![[Not the Onion Genocide News] Pentagon press secretary said that they do not believe any of the aid that's been delivered through the pier has actually gotten to Gazans.](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/b3999b1f-9fd0-4925-8886-a5e17dbc87fe.jpeg){kind=link}
https://x.com/laraseligman/status/1792996008684573064
Why say "the people of Gaza" when "Gazans" is right there? Is it Pentagon-speak?
https://x.com/laraseligman/status/1792996008684573064
Why say "the people of Gaza" when "Gazans" is right there? Is it Pentagon-speak?
is “the people of gaza” worse than “gazans”? if it was “the people in gaza” i could see how that could enable israeli propaganda on indigeneity, but “of” does suggest some link to their land
The typical way to describe people from a place is to use the demonym. An example is Californian. "People of California" sounds like something a pol would say. Or a poet or something. I think it's very notable that - as far as I know - the West Bank has no demonym. Everybody - including reporters - is forced to use a clumsy mouthful of syllables like "Palestinians in the West Bank". I'm not a linguist but it seems really weird to me that a simple demonym (West Bankers?) isn't used.
---
Edit
A comment to me at another site
amending 'people' to demonyms is meant to center the humanity of subjects in speech and engender thought and empathy in writing. the most widespread application is probably 'people of color'. i think the whole project was well intentioned and has some legit positives, it feels better to write 'imprisoned people' instead of criminals or prisoners
but it also rings nauseatingly hollow how corpos and politicals adopted it, they'll sign off on genocide but use the nice words as if that means anything.
if they called them bankers somebody might bail them out
Especially WEST bankers