A polite librarian is a good librarian.
So, proposing that fans of this page call their fellow-librarians racist is OK, is it?Don't take it out on the cataloguers (we're always the scapegoats!)... have a go at the Library of Congress, and the Libraries that decide to use these headings!The University library where I work as a cataloguer uses LC subject headings (more's the pity), and I certainly am very uncomfortable with using these particular ones.... and lots of others.
I am still scared that the cataloguer might shank me if I look at them the wrong way, never mind calling them a racist. Hasn't anyone learned to respect their authority?
Catalog(u)ers taking themselves too seriously in internet shockah! News at 6!
What's all this 'cataloguers taking themselves too seriously' stuff.I just don't think it's funny to advocate branding people racist when they're not.
It's funny because it's not true. Have you read the scope notes for African Americans and Blacks? They're confusing and really only make sense to catalogers. Maybe it's just me, but seeing "Blacks" on a record or showing up in a subject browse is a little off-putting at best. But it's not a reflection upon our work. You're right to say it's LC's fault, but is the average YA librarian or reference librarian going to understand that? These subject headings are confusing to anyone, especially those who aren't catalogers, but to become overly defensive about it is just silly.
Man! folks are feisty about this topic on FB! As a cataloger, I'm not offended. What's even WORSE than "Blacks" in the subject heading, is the fact that the call number cutter for things relating to African Americans is N, which hearkens back to the use of "Negro", so "Blacks in Motion Pictures" gets PN1995.9.N4, not B4 or A4. Seriously, bring it up to the Library of Congress.
"Black--History" does not seem racist- guess if the LC people had created the "colored section" it would be.
But wait a minute! Even the title of our "sacred" month is wrong according to LC--Black History should refer to dark skinned people living in Africa--or Britain--or most any place except the US. Here, of course, we use "African American"! So, shouldn't it really be African American History Month? (Now there's a mouthful!) Just pondering...
One unfortunate problem with LC classifications has been the accusation that former LC librarians were somewhat racist. It also didn't help that old man Dewey himself was quite racist.
Why is it the only color in the crayon box that we celebrate is black. What happened to all the other colors and where are their months? (Red, Yellow, White)? Don't they have history too. If people don't want their crayon scrutinized then they should stop scrutinizing themselves. Last time I checked we were all human being first!
There's actually nothing wrong with "black." I'd like to know what should be used instead of that term, or instead of LCSH.I know, blah blah blah, it's satire, but when you're the first to get outsourced and laid-off in the profession because even your fellow professionals find what you do "confusing," you're bound to get thin skin.
What about the "Black Interest" labels that permeate certain collections...
Celebrate your misunderstanding of the nature of this blog by taking this post way too seriously! 650_0 $a Irony $x Social aspects $z United States
Not every "black" is African American. My Jamaican friend does not dig being called African American.
Post a Comment