To think that if you’re told a phrase is offensive, you don’t insist on using it?

[changehere]

Yes, a TAAT. The context is that we explained to mumsnet HQ that the phrase ‘beyond the Pale’ is found eyebrow-raising by many (but not all) Irish people.

The Pale was the name given to an area of Ireland under English rule and those outside that area were considered uncivilised aka ‘beyond the pale’. This is a phrase that is only used with raised eyebrows in Ireland and certainly feels inappropriate, if not offensive, coming from an English person.

Mumsnet use it as part of their racism guidelines as in that they only ban language that is ‘beyond the pale’. Mumsnet accept the origins of the phrase. However, they insist on using this phrase to describe whether something is or is not racist.

Given the context, AIBU in requesting that Mumsnet find another phrase in their racism guidelines?

Is this the sort of thing you had in mind when you mentioned men losing their temper?
thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/28/irish-apes-tactics-of-de-humanization/

It's such an odd thing to throw in there, given the history of depictions of Irish people.

Facinating given that was not my thought process at all. I just was talking to my son about male anger - not in one single way was I thinking about Irish people. I don't think about irish people much at all. He is quite calm but does find boys or men I should say now they are at univeristy who get so cross about things.

I don't think about Irish people much at all. - that's also an odd thing to say.

Perhaps I am just very odd.

I always thought it referred to the pale in russia where Jews were only allowed to settle?? I never heard of the Irish origin.

I know. That's what most English people use it as and think of it as and the Irish don't. I remember my mother telling me about the russian origin of the phrase.

Most English people are sadly misinformed then, because the Jewish Pale was established after the phrase was first noted in English.

It's time to realise that previous assumptions were wrong. (And actually, if a poll was conducted, I doubt if one half of one percent of English people would have ever heard of a Russian pale.)

Those claiming a Russian origin of the pale are disingenuously forgetting the meaning of the phrase, which has not changed since the 1400s. It's not 'the pale' we are talking about. It's the full phrase 'beyond the pale'.

Also ignored is the extremely low likelihood of a phrase in Russian or Yiddish making its way into English in the 1700s. As I said upthread, I am most curious as to explanations of the way this might have come about. Russian or Jewish immigration of considerable extent and assimilation to the point where phrases from Russian or Yiddish were borrowed? Before the Russian pale was even established?
I think not.

Xenia
Why include a comment on male anger in an unrelated thread and include national origin of sample males?

As to whether you are 'odd' - I suspect you are very likely someone who has a mental habit of dismissing all reminders of what is really Irish and pertaining to Irish history while simultaneously entertaining stereotypes of Irish 'otherness' absorbed from the surrounding culture, an odd state of mind that is sadly not at all unusual.

I find this all a bit, well, beyond the pale to be honest.

How goady of you Aquilla

If you strip ireland out of it and look at the principle when people have used a phrase for decades and decades in a language using it with an intended meaning and they may all collectively be wrong about where it came from should we force them to change words they use in England to the English which are not offensive to the English when they are totally unaware that to the Papua New Guineans or the Australians it means something different? By all means point it out to them so they can be careful of course.

There must be masses of phrases we all use day in day out and we just don't know the origins. Talking the hind legs off a donkey for example is one I use. ..pause looked that - interesting irish

"The phrase originates in Ireland. Donkeys (or "asses" or "jackasses" as they are called in other parts of the world) do not naturally sit down on their rear ends. In fact, it is an extraordinary achievement to get one to do it. "Talking the hind legs off a donkey" is a literal translation of the Gaelic, which actually means "making a donkey sit down on its rear end". Thus, when a person can talk the hind legs off a donkey, they can talk so much that they could even bore a donkey into sitting down." Hopefully that one's all right unless you are an animal rights activist I suppose.

I think all these old phrases are fascinating and most of us don't use them in an offensive way.

Mathanxiety

I take exception to you accusing posters refering to the pale of settlement in russia as being disingenuous. It makes sense a phrase may be borrowed from other languages or areas.

Anyway, a quick google shows a lack of agreement over the origin of the phrase so i don't think it is offensive. There are many possible explanations.

In this case it makes absolutely no sense at all that the phrase was borrowed from Russian or Yiddish, Gushpanka, unless you accompany language borrowing with time travel.

Think about it - the Pale of Settlement was set up after the phrase was first even noted in written English. Noted in writing, as shown upthread, does not even necessarily mean 'first used'. 'Beyond the Pale' has always referred to Ireland and the Irish beyond the English Pale in Ireland, and has always meant 'that which is uncivilised, unacceptable, rude, lawless'. The meaning has never changed.

Wrt where it came from - there are lots of links upthread.

That you as a user of the phrase think it is inoffensive really doesn't matter, whether your feeling comes from ignorance of its origins or some feeling that you have a right to offend.

After all, there were probably lots of people who were fans of 'The Black and White Minstrel Show' until it was taken off the air in 1978. Their feelings on what was or was not offensive vs. harmless entertainment were not relevant to the fact that blackface was offensive to lots of people back in 1978.

The people doing the offending do not get to tell the offended people what is or is not offensive.

Harmless intentions do not excuse continued use of a phrase once it has been pointed out that it offends. Likewise, Xenia, you may well be ignorant, for example, that blackface is offensive but that does not make painting your face black for a costume party any less offensive. If anything, ignorance makes it worse.

Your reference to Papua New Guineans and Australians are irrelevant for several reasons:
1 - we are not talking about Australians or Papua New Guineans.
2 - nothing in the relationship between Papua New Guinea and Australia on the one hand and the UK on the other is even remotely analogous to the relationship of Ireland and the UK over the centuries.
3 - There is no point in taking Ireland out of the equation when what we are discussing is a phrase that refers directly to Irish history and which expressed the English view of Ireland, Irish people, and Irish culture and still means exactly what it did when it originated - something unacceptable, uncivilised, lawless, wild, by comparison to the civilised, law-abiding, superior English.

Hopefully, you do not go around using other phrases that used to be common stock in English. It should matter to you that the people to whom the phrase originally applied find it offensive. I am not sure why you continue to insist that there is some greater point of principle involved in continued use of a phrase that offends. There are lots of words and phrases that are not used any more because they offend. And yet the English language shows no sign of withering and dying.

The only point you are conveying by continuing to argue for continued use of the phrase is that you have the right to offend'.

There is a legal right for people in England to use the phrase XYZ is beyond the phrase. People use it evrey day of the week and it is not a hate crime. I certainly won't be using it around anyone Irish though from now on as I don't like to upset people.

It's a big difficult to go through the whole Enlgish language and the phrases we use and try to weed everything out but once we know something offends people then in most cases most of us won't use it to those people.

I am quite offended on the brexit thread that someone has said the result of a crash out might be that Irish people will kill English people. That blackens (pun intended I suppose) the whole of the Irish with an implication that they will choose to break the law which I am sure is not the case. They are on the whole ( like the English) a peaceful group of people with whom we got on pretty well.

Identity politics means that some people seek offence everywhere they look

when there are more important issues
like hunger, and climate change , and war

but if y'all want to get frothed up over the semantics of a phrase with no clear origin while the mass extinctions go on, suit yourselves.

Persisting in asserting the right to offend by invoking worse problems elsewhere and implying (1) oversensitivity and (2) insensitivity to the real problems.

It's not ok to seek to silence people arguing against needless casual insensitivity. Nobody is denying that there are other problems. All of the problems need remedying. Not just those you choose.

I had a huge row with my BIL when I told him "gypped" was offensive and he basically told me where to go rather than thanking me for pointing it out. I had used it for years thinking it was spelled "jipped" and not knowing the origin and as soon as someone explained it to me I stopped using it and expected him to react the same way I had. It happened the day after my mum died too so I was shocked he'd be such a dick that day. I don't think our relationship will ever recover.

What is gypped?

Im Irish, I live in Wexford. The phrase "beyond the pale" was used here in Ireland by English to represent division of the "Civilized" - the English and the "Uncivilized" or to use words from Cromwells mouth "barbarous wretches" - the Irish.

When I hear people using it, it doesnt offend me but it does make me shudder and think of the topics in the 3 links below.

Would you offend Irish people by using this term? No, Irish people take the piss out of each other. Things like that dont bother us. Movies and TV have called us drunks (I dont drink, lived in country's way worse for drinking) and paddys and sometimes leprechauns for many years. No one hear eats Lucky charms you cant even get that hear (thank fuck), no Irish person ever says "Top of the mornin to ya" or "To be sure" etc.

So yea it has a very negative meaning here to most and always has, "Pale" wasnt only used hear though. And most Irish people would not ask anyone to stop using a phrase, because its not harming anyone.

Meaning: www.cntraveler.com/story/what-beyond-the-pale-actually-means
Causes of the great Hunger in ireland: www.history.com/topics/immigration/irish-potato-famine
Oliver Cromwell in Ireland: www.history.co.uk/shows/al-murray-why-does-everyone-hate-the-english/articles/oliver-cromwell-the-most-hated-man-in

The English did many terrible things in Ireland, but if you want to delve into history the Irish liked a fight on British soil.

And being from Wexford, Darquibus should know that the Irish might even have started it.
rathdown.wicklowheritage.org/topics/ancient-rathdown/raiding-roman-britain
"some east Leinster men were enlisting in the Roman army, many others were mounting raids across the Irish Sea on western Britain. In fact, reports by soldiers, concerning locations of wealth and plunder, may have fuelled the raiding instincts. Many raiders may have started off as soldiers and many soldiers may have started off as raiders.

Records show that the Roman commander, Julius Agricola, installed fortifications along the west coast of Britain in an attempt to keep the raiders out"

So at time when the English were an enslaved people, the Irish added to their misery by not only joining the army of the Oppressors but also raiding from the West, and joining forces with the Scots and raiding from the North. Hadrian had to build a wall to keep the plunderers out.

And if the second and third centuries are too far back to go, look what happened in Wales.

www.libraryireland.com/SocialHistoryAncientIreland/I-III-2.php the Irish invaded and colonised large parts of Wales and the Isle of Mann - it took the Vikings to displace the Isle of Mann. wales was lft to her wars with England.

And the Irish invaded and colonised Scotland and changed her name from Alban to Scotland - for as many know the Scots were originally the Irish.

Sorry for derailing the thread and that my links are not working, but please copy and paste and google. History is fascinating. None of us can know it all, but lets stop the ignorance that only the English are/were bellicose, wicked and violent. After all, in the first millennia, Britain, as we now know it, was invaded by the Romans, the Irish and the Vikings. Then came 1066 and the French and after that sadly, Britain, became the invader.

So finally a return to Roman Britain and to some extent the thread - there was a time when it was great to be known as fierce and wild. It kept Ireland free:

"Yet the Romans never attacked Ireland - their discovery of the fierceness of Irish fighters may have played a part in dissuading them from the Irish venture. The recklessness and persistency of Irish fighters taught them to respect Irish fighters and Irish commanders."
homepage.eircom.net/~kthomas/history/Histroy6.htm

PS - the Romans did raid Ireland, so the above isn't totally accurate.
PPS - I shall retire back to lurking now
PPPS - I am Catholic and part English, part Irish with some Dutch, Armenian and South Asian mixed in.

@Racecardriver

But the English aren’t actually racist towards the Irish anymore are they? Clearly there was a time when it would have been used with a double meaning (one of which was racist) in mind but surely today it has reverted back to its original meaning?

Hmmmm really? An English man, Irish man and Scots man walk in to a bar? Which one do you think will be the idiot laughing stock

(Or were you being subtly sarcastic?)

It’s reasonable to ask.

But mumsnet is a UK site, and they may - also reasonably - take the view that whatever it’s origins the phrase doesn’t have a derogatory meaning in the UK, or generally in the English speaking world.

YABU for assuming that “beyond the pale” refers to the Irish Pale. Pale comes from the Latin pālus meaning 'stake'; it means a stake fence and the area inside it. So “beyond the pale” simply means "outside the boundary"

Exactly this.

@changehere

Yes, a TAAT. The context is that we explained to mumsnet HQ that the phrase ‘beyond the Pale’ is found eyebrow-raising by many (but not all) Irish people.

The Pale was the name given to an area of Ireland under English rule and those outside that area were considered uncivilised aka ‘beyond the pale’. This is a phrase that is only used with raised eyebrows in Ireland and certainly feels inappropriate, if not offensive, coming from an English person.

Mumsnet use it as part of their racism guidelines as in that they only ban language that is ‘beyond the pale’. Mumsnet accept the origins of the phrase. However, they insist on using this phrase to describe whether something is or is not racist.

Given the context, AIBU in requesting that Mumsnet find another phrase in their racism guidelines?

This is more complex than just relating to Ireland...

'The English noun pale came to also denote an area enclosed by a fence, hence any enclosed place and a district or territory within determined bounds or subject to a particular jurisdiction. In particular, the term the English pale denoted:

– the territory of Calais, in France, an area of English jurisdiction and colonisation from 1347 to 1558; it was the only continental possession retained by England at the end of the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453);

– the area of Ireland under English jurisdiction; it varied in extent at different times between the late 12th and 16th centuries, but included parts of modern Dublin, Louth, Meath, and Kildare.

And the Pale, more fully the Pale of Settlement, after Russian čerta osedlosti, literally boundary of settlement, was a set of specified provinces and districts within which Jews in Russia and Russian-occupied Poland were required to reside between 1791 and 1917

Figuratively therefore, beyond the pale of means beyond the bounds of, and the later beyond the pale, outside the limits of acceptable behaviour. No historical evidence supports the theories that the origin of the phrase relates to a specific region, such as the area of Ireland under English jurisdiction; these theories are probably later rationalisations.'

wordhistories.net/2016/08/24/beyond-the-pale/

It has NOT always referred to the Irish!

Read history

The ‘Pales’ which people are taking exception to are all proper nouns, as they refer to particular boundaries which were imposed by those in power in particular situations. The definition of the noun ‘pale’ is:

pale. noun. Definition of pale (Entry 3 of 5) 1 : an area or the limits within which one is privileged or protected (as from censure) conduct that was beyond the pale. 2a : a space or field having bounds : enclosure The cattle were led into the pale.

We shouldn’t really be using the word ‘savage’, as the original meaning of ‘from the woods/wild’, was then hijacked as a description of indigenous peoples:

savage (plural savages)
(derogatory) A person living in a traditional, especially tribal, rather than civilized society, especially when viewed as uncivilized and uncultivated.

The word was used by colonisers to dehumanize indigenous people and justify genocide, so I think that’s a better candidate for censure.