TeaDidikai
Recursive Paradox
TeaDidikai
I find myself in an interesting position when it comes to translating concepts into English.
For example, there is a host of behavior that is translated as "crazy" in English from the dialects of Rroma my family uses that range from mild behavior problems to dangerous actions to classic Simpson D'oh! moments. Which leaves me wondering in situations where the kind of -ism isn't culturally present in one, but the translation would evoke such, what is left when it comes to accurately communicating ideas.
That's generally the problem when translating from a culture with different -isms in it to one with another set. You're stuck using a language that in and of itself is filled with concepts rooted in ableism. English, unfortunately, associates conceptually behavior problems, dangerous actions and classic "D'oh" moments with mental illness and not being neurotypical. Oftentimes directly.
I don't have a great solution. I guess you could search for other English words that are closer to the concepts from your culture without the ableist roots from their own concepts. Or even describe things conceptually (which has the downer of making one more verbose).
At which point isn't the forced assimilation of foreign concepts into contexts they don't belong relying on ethnic privilege to enforce it's stereotypes onto the ethnic minority?
I would argue that if I were to translate words from one language into phrases from another that have those -ism concepts that are out of context, I am the reason for those concepts being forced together even though it makes no conceptual sense. Not the language or culture I am translating to. However, I do agree that anyone who assumes that, due to that translation, the words from your culture are ableist is ethnocentric and unthinking.
So say I translated a phrase into another culture that had a certain -ism and my translated phrase used an -ism word from that culture. These concepts being pushed together inappropriately is my fault for translating poorly to begin with but anyone who assumes that my culture has these same -ism aspects as a result is still ethnocentric.
Let's use a hypothetical.
Let's say I was from a culture that didn't have ableism towards people with learning disabilities. We had a word in our culture for people who are slowed down by a shocking or confusing statement. The word's meaning is literally "slowed down in thought". Basically describing someone who hears something massive or major and actually needs to take longer to think than normal for themselves in order to comprehend this unusual thing (because of how unusual it is. Sort of like "my mind is blown").
I translate this word into the word "retarded". It's the closest thing I'm able to find to the concept of being slowed down in thought among English words.
The ableist concepts tied to the word "retarded" do not belong with my hypothetical word from my hypothetical culture. To state that the word from my culture is ableist would surely be ethnocentric (and you'll notice that I do not regard your words from your culture that translate to crazy as ableist). They do not connect to them.
However, I choose that word as the translation target. I am the one who has combined them, not the culture I'm visiting. After all, I am attempting to use their language to communicate my concepts in my culture. It's my responsibility to do that correctly and not use words that do not connect properly. So, by translating my word to the word "retarded" I am the one pushing the concepts out of context and creating the association. I should translate better to avoid it while members of that culture should remember the flaws of translation and not assume my culture is as theirs.
Makes sense?
Basically, I shouldn't translate to a word that doesn't connect conceptually and involves -isms and people shouldn't assume my culture has the -isms theirs does.
