Talk:race traitor

RFD discussion: March 2019–April 2020

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

race traitor

gender traitor

Aren't these SOP? One could also be google books:"a company traitor", google books:"government traitor", google books:"group traitor" (including "in-group traitor"), etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The only non-SOP part that I can see is contextual, that is that they are primarily used by bigots of one stripe or another. This is fairly well implied by the definition, since treason implies opposing sides, but that part isn't clearly SOP. I do think that bigots use these terms, so maybe we want to keep and label/usage note them instead? I am ambivalent. - TheDaveRoss 22:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning keep as to "race traitor" and delete as to "gender traitor". The phrase, "race traitor" appears to have some interesting etymological history. The earliest use I can find is of the similar phrase, "racial traitor", in these cites: Oscar Grow, The Antagonism of Races: Or the Functions of Human Institutions in the Struggle for Existence (1912), p. 49: "Alexander proved to be a racial traitor; he endeavored by immigration to Hellanize his new territorial acquisitions and to that end encouraged his soldiers to take nonHellanic wives; he favored the intermingling of the divergent races of his empire and devoted his energies to the eradication of all racial distinctions"; Charles Willis Thompson, The New Voter: Things He and She Ought to Know about Politics and Citizenship (1918), p. 329: "A man was a racial traitor if he voted the Republican ticket; that was the feeling". The first use I find of "race traitor" is hyphenated: Frederic William Wile, The Assault: Germany Before the Outbreak and England in War-time (1916), p. 187: "Beneath the British Ambassador's car-windows, I was told, some one had chalked a John Bull drooping ignominiously from the gallows, with “Race-Traitor” for an epitaph!" It seems like "race traitor" may have originated as an abbreviated form of "racial traitor". This Ngram paints a surprising picture of their relative development. bd2412 T 01:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you're being a traitor to your own race (and not some other where you perhaps have a stake or are trusted) might not be obvious. Equinox ◑ 07:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that just part of treason? I wouldn't call Klaus Fuchs a traitor to the US, but maybe a traitor to the UK whose citizenship he took. And race isn't malleable in the same way that citizenship is. Traitor implies a level of connection to a group that, when that group is defined (pseudo-)biologically, can't be achieved except by birth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The set of things that earn the sobriquet with respect to race seems much broader than those for political treason. bd2412 T 21:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about that... on one hand, yes, racists are quick to call a lot of things "treason" to the race, or to call someone a "traitor to their race" or a "race traitor" or any of a number of other such phrases. OTOH, political hacks call people traitors a lot, too. Googling "Obama a traitor (because|for)", some things I see that Obama was called a traitor for include meeting Cuban leaders, letting BP help clean up their oil spill, signing executive orders (both specific ones and the general practice of them), decrying a speech Ahmadinejad gave, ordering an atypical mustard on his food, passing a healthcare law, and accepting the Presidency. In general people who use terms as insults often use them broadly. (Btw, I also don't see how the phrase possibly being preceded by a longer phrase like "racial traitor" would have any bearing on its idiomaticity or entry-worthiness. I mean, "trans rights" is a shortening of "transgender rights" / "transsexual rights" but I don't think it's any more or less idiomatic because of that.) - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose "race traitor" just feels like the origin of "foo traitor" appellations, and I am trying to figure out where that feeling comes from. It does appear to precede "class traitor", which is the next one to develop. bd2412 T 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Remark. Until recently, class traitor was far more common than race traitor. Wikipedia has both Class traitor and Race traitor.  --Lambiam 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems a fair and gender equitable term that should be kept within the language because it doesn’t specify the gender being the traitor or against whom. Is it the word gender or the word traitor that is offensive? Neither I contend and therefore it must be maintained.

We don't add words based on what an unsigned IP user "contends". Show us real printed newspapers with usage. Equinox ◑ 10:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've deleted gender traitor; that leaves the other one to be decided. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Keeping race traitor as no-consensus. - TheDaveRoss 13:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Usage notes

@Equinox It needs something to explain why the term can be considered an offensive or proscribed nonterm to some speakers. If you think the current one is too prolix and editorializing, that's fair but trim it down to something tighter and more objective that gets the same point across.

Given how prickly Americans in particular are about race, it seems like we should keep a fence around the Torah for terms like this to help people approaching it from other cultures. — LlywelynII 19:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I hate the American obsession with race but I don't think that your very strongly-worded "piece" ("THE VERY IDEA THAT ONE COULD", italics) is going to help anybody. Remember that usage notes are supposed to be about how the word is used (e.g. only women use this word, in Japanese women's speech) and not about the referent, or the topic. Equinox ◑ 00:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox The note specifically talks about how the word is used and by whom, so apparently this is just you mistaking a description of the people who use it (or are offended by the thought of using it) as my own personal and inappropriate opinions. That's fine, but you should rework it to something that feels less editorial to you while still getting the point across, rather than just blanking the text. — LlywelynII 01:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII Maybe we could work it out here on the talk page, or at WT:TR etc.? Maybe some input from other editors would be helpful. Equinox ◑ 02:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)