Please note. @BMJV_Bund consequently eliminates racism. To be precise, it eliminates the word ‘race’ (Rasse) from the Basic Law text of Art. 3. Before we get to that it should be noted that there are/were continued discussions about the need of a study about racism in police forces. One from Bavaria, incidentally the Minister of Home Affairs, strictly against it. What could be the reason? Then there are travel warnings for Germany like this one from Australia. Then a magazine featured an interview a couple days with a black young actor Jerry Hoffmann (you can not get a more German sounding last name) in Germany who puts it plain: “In Germany, people often exclude black actors on principle”. A black news anchor on TV? FFS, no. This is the scenario.
So how does the German Ministry of Justice manage the cleansing of language it considers bad? By adjectizing the word ‘race’. Simples. This is nuts. Below is the present text of Art. 3 BL:
Article 3 basic law in prior version: No one may be discriminated against or given preferential treatment because of his or her gender, ancestry, race, language, home country and origin, faith, religious or political views.
This is the cleansed form:
Now cleansed of racism: No one may be discriminated against or given preferential treatment because of his or her gender, ancestry, racial reasons , language, home country and origin, faith, religious or political views.
To which Wittgenstein would comment in PI 6:
(Uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination.) But in the language of §2 it is not the purpose of the words to evoke images. (It may, of course, be discovered that that helps to attain the actual purpose.)
But if the ostensive teaching has this effect,—am I to say that it effects an understanding of the word? Don’t you understand the call “Slab!” if you act upon it in such-and-such a way?—Doubtless the ostensive teaching helped to bring this about; but only together with a particular training. With different training the same ostensive teaching of these words would have effected a quite different understanding.
So it depends in what circumstance you use a word. The purpose of that word is to categorize different human beings. That’s all. Words in general have a purpose. Even those words babies utter which we are unable to understand often. The German word ‘Scheisse’ can mean different things. Something went wrong, something tastes like …, the real stuff you produce and in English it can even mean something cool. That is some hot shit.
In PI 115:
A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.
Wittgenstein about representation in PI 50:
And just this goes for an element in language-game (48) when we name it by uttering the word “R”: this gives this object a role in our language- game; it is now a means of representation. And to say “If it did not exist, it could have no name” is to say as much and as little as: if this thing did not exist, we could not use it in our language-game.—What looks as if it had to exist, is part of the language. It is a paradigm in our language-game; something with which comparison is made. And this may be an important observation; but it is none the less an observation concerning our language-game—our method of representation.
Finally Wittgenstein in PI 55:
What the names in language signify must be indestructible; for it must be possible to describe the state of affairs in which every- thing destructible is destroyed. And this description will contain words; and what corresponds to these cannot then be destroyed, for otherwise the words would have no meaning.” I must not saw off the branch on which I am sitting.
Here is Michel Foucault in ‘The order of things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences’:
If discourse seizes upon the adjective designating a modification and gives it within the sentence the value of the very substance of the proposition, then that adjective becomes sub-stantival; the noun, on the other hand, which behaves within the sentence like an accident, becomes adjectival, even though it is designating substances, as hitherto.
What is next, Germany? Should we call a Black (Schwarzer) a dark anthrazit person?