A story on a local organization reaching out to help the unhoused in my current area. The director of the organization is quoted using the term “unhoused”, but the reporter (or their editor) decided to use the more charged term “homeless” in the by-line and the article.
OMG YES!!!
Fully agree with George!
I used to do security at some shelters and the local Ministry for Social Development offices (Welfare office). Through those experiences I learned that there is a big, big difference between calling someone homeless/addict or saying “experiencing homelessness/addiction”
The title says it the correct way, the opening paragraph does not. That being said, “unhoused” doesn’t colloquially imply homeless and could be misconstrued as people being evicted. Regardless, after reading the article I don’t think the author intended to degrade people with their wording.
Anecdotally, I think we do a disservice to the people directly suffering from homelessness/addiction/mental health by misdirecting our frustrations towards the journalists increasing awareness of the problem.
Similarly, I think we do disservice to a lot of victimized and marginalized people by continually ‘improving’ the language surrounding specific issues and subsequently attacking people -who are engaging the topic in good faith- for not adopting the prescribed nomenclature fast enough.
…there is a big, big difference between calling someone homeless/addict or saying “experiencing homelessness/addiction”
I agree with this – my point in bringing this up was to highlight the differences in the language we use and the images and ideas those words conjure in the reader/listener. Your experiences are much more direct than mine, and I appreciate the insight.
… I don’t think the author intended to degrade people with their wording. … I think we do a disservice to the people directly suffering from homelessness/addiction/mental health by misdirecting our frustrations towards the journalists increasing awareness of the problem.
I see your points. However, had the director of the facility also used the term “homeless”, I would have never posted this. Its the changing of the word from what was said to what was written that gave me pause.
On the other hand, you have also given me some other ways to think about this story and how it was presented. Thanks for forcing me to confront some of my biases.
It’s honestly hard to say if it was an overt political choice or simply using a more familiar term to the reader base, southern illinois being more on the rural side.
Is there places where that’s not the standard average-Joe term?
From the UK here, is there context to why it is political or shouldn’t be used over the other? I am not familiar with it being a political term in the UK. I am asking out of a desire to learn not interject with an opinion more than anything
No worries. It does rely on some knowledge of American subcultures though, and how much some of us like fucking with words. We dont give no fucks how we sound, often.
Homelessness, then, is a major wedge issue, particularly with the right, as they try to pin the blame for it on their opposition. That wedge-issue-ness is tied into feelings, how they feel about homeless. When you change the name though, that context can change. The new name doesn’t summon the old feelings anymore.
This is why you always see the right put so much focus on controlling language, to them language is perception, and is more cultural and individual than dem voters tend to see it.
So you’ll frequently get this ring-around-the-rosie where the left comes up with terms, the right turns them into insults, the left comes up with new ones, etc etc.
particularly with the right, as they try to pin the blame for it on their opposition.
How the hell do they do that? What policies are they pushing that would help the homeless?
Here, they try not to mention it as a societal problem at all, and if they do they paint it as inevitable and/or deserved.
One thing that has always been remarkable to me – I was born in Montreal, and I just figured that tons of people living on the streets was normal in any big city.
Then I moved to a developing country in Asia, to a city 4 times larger, and there’s no such problem. I mean, there are other problems, but not this one. I feel like there’s a lesson in it, maybe something to learn from the family or societal model, but I can’t seem to exactly pin it down.
For example, I know one older gentleman on my street. His home does not seem to be static, he sort of just lives with a variety of families he’s related to at varying degrees, and who live on the same street. I see him working at various shops and food carts those families run. Everyone seems happy to welcome him, and on a daily basis, he seems quite a bit happier than me, if I’m being honest.
I would love to see other people that happy too. I know it’s possible, because I’ve seen it – but I don’t know what needs to change to make it happen.
I just figured that tons of people living on the streets was normal in any big city. Then I moved to a developing country in Asia, to a city 4 times larger, and there’s no such problem. I mean, there are other problems, but not this one.
Where exactly? In the third world there’s often tons of people without an official dwelling, but the dysfunction actually helps them because they’re able to build an unofficial dwelling without anyone stopping them. So they end up in slums that paradoxically can be nicer than a first-world homeless encampment of the same size would be.
It’s a solvable problem here too, it’s just a matter of nobody caring enough to pay for a solution.
For example, I know one older gentleman on my street. His home does not seem to be static, he sort of just lives with a variety of families he’s related to at varying degrees, and who live on the same street. I see him working at various shops and food carts those families run. Everyone seems happy to welcome him, and on a daily basis, he seems quite a bit happier than me, if I’m being honest.
In poorer countries where people often have to resort to it being a couch surfer is a lot more socially acceptable, to the point where even calling it that is funny because it might just be normal life. When you hear about African countries and regions with 80% unemployment that’s how it works.
Oh, I’m in Vietnam. I’ve been here about a decade. It’s true that the ‘slums’ here are quite nice, I live in one of them. It’s safe and pleasant, if a bit crowded. 80% unemployment is about right for my area, but mostly people don’t seem to feel the need to work – too much trouble for too little money. I mean, they’re going to get priced out of their own homes in a generation or two, but I admit that they lead happy lives!
Unofficial dwellings are common, but usually take the form of an unregistered dwelling, on land legally owned by the residents. This lets them informally subdivide plots as families grow.
Most families seem to own the home they live in. I don’t know all the details, but it is sort of de jure impossible to be homeless here. I think all families were allocated a piece of land at some point – I don’t know the exact mechanism (since I immigrated here long after that was sorted out). Then you are registered in the ‘house book’ for that land, and have some claim to it. I’ve never met anyone whose family doesn’t have at least one piece of land they can live on, even if it’s far away.
In practice, someone could have sold their plot, it could not be a good enough piece to live on, it could be far from an economic center, too many floods, and so on. There are de facto a few homeless people.
If your land is out in the countryside? There are some good things about that, too. Not many economic opportunities, but you’re also not going to starve. It’s not like Canada where you need a ton of civilization just to survive. Want food? Walk to the nearest fruit tree or go fishing for an hour. Some of my colleagues in tech are tempted to just give up and go back to their hometown instead of doing this ridiculous hustle.
Now that I read your username that should have been obvious, haha.
That was sort of a sketch of the underlying logic, but I’m sure the actual manifestation varies tremendously.
Most families seem to own the home they live in. I don’t know all the details, but it is sort of de jure impossible to be homeless here. I think all families were allocated a piece of land at some point – I don’t know the exact mechanism (since I immigrated here long after that was sorted out). Then you are registered in the ‘house book’ for that land, and have some claim to it. I’ve never met anyone whose family doesn’t have at least one piece of land they can live on, even if it’s far away.
In practice, someone could have sold their plot, it could not be a good enough piece to live on, it could be far from an economic center, too many floods, and so on. There are de facto a few homeless people.
Interesting! That sounds like how communists would go about it, and also how it would break a bit.
It’s not like Canada where you need a ton of civilization just to survive.
Oof ouch my supply chains. It’s a bit of a tangent, but I honestly worry about that a lot. The old timers tell stories of surviving most of the year on domestic flour and a basement full of home-made preserves, so I’ve taught myself to do canning and cook with canned stuff a lot.
Average joe kinda implies middle American, so no, probably not.
Are you saying you don’t think republicans try to blame the homeless problem on democrats?
