When black people are first controlled because they are on average poor, another language. Photo: free photos on pixabay (public domain)
Black retirement was not tinky for left of the 1970s, but rebellious. Today, the antiracist struggle reaches the last stage. Then the fight is canceled
Like the capital press on 9. July reported, follow the berlin verkehrsbetriebe (bvg) to the example of the mvv munchen and want the term "travel without paying" do not use anymore. The munchner public transport companies had paid all the posters on which "travel without paying" was warned. Instead of "black driving costs 60 euros!" now it is called: "honestly, the longest."
In berlin now the "diversity program" of the berlin senate to replace discriminatory language regulations. However, bvg press spokeswoman petra carnikes opposite the berlin courier clear that nothing can be abolished what it did not exist. In official writing or documents of the bvg the word had never been used. In it, loud the spokeswoman has always "driving without a paid ticket".
The initiative of black people in germany federation (isd) celebrates the envision of the transport companies in berlin and munchen. "It is burial, because the term has a negative appeal for black people", said the speaker of the initiative, tahir della, at the news agency afp. "It is associated with that black for something negative stands."
Mobilitate for all
I immediately agreed in the ear who say: also language can violence, can be discriminatory. And that’s true. But how were it when we first and above all the conditions that mirror in the language?
I liked this objection to explain from the language facing site. Was in the 1970s "travel without paying" a political attitude. It is obvious to be rebellious, to anti-authorital living design. Of course, it was also cheaper, if you do not love yourself or rarely caught yourself, but there was also a social vision that went out over the existing one: public transport should be available to all, beyond the money you have for it or not.
With this understanding, they also fought for free access to urban cultural and leisure facilities. There were numerous action forms for enforcement: from zero tariff actions to the campaign "red point" against leewings.
So blacks were nothing else in this political context, nothing else. So if we talked about black trying, for the black shop, then the racism was the last thing we have to totle it.
Now it is a fact that this fight is hardly done for free access to social genitals, let alone sympathy genitus. Only the changes of these material conditions and self-consolidities have allowed the word "travel without paying" even in left circles a different connotation to miss a different introduction.
Instead of paying the word black, you could the word "travel without paying" yes theoretically to bring back the importance that it had once — and that was more meant to be a linguistically correct.
What warry, when there these therems to devellow to deven to the right of mobilitat and a free public transport, as is already in some european city? Then the thing was done with the skin color very quickly.
I still have another proposal that is certainly law compliant and does not quite as much personal use, but only awards, because the cabaretist hagen rether explains that very easily so:
As soon as they pale gypsy and were allowed to stay,
Today you would like sinti and roma and are expelled.
We push politically correctly.
Phanomenal and bang hard reality
In recent times, so in recent years, a lot of power, the violence of language is talked and quarreled. Before the "travel without paying" it was about the "negro", before that "gypsy schnitzel". Without question, words can contribute to the fact that something solidifies to smash something in everyday dealing, which racism is required and normalized.
At the word "travel without paying" if the debate is a little bit out of the trail, because many of them did not bring this word in the far away with a racist rating or attribution. Now you quickly get the throw away that you are now more sensitive for what is transported with the language. So who liked to pull against more sensitivity in the field — especially "go into the field" a clearly militaristic note contains. Nothing speaks against more sensitence, more empathy.
But not something falls on? Imbalance? We suggest the power to the violence of the words. When it comes to it, the willingness to debate is quite rough. You can hardly save yourself from comments and comment rings. But why does this correspond as conspicuously with a silence, with an acceptance of all that words only cement? We have already used the essential so that we can only rub the hair on the phenomena?