I've been trying recently to be more aware of the names I use for things. Names have power, after all, and not just on Earthsea. Being able to name a thing means you control the point of reference people have for it. Whether you are aware of the full semantic, etymological, what-have-you structure of the name, when you use it you are invoking all of those things. I'm not sure how on-board I am with things like nominative determinism or what is called the Sapir-Whorff hypothesis, but they ain't nothing, I think. The way we think about a thing may not be wholly contained by the words we use in relation to it, but they at least provide a starting point, and a range of possibilities. A few of the ways of naming things that bother me most are, naturally, political. When, on the news, they say things like "Canada and China have negotiated a trade agreement", that's not what they mean. Canada and China are legally defined regions of geographic territory and the groups that control and populate that territory. Did 1½ billion people, the Xiao Mountains, Yangtze River, Zifeng Tower, and representatives of the Communist Party of China meet with 40 million other people, Ellesmere Island, Dauphin Lake, the CN Tower, and representatives of His Majesty's Government (of Canada)? Or were only two of those ten involved? It's silly to talk about international politics that way, but it's easy. It also reinforces views of homogeneity within and distinction between nations. Also the very concept of nations itself. It suggests that the same "Canada" that now works out trade deals with "China" is the same "Canada" that sent its soldiers to fight soldier from the same "China" in Korea. But, this all obfuscates the realities underlying the events. So often are political entities referred to by the name of the geography they administer, thus the actual people involved can defer their responsibility onto a vast and nebulous concept. Then there's the names we use for those regions. Take "the Middle East". Sorry, what? How do you get to be in the middle of a direction? Where does east end? Why isn't western Russia in the "Middle East"? It occupies the same space eastward of Europe on the globe. Is it also to do with the north-south co-ordination? But, then why isn't Kenya included? "The Middle East" is just shorthand for "that swath of territory where there's lots of oil and Muslims" (not to be confused with the Malay Archipelago). Not content with homogenising single nations, we're encouraged to lump the Lebanese in with the Omani, and the Egyptians with the Persians. This does those many peoples, distinct between and within themselves, a great disservice. It's likely done wonders for the petroleum industry, though. Most people scoff at flat-earthers, but will readily accept discussion of "the East", "the West", and that bit what sits betwixt, as if the Pacific Ocean were an impassable icy boundary wall. To make the point with measures: Vancouver is in Canada, and so is part of "the West"; Beijing is in China, and so is part of "the East"; the distance between the two, though, is less than that between Vancouver and Rome, a supposed birthplace of "Western Civilisation" (I'll get back to that). This is not to mention that more people from China live and work in Vancouver than do people from Italy. Again, the nomenclature only prevents a clear picture of the often tangled weavings of geography, people, and history that constitute the actual places discussed. Yes, "civilisation". As if city-dwellers have been the only people to develop language and culture, or even build things more complex than the mud hut. Never mind Stonehenge or Göbekli Tepe; never mind the countless times that nomadic pastoral peoples conquered or straight-up governed "civilised" societies. The city is used to elevate "Western" nations above others, though. Like, why is it that Uganda, for instance, has "tribes" living in "villages", but Canada has "communities" living in "towns", even if the architecture, infrastructure, and social composition between two such settings is largely similar? There are countless examples, though, of language that carries all manner of bigotry with it casually into even common conversation. "Vandalism", "sinister", "idiot", "pussy". These are a few I've been trying to replace in my speech because I have nothing against vaginas, individuals, left-handed people, or ancient migrants from what is now Northern Europe. Of course, "vagina" means "sheath", which denotes a certain purpose, and "individual" is an odd way to refer to a being made up more by bacteria cells than its own. So, where to stop? Is there even a worthwhile point to this exercise of deconstructing terminology whose origins are totally unknown to most speakers, let alone of any importance to whatever current subject they are discussing? Maybe not. I mean, this article is composed in language, after all, and is therefore itself suffuse with the same biases and presuppositions that I bemoan, whatever my efforts. I do think its worthwhile to develop the awareness, though. We should take time to consider how we talk about our world and the people in it. Because words do have power. Great power, even. So... well, you know.