I fail to see how changing it to “racially diverse” fixes any of these issues. In fact, it’s impossible to define “integration” in this context without bringing up segregation and the systemic racism that wrought it, I’d argue your phrasing is much more euphemistic.
No, words have meaning derived from context. No one in their right mind thinks “integration” sounds benign as you suggest.
If you don’t understand the historic connotations of any word you could make the same mistake you do above. For instance why pick on “integrated” when you have no qualms about “segregated”? Your logic could apply there too:
The term “segregated” implies that separate facilities for black and white people simply existed equally, without acknowledging the systemic racism, inequality, discrimination, and violence that this system was part of in the first place.
The use of “integrated” here provides specific historical context.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Fucking what
Is that Chatgpt?
You’ve lost me on this one. In this case, “integrated” is used because it is the antonym of “segregated”. It doesn’t erase the history of segregation, it repudiates segregation in a way that simpler (and perhaps newer & more popular) terms like “mixed” or “diverse” do not.
I do agree with that. If one were to use “integrated” in the wrong context, it could imply the old colonial idea of cultural assimilation. In this specific context, though – as a refutation of “segregated” – there’s no risk of invoking the wrong connotation.
I fail to see how changing it to “racially diverse” fixes any of these issues. In fact, it’s impossible to define “integration” in this context without bringing up segregation and the systemic racism that wrought it, I’d argue your phrasing is much more euphemistic.
You’re overdoing it. It’s not helping.
No.
@AncientFutureNow
No, words have meaning derived from context. No one in their right mind thinks “integration” sounds benign as you suggest.
If you don’t understand the historic connotations of any word you could make the same mistake you do above. For instance why pick on “integrated” when you have no qualms about “segregated”? Your logic could apply there too: