WORDSPEAK
The arrogance of race
ANAND
In the series of Wordspeak columns on dislogistic and pejorative terms, there was an examination of how ethnic — originally meaning any ‘nation’ or ‘people’ — began to be used in the sense of ‘peculiar to a r
ace or nation’, then gradually came to mean ‘a group sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language’ and, eventually, the current sense of ‘different cultural groups’.
Another word used in a similar sense not only took a similar, circuitous route to its present applications but was even more pregnant with unforeseen meanings and usages. ‘Race’ is one of those homophones that have the same spelling and pronunciation but several definitions (for example, ‘write’ and ‘right’).
To avoid disambiguation, let’s start by explaining that the meaning under consideration here is not a contest of speed or any competition, but a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group.
Race for ‘people of common descent’ evolved out of French rassa, possibly from Italian razza. Its modern meaning of ‘one of the major divisions of mankind based on physical peculiarities’ is from 1774. Many writers on language have pointed out that ‘the human race’ is actually not a race. The ultimate origin of the word is unknown; suggestions include Arabic ra’is meaning ‘head’, ‘beginning’ or ‘origin’. Since the meaning of root/race is closely associated with begin or origin, the Arabic connection can be considered tenable.
Manipulating the word
Racist is now used to show disapproval for one who believes that people of their own race are better than others and who treats people from other races unfairly and sometimes violently. American anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887-1948) said that “The arrogance of race prejudice is an arrogance which defies what is scientifically known of human races.”
Still the manipulation of the word was best exemplified by the concept of a ‘Aryan-European master race’, adopted wholeheartedly by Adolf Hitler, which in turn was based on the 19th century racial theories of Count Arthur de Gobineau, who argued that cultures degenerate when distinct races mix. It was believed at that time that southern European peoples were racially mixed with non-European. Consequently, in many Western countries, Aryan is now considered to be a racist term and its usage politically incorrect.
Perhaps the latest entry in the list of race-related terms used as nouns and adjectives is racial profiling, a form of racism that involves the (alleged) police policy to stop and search vehicles driven by persons belonging to particular racial groups.
Among other words that have the same source are licorice, the deep-rooted coarse-textured plant cultivated for its long thick sweet roots in many parts of the world, including India, from Greek glykyrrhiza, literally ‘sweet root,’ from glykys ‘sweet’ + rhiza ‘root’; readers are right on if they guess that glucose came out of glykys. The Hindi word for licorice is ‘moolethi’, derived from Sanskrit mool (root).
Radishes may have nothing in common with radicals, except that both words share the same root: Latin radix. Radical meaning ‘going to the origin, essential’ is from 1651; its political sense of ‘reformist’ (via notion of ‘change from the roots’) as a noun was first recorded in 1802, as an adjective in 1820, as the extreme section of the British Liberal party (radical reform had been a current phrase since 1786); meaning ‘unconventional’ is from 1921. ‘Radical chic’ was first heard in 1970. For word buffs who like this sort of information, ramify from Latin ramus ‘branch’ (related to radix ‘root’) and eradicate (past participle of eradicare ‘to pull out by root’ also from radix). 616
In a 2006 review of the movie “Tirupathi” published in The Hindu, the reviewer wrote “... such as Kamal and Rajini, but how long can they tow the same old line?” Tow for ‘toe the line’ (meaning to
conform to the usual standard or norm) is an idiomatic confusion found often in the Indian media, no doubt because of the association of ideas between tow and line (in the sense of a rope). The idiom has several explanations. One is that the line in question referred to the mark where contestants in a race were supposed to place their toes before the starting gun went off.
Another explanation
The second explanation is that it was borrowed from the navy jargon, meaning a line drawn on a ship’s deck or a parade ground that the men had to ‘toe’ so that their formation was in a straight line. This might have given the phrase one of its meanings of ‘order’ and ‘obedience’.
The third is by far the most interesting, which I quote: It comes from ancient practice in Britain’s House of Commons. A pair of lines is painted on the floor that separates the two front benches, replicating ones in earlier chambers (the Commons is strong on tradition).
The rule used to be that during debates members could step no nearer the opposing benches than the line on their side of the floor. This dates from a period when members habitually wore swords and the rule was designed to deter them from getting into potentially fatal confrontations (the lines are traditionally two sword lengths apart). So much is historical fact. But it is also said that if debate was getting too heated, the Speaker would demand that members ‘toe the line’. Tourist guides and some books on word histories tell visitors that this is the source of the expression. It isn’t.
E-mail: anand@journalist.com 
