Eliminating Gun Terminlogy From Photography

[BrianShaw]

Like 90% of the population, I think I am an above average driver.

If people really found out how good/poor their driving skills are (and adapted to reality) the roads would be safer for all.

 

[John Camp]

Who's more powerful in the US, teachers, or the arms industry? Certainly in the UK whoever's in charge loves to go and confront the teachers' organisations. But threaten the few thousand over-subsidised jobs that rely on armaments, or address corruption in the arms industry, which is endemic, and you'll have a real crisis on your hands.

I would say that teachers are more powwerful. The last few Democratic conventions, half of the delegates were teachers; the Democratic Party is essentially an extension of the education establishment, as the Republican Party is an extension of the business establishment. I personally wouldn't trust either one of them as far as I could spit a rat.

JC

 

[dreilly]

Can't read all the responses to this thread, so I have no idea how alcohol and Scotland came into play. However, I appreciate the original posting and some of the comments. It's not a simple matter of "PC insanity". The language we use does make a difference.

I personally try not to use gun terminology when it comes to photography. I prefer to use "make photos" or "make pictures" to "take" or "shoot". Shoot does strike me a little violent, and "take" as consumeristic--and also inaccurate as to what is actually happening. To take something would be to imply that it exists already, and the camera simply captures or picks it up--and in photography this isn't true.

To make, however, implies the act of creation and the hand of a creator (photographer, not the big woman upstairs (he he).

To take can also have connotations of exploitation. To shoot has connotations of destruction. And this reminds me that photography is a powerful tool that can be used to hurt as well as to liberate.

I met a Jain monk once who spoke always with a white handkerchief over his mouth. I asked him about it. Bad breath? Worried about bird flu? (Actually, this was pre bird flu.) He used the handkerchief, he said, as a constant reminder that words can be hurtful or dangerous. That answer stuck with me, though I don't use the kerchief myself! The jainists are really extreme but they serve as reminders and teachers to some realities. I think cameras are the same kind of thing--they can hurt people, and they can also help. I wouldn't recommend making photographs with white handkerchiefs in front of the lens, but when I give workshops on travel photography, I do try to get my students to consider the resonsbility they have to represent the people they are photographing fairly and with reflection on their part. And I try to introduce them to "making photographs" as opposed to other ways of looking at it, because I think it introduces them to the role of the photographer.

Anyway, I find language to be a fascinating thing to study and discuss. I don't get all that upset if someone uses "shoot". I don't really police other people's language. I spent two years in Eastern Europe where the language, especially regarding race, nationality or ethnicity, can often still be quite raw to the moderated US ear. But language reflects what is in people's hearts. The bad part about the "PC" movement in the US is that it makes langauge untruthful--and it covers things up instead of revealing it.

So I wouldn't ask people to abandon gun terminology when it comes to their photography. I would ask them to reflect upon how they see the process of photography, and use language that most accurately represents their point of view. If that leads to people using "shoot" because they feel like hunters trying to shoot animals in the woods, which my brother in law does (and does it with bullets, too), that's fine and understandable. Shooting people on the street seems to carry a different connotation...

anyway, just some thoughts for the fray, sorry if they repeat what has already been said.

 

[BrianShaw]

The bad part about the "PC" movement in the US is that it makes langauge untruthful--and it covers things up instead of revealing it.

That's the truth! A very good friend of mine (an American with dark-colored skin and Negroid features) continually wonders what's wrong with the word "Negro". He claims he has no knowledge or recent affiliation with Africa and objects to being called an "African American". Yet lately everyone wants to make him African.

 

[Sparrow]

And trying to run the US?
:angel:

 

[dreilly]

Those statistics are pretty stunning. I'm a moderate when it comes to gun control. I have a stern respect for hunting, especially the not inconsequential number of people in the US who hunt for food. But I also believe in tight controls on handguns, especially in urban areas.

I also think the fact that our children can be witnesses to hundreds of acts of violence just watching their saturday cartoons to be a bit disturbing. And for that matter, US adults are also showered with images of death and shooting over and over and over again--on the news, on "entertaining" tv shows. How can this NOT have any effect on people's tendencies towards violence? Or their level of fear? How can this NOT be linked, in some way, to school massacres, which, thought the US didn't invent, it does seem to take a lead in? Can anyone explain where these come from that adequately addresses the fact that they happen here in the US far more frequently and not anywhere else?

When it comes down to it, I'd much rather people shoot their cameras off than their handguns, and I'd rather see tv programs about agressive photo-journalism over the constant barrage of murder and serial killer police procedural. 30,000 people a year? That's sort of like a civil war, and would called that if only the butchering were by organized sides.

I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun...somewhere in the middle. We could probably do better than we're doing is my main argument.

SORRY, this is getting off-topic from gun terminology in photography...

 

[thomasw_]

This thread just confirms my belief that there is very little chance of writing or saying anything without bothering or annoying or even offending some other person.

Take and shot are perfectly functional terms; as are compose, snap and grab. But all of them will put someone off for various reasons. Though I do think I have an obligation to avoid bothering another person deliberately by the words I use, I do not think there is anything immoral with the words themselves. It is all in the intent; therefore it is the listener who has the harder duty to discern it or ask for clarification.

Usually when someone uses a term I find bothersome, I try to find out what they mean by it; and in understanding the reality behind the term I find there is rarely an intent to bother, most often it is merely a functional term for the user. And why anyone cares about that manifests another belief I have: namely, that P/C language proponents are either overly sensitive or have way too much time on their hands.

 

[Ken Ford]

Jenni, many of the studies you have quoted have been found to be written with a specific goal in mind - it's not unheard of scholars publishing to support their own particular political viewpoint.

I can appreciate that you do not care for guns - fine. Pursue your viewpoint over there, but leave us alone. You state no one has the right to a firearm, but that is patently false in the USA. Here, it's a highly cherished and strongly defended right indeed.

Thoughts on the thread:

1. The instructor is a twit, and could use a twat upside the head. (Proper usage of the verb?)

2. I'm a photographer, target shooter, competitive shooter, occasional hunter and occasionally carry a handgun for self-defense. (Yes, I am licensed.) I see no conflict in the use of "shoot" or other terms - it's all about context.

3, What's with the supernatural powers people attribute to firearms? It's not easy to kill with a firearm at all - yes, it's more remote than some other modes, but (from the stats) I'd much rather be shot by a criminal than clubbed over the head with a pipe or bat. My survival rate is statistically much higher with a gun!

 

[Sparrow]

and the rest???????????

the Midlothian question!

 

[jpwing8]

?

?

To each their own, but....

Does this teacher ever go clubbing?

Or shoot pool?

Or fire off an angry email?

Or kick around ideas?

Or use other generally accepted figures of speach?

Just curious.

jim

 

[gareth]

1. The instructor is a twit, and could use a twat upside the head. (Proper usage of the verb?)

Why? Why is it that somebody is a 'twat' simply because they would rather 'take pictures' than go and 'shoot'?

Could use a twat upside the head? Not sure what that means. But surely you are not suggesting that the teacher should be assulted beause he/she does not like to use the word shoot, when he/she takes photographs. What are you? Some sort of gun toting language policeman?

* 373 people in Germany
* 151 people in Canada
* 57 people in Australia
* 19 people in Japan
* 54 people in England and Wales, and
* 11,789 people in the United States

No stats for Scotland then Jenny?
There was quite a disurbing number of shootings in Glasgow in the last year.

 

[gareth]

and the rest???????????

the Midlothian question!

The Midlothian question, eh? I love that one. I've had a few English folks moan to me about this. I just tell em tough, get used it to, time to taste your own medicine.

Scotland had to suffer 17 years of Tory rule that it never voted for.

Roll on May 2007. Roll on independence and an end to the Union!

 

[BrianShaw]

So, is anyone shooting any pictures today?

So, is anyone taking any pictures today?

So, is anyone capturing any images today?

 

[colyn]

Before people were shooting guns they were shooting arrows and/or darts so shoot, shooting, etc are not in reality gun terms..

 

[Silva Lining]

In what way? Acting together with the USA to invade Iraq? Supporting Israel in it's suppression of the Palestinian people? Watching as our oil money is wasted on illegal wars, identity cards and nuclear weapons? To support the global free market which screws the third world? What use is the Union?

To hell with the Union. Scotland has been screwed for far too long, our industry destroyed, our culture diluted etc etc. If we can run England for the English, why can we not run Scotland for the Scots?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the English, in fact they are often rather shrewd, it's English rule I despise, and sometimes, more than that, my fellow Scots who have insisted for many years that we suffer it. Scotland may well have virtually invented the industrial world, yet we lack the self-confidence to take care of our own future.

May 2007 is a chance to change all that. Every five years we now have that chance. Devolution's only use is that of a stepping stone. Scotland will eventually go independent, it's just a matter of time, even most of my English fiends who live here will be voting for it.

I really think 2007 could be the year. I don't think there's ever been a better opertunity.

Self government is a noble goal, for which many throughout history have campaigned, fought and died for, not always successfully.

I too think that Scotland will gain independence eventually. I fear it might not deliver the promised land of milk and honey that many devolutionists want though.

The drive for an independent Scotland to me appears based more on an emotional and ideological response or a yearning for a mythical, united Scotland that never existed, (apart from in a Mel Gibson movie) rather than the economic and political reality of 21st Century Europe.

The midlothian question is quite an amusing situation, but as the UK government is run by Scots anyway, I see it as of little consequence. The fact that a few Scottish MPs can vote on English issues matters little in a government that uses blatant lies and spin, to instigate and pass policy, including war.

As for 'Screwing Scotland' I'll refer you to the following excerpt from an article in the Scotsman.

Political row brews as Scottish subsidy soars to record high
FRASER NELSON AND HAMISH MACDONELL

SCOTLAND's annual subsidy from England has shot up to a record £2,200 a head, according to official government figures, having more than doubled since Labour came to power.

Gordon Brown's spending bonanza has pushed Jack McConnell's budget to Scandinavian levels at a time when Scotland's tax burden dropped below that of England, Poland and Canada.

The figures from the Scottish Executive sparked a political storm yesterday as MSPs asked why it has failed to translate world-class spending into world-class public services.

In its annual survey of the Scottish economy, the Executive said the government spent £45.3 billion in 2003-4, putting Scotland in a rare club of countries where state spending is more than half of the entire economy.

But only £34 billion was generated in tax. This leaves an £11.3 billion gap, which has to be filled by tax collected in England, as Wales and Northern Ireland are also heavily subsidised.

The figures do not include North Sea oil and gas; but the study shows that even if Scotland had collected every penny of tax raised offshore, it would still have required a £7 billion subsidy from England.

Full article available here

Note the statements from the SNP....

 

[gareth]

Gareth, I agree totally. But I feel that economically we're better acting with the English than against. Don't forget, before oil they subsidised us for many a year.

The English never subsidised anybody. Did they create the empire to subsidise the world? Are we supposed to be greatful for them taking over our country?

One thing is for sure, ever since Scotland found oil, every penny in tax from that oil has headed South.

I wonder also if you have seen the latest secret secret documents, released under the 30 year rule, relating to independance and Scotland's oil.

The idea that somehow we are better off economically with the English is just plain silly.

 

[DMG]

sorry but yawn...

this is why the world is in the state it is in

 

[gareth]

Self government is a noble goal, for which many throughout history have campaigned, fought and died for, not always successfully.

I too think that Scotland will gain independence eventually. I fear it might not deliver the promised land of milk and honey that many devolutionists want though.

The drive for an independent Scotland to me appears based more on an emotional and ideological response or a yearning for a mythical, united Scotland that never existed, (apart from in a Mel Gibson movie) rather than the economic and political reality of 21st Century Europe.

The midlothian question is quite an amusing situation, but as the UK government is run by Scots anyway, I see it as of little consequence. The fact that a few Scottish MPs can vote on English issues matters little in a government that uses blatant lies and spin, to instigate and pass policy, including war.

As for 'Screwing Scotland' I'll refer you to the following excerpt from an article in the Scotsman.




Full article available here

Note the statements from the SNP....

Just depends what paper you read. http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/77678.html
Not only has England lied to Scotland about her wealth, but they even considered drawing up plans to take Scotland's oil by force if we were to go independant.

Even if you were to accept the lie that we are subsidised by the English, you then have to ask, why is England so desperate to hang on to us? Why in particulary would the Tories want to hang on to us?

 

[peterc]

So, is anyone shooting any pictures today?

Some disagree with this think it implies something to do with firearms.

So, is anyone taking any pictures today?

Take ... that sounds a bit like stealing ... someone could object to that.

So, is anyone capturing any images today?

Capturing ... seems to imply pictures made against the subject's will. That's probably bad too.

Possibly, it's a case of the English language having multiple uses (meanings) for a single word depending on context.

In "I shot a lion today" shot has different meanings depending on whether I'm carrying a camera or a gun.
I might go out and shoot some hoops later ... if I'm carrying a gun it might be a good idea to clear the neighbourhood.
And I can't think of too many people who'd figure they'd require a gun to shoot rapids.
You have to look at words in context ... it's a complicated language.

Peter

 

[Sparrow]

[/HTML]

The Midlothian question, eh? I love that one. I've had a few English folks moan to me about this. I just tell em tough, get used it to, time to taste your own medicine.

Scotland had to suffer 17 years of Tory rule that it never voted for.

Roll on May 2007. Roll on independence and an end to the Union!

SCOTLAND's annual subsidy from England has shot up to a record £2,200 a head, according to official government figures, having more than doubled since Labour came to power.

the scotsman