"Anchor baby" is now a "derogatory" term

American Heritage Dictionary recently amended its definition of the term “anchor baby” to describe it as being “offensive” and “derogatory”:

Steven Kleinedler, executive director of the American Heritage Dictionary, took note when Immigration Policy Center criticized its definition of “anchor baby.”
Kleinedler says American heritage will tweak the definition of the phrase for the third printing of the dictionary’s Fifth Edition by noting that it is an offensive and derogatory term. He acknowledges that it “should have been done in the first place.”

Perhaps they should also change the name of their book to “Mexican Heritage Dictionary” while they’re at it.  I have already pointed out that it makes little sense to stigmatize a term as “offensive” if there is no acceptable alternative.  It is the same here.  The word “cracker” is offensive to some people – and “white” is the acceptable alternative.  “Nigger” is offensive to others – and “black” is the acceptable alternative.  When the Left wants us to ignore a phenomenon, it offers no acceptable term to describe it.  How does one say “mulatto” in Leftese?  “Mixed race” is not the same thing.  What is the acceptable term for “welfare mom/queen”?  Similarly, without going into an actual description, how are we supposed to say “anchor baby”?  They do not expect us to say “a baby that was born in the U.S. for the purpose of establishing…” each time.  No, they expect us to ignore it altogether.
A commenter (Restitutiontouscitizensfirst) on the above-cited blog makes this point very well:

Sorry but not all “Americans” find the term offensive in the least.  If you need to label this as “offensive” perhaps you need to label exactly which people find the term “offensive.”  Then you need to change the title of your book because it is no longer accurate.  I was taught not to criticize unless I can offer positive solutions – where is the alternate “acceptable term being presented?  So when the feminists pointed out that labeling a woman’s availability with the titles Mrs. or Miss was offensive and really nobody’s business they proposed a new title, Ms., which allows the woman to conduct her business without the entanglements created by the other labels.  I expect no less from the complainers about the term “anchor baby.”

This entry was posted in immigration/ Hispanics, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to "Anchor baby" is now a "derogatory" term

  1. The ability of rednecks to speak their minds is offensive. All evil whites* should be silenced forever. Only then will the people’s revolution succeed.
    Rightists read Orwell as a prophet. Leftists read him as a guide.
    * But I repeat myself.

    • jewamongyou says:

      I assumed that, by “profit”, you meant “prophet” so I took the liberty of correcting it for you.

    • Back@U says:

      You do understand that us so called “evil whites” are the ones who’s founding fathers founded this country, and won it fair and square. There was a great debate over who might own the land during the time of the Alamo. Do you remember how that war was won? The top 1% of wealth of world is controlled by so called “evil whites”. As long as EVERYONE form EVERY class gets off of welfare, govt. assistance, works for a living and starts paying their share of taxes back into the US economy, that is greatly being milked..then, we might then, all just get along and listen to your rhetoric BS. Until that time, go fuck your opinions.

  2. Larry says:

    If you dictate terminology, you dictate ideology. This is why leftists pay so much attention to language and semantics. This is why they call illegals “Undocumented Workers.” They want the general population to start thinking of them as workers, not the criminals that they actually are. We cannot let them do this. It is insufficient to meekly ask for a PC alternative to “anchor baby” or anything else. It’s time we start dictating our own terminology.

    • Stealth says:

      Can’t be done under present circumstances. Liberals are the ones who own or at least control the means of dictating what constitutes acceptable public discourse, not people like us. Television, universities, Hollywood and the government are all controlled by leftists. They’re organized, willing and capable; we’re not. To top that off, they don’t let individual beliefs get in the way of the group’s larger goals.
      I’m not a white nationalist, but I do at least realize that it was a severe f***-up to allow the country to be flooded by this many self-interested foreigners. 1965 simply wasn’t the time to be engaging in such an experiment. The right ought to set a few goals that everyone could agree on and get serious about pursuing them. Posting on the internet and “getting the word out” has never done much good.

      • a random user name says:

        Leftists aren’t the monolithic mass you make them out to be. They don’t agree with each other on everything, and they have made plenty of “progress” over the years. Look at the original schisms and disagreements of the original Frankfurt School. At least we can agree that they have advanced their goals. The right will advance in much the same way, despite lack of agreement from everyone. The “enemies are monolithic” belief is partly a function of distance. When someone else’s views are so far from one’s own they appear indistinguishable from similar views.
        And the internet is a battleground worth fighting in (at least, on mainstream sites). If it wasn’t so, there wouldn’t be so many obvious shills abounding. One of the things most hated I’ve found is where you strike at the root of the mental edifice the leftists have built – the terminology. Point out the origins of the term ‘racism’, its relation to Frankfurt School Political Correctness and why you reject the term, and watch how fast the thread will be locked.
        We are in an asymmetric situation. We have far less people and resources. We do have truth on our side, and the self-interest of those we would persuade. They have everything you listed and especially money and power. If anything, we are in a similar position to where the left originally was in the early 20th century when they were small in number. Our tactics will be somewhat similar.
        At this stage, the battle is for the people with the top few percentages of IQ – those who can read a forum thread and recognize who is making the best arguments. Convince enough of those, and they will influence the rest of the people.

    • Good point. I have an entire section about misleading manipulative language. In this case here language serves to whitewash incorrect, bad, or criminal behavior.
      I cite opposite examples. How language vilifies behavior.
      17 year olds became “children”
      consensual sex became “rape” when done with “children”
      Indecent touching of 17 year old “children” also became “rape”
      So the word “child rapist” became confusingly banalized.
      simple nude solo photos became “porn”. So a 17 year old photographing herself becomes “child porn”.
      Note that this language manipulation is disgusting and misleading, independently of one’s political opinion. Even if you are in favor of restrictive sex laws, you may be in favor of correct language. If you think that possession of adolescent erotic photos should carry 15 years in jail, do so. Just don’t call it “child porn”
      Equally, even if one does not share the “racist” attitude of this blog, one may favor calling a spade a spade. Like anchor baby or violent black flash mob.

    • I think the term “undocumented workers” is pretty inaccurate. First, they are not necessarily workers (beyond unemployment – some are children who can’t legally work); second, who is to say they don’t have “documents”? What about one with a document saying “Get your derriere out of our country?”
      Also, some say “illegal alien” is wrong because it’s not the person who is illegal. Just the foreign invasion. Good point.
      Finally, “criminal” implies “felon” and merely crossing the borders isn’t a felony (nor is it a misdemeanor, I think).
      Really the only accurate, parsimonious term I can think of for these excellent individuals is “foreign scofflaws” or maybe “uninvited aliens”. If you give these terms a try, let me know how they work.
      (My alternative to “anchor baby” is pretty cumbersome. How about “sweet, cuddly, innocent little child being used as a prybar to punish North Americans for possessing excessive humanitarian motives and/or insufficient legislative acumen”?)

  3. countenance says:

    They’ll never “allow” an “acceptable” alternative to the “offensive” term “anchor baby,” because they want to use the power of language and semantics to erase the very concepts of borders and nations.

  4. Stealth says:

    Leftists don’t talk about race, not actually. They use the term “racism,” but rarely flesh out exactly what it is that racists believe. As a result, we now have a word on our hands that can destroy one’s career, but hasn’t really ever been defined.
    The right is no help. They have such laughable things to say about race and all that relates to it. Back before the Republicans abandoned white America completely, they used to invoke Martin Luther King in their arguments against affirmative action. Does anyone really think Martin Luther King would have been against quotas for blacks?
    Meanwhile, the cauldron boils.

  5. The Other Eugenicist says:

    I don’t see the problem. I thought that the term was supposed to be offensive.
    Lets use it and offend them.

  6. SarahSue Phillips says:

    I once put in a search string in Google that included the word ‘Jewess’. Goodge promptly told me that the term ‘Jewess’ was considered to be a derogatory term by some. Who are these people? Jewess is simply the feminine version of Jew. How can this possibly offensive to anyone? No Jewesses, including me, are offended.
    ‘Anchor babies’ are meant to anchor. The agenda of the people that want to change this term want to obfuscate the fact that people will do anything, illegal or immoral to get into the United States. This is just another attempt by liberals to define, for the rest of us, what it acceptable and what is not. I refuse to play along. Retarded still means to be hindered or impeded whether it refers to people or machines, garbage men collect garbage and are not engineers, mailmen deliver mail (regardless of their sex), housewives are women that stay home, muslims are not lone gunmen, etc.
    The words and terms that were good enough for my grandparents and good enough for my parents are good enough for me. I thoroughly enjoy adding new words to my vocabulary such as hebetudinous or insouciance. I refuse to change my vocabulary every few years to satisfy a bunch of people whose opinion I do not value.

  7. Anon says:

    Let me submit mealticket Americans as a possible replacement.

    • Concerned Citizen says:

      A “Tether” Baby?
      A “conceived fetus for the purposes of staying in America illegally” baby?
      A “future criminal” baby?
      A “drain on welfare” baby?
      An “impossible to deport without hurting their feelings” baby?
      A “future democrat voter” baby?
      An “object of Republican’s pandering” baby?
      You could have a lot of fun with this. Just saying?!

  8. Reality Check says:

    Do you believe that “welfare mom” is synonymous with “welfare queen”?

    • jewamongyou says:

      No, but I’m pretty sure they’re both considered derogatory.

      • Reality Check says:

        Is “welfare mom” really more derogatory than “welfare dad”?

      • Good question about “welfare dad”. Derogatory terms about men aren’t noted to be derogatory. Men are expected to be insulted by ordinary language. Women are expected to be paid compliments. No one notes that the phrase “ladies and gentlemen” technically puts women in a higher imaginary social class.
        I have never heard anyone call “deadbeat dad” a “sexist” or even negative term. Maybe they think it is repetitious? But oh no, “welfare mom” is insulting because it suggests that maybe women sucking money out of the state is somehow unnatural. Women have the right to expropriate taxpayer money to pay for their children without its even being noted. Men have the responsibility to pay for (other?) fatherless children and when THAT is noted, it has to be in a way that makes men look bad.
        No wonder young males feel like opting out is the only “cool” option.

  9. I must profess my ignorance. I thought that the term “anchor baby” referred to an attractive young female TV anchor. But I understood the term now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *