Earlier this week, Twitter rolled out the ability to post up to 280 characters at a time to every one of its users, myself included.
This has already made me a worse writer.
I know they’ve done all sorts of research into this and don’t owe me anything, so this isn’t a complaint post. It’s an observational one.
Being limited to 140 characters at a time was, for me, a good thing. No longer having that limitation makes Twitter a worse tool, for me.
Few things have done as much to help me combat bad writing habits as Twitter’s old 140-character limit. Even with the advent of Twitter threads, which allowed me to go on and on, the goal of getting as much information as possible into a single Tweet remained. Unnecessary words and poorly formed sentences would be cut in an effort to fit the format. With greater brevity came greater clarity.
You’d think the fact I’ve already gone over the 140 character limit might make me see the value in removing it, but it hasn’t. When I look back at the Tweets I’ve made since the roll-out I see bad articulation and poor distillation of ideas. I’m serious when I say I would like the option of returning to the 140 character limit and only going to 280 when I explicitly ask for more.
Antoine de Saint-Expupery wrote, “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” He was right, and it only took him 105 characters to say so.
Though I love radio, I will be spending the next few months as CBC’s digital producer for Prince George/northern B.C.
The best way to get these stories is as follows:
1. Facebook –> http://facebook.com/daybreaknorth
2. Twitter –> http://twitter.com/daybreaknorth
3. Bookmark –> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/topic/Tag/CBC%20Prince%20George
You’re writing a story about people living in Toronto. Do you refer to them as
d. North Americans
Every answer is technically right. However, there are different levels of accuracy within each term.
If people in Toronto are voting for a new mayor you’d probably say “Torontonians are going to the polls” rather than “North Americans are going to the polls”, because it more precisely communicates the identity of the people you’re talking about.
I bring this up in the context of a column written by Melanie Lefebvre and Alicia Elliott for the Walrus titled ‘We Didn’t Choose to Be Called Indigenous.’1 It’s a meditation on the way in which Indigenous/Aboriginal/Native/Indian people have been given generic monikers over the years, rather than being referred to by their specific nation.
“The continual refusal of Canada to acknowledge our names for ourselves, insisting instead on “Indian,” or later “Aboriginal,” or now “Indigenous,” has ideological roots in the same idea. We name you. We grant you your identity—or not. You are ours to name as we choose. “
By the end, they suggest some steps Canadians can take to take part in reconciliation, including, “Learn the treaty history of the lands that you live on. Learn how to say the names of the Indigenous nations who traditionally cared for those lands—in their language.”
In my read, it’s an ask to learn and think about Indigenous people not as a generic, catch-all category but in more specific ways: Dakelh are not Haida are not Annishnawbe any more than Albertans are Manitobans are Newfoundlanders or Canadians and Mexicans are Americans despite being part of North America. There is a certain amount of shared experience, but there are also unique historic and cultural characteristics that make more precise terms helpful.
However, in a somewhat less charitable reading, former Walrus editor Jon Kay summarized the piece this way:
In his subsequent replies, Kay makes clear it’s his belief Elliott and Lefebvre are arguing the word “Indigenous” is no longer an OK to use and are embarking in language policing:
The thing is, I don’t understand where Kay’s reading of this piece comes from (I’ve asked him, he’s yet to reply).
One reason I don’t think Lefebvre and Elliott are attempting to prevent anyone from using the term “Indigenous” is because they use it themselves, multiple times in the piece.
They also specifically acknowledge the impracticality of referring to specific nations at all times, writing, “We could not be “The Hopitu-Oceti-Sakowin-Kanien’kehá:ka-Powhatan-Chahta-Annishnawbe-Beothuk,” and acknowledge there is some use in catch-all terms such as “Indigenous” to acknowledge shared/similar experience across groups as a result of the last 200 years or so.
The suggestion, as I read it, is simply to strive for the most accurate terminology possible when referring to Indigenous people: “Indigenous” works when referring to people from different nations, but if you’re speaking about an individual, find out which nation they belong to– how they self-identify– and use that.
It’s precision in language and it’s something I personally think is worth striving for.
Elliott has said she doesn’t feel the title accurately reflects the purpose of the piece. ↩
Original content is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada License.
For more information visit http://andrewkurjata.ca/copyright.
Powered by WordPress using a modified version of the DePo Skinny Theme.