UPDATE: American Heritage Dictionary Responds to “Anchor Baby” Definition Criticism

Written by on December 3, 2011 in Children, Myths, Rhetoric, Uncategorized with 5 Comments

In response to ImmigrationImpact.com’s critique of the definition of “anchor baby” included in the latest edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the executive editor of the dictionary has agreed to revise the definition of to reflect the derogatory nature of the term. In conversations with Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center, Executive Editor Steven Kleinedler promised a swift and careful revision of the term. Mr. Kleinedler noted that the editors are already undergoing further review on how the term is commonly used and said “we will be adding a label to the term, either derogatory or offensive, which I acknowledge should have been done in the first place, and we will determine how to revise the definition. Then on Monday we begin making the actual change—first on the website, and then we begin propagating the change out to the electronic products and in the next printing.”

ImmigrationImpact.com will continue to monitor the changes and urges the editors to adopt a definition that reflects the truly insidious nature of this term.

email

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed
  • Elena Gutierrez

    An online petition has been started …

    • WK

      I like the original definition. It is accurate. The suggested definition is also accurate. I don’t find the term derogatory. It is what it is.

  • Pingback: ‘Anchor Baby’ Controversy: American Heritage Dictionary To Add | Cuéntame | Latino News. Video. Music. Impact

  • Pingback: “Anchor baby” is now a “derogatory” term « Jewamongyou's Blog

  • Juan Harris

    If Truth be told, This Term is a lot more profound than Media or the criticts of It realize. When the Papal Bull of Pope Nicholas V is considered, Anchor Babies actually become the initial Transplantation of a New People. When it’s really thought about; Who in this Nation is not the desendant of an Anchor Baby?
    What is being ignored is the fact that once that Baby takes it’s first Breath on this Continent, It’s an Indigenous/American Inhabitant. irrespective of where the parents came from, the parent’s Anchor-chain to their old Country nolonger tethers their new American offspring. to the Old Country. By continueing the illusion via the teaching of Anchor Babies that somehow the contined acknowledgment of the Parent’s Old-Country-Anchor-chain makes them different and superior to any other AMERICAN-Anchor-Baby types of Descendants.
    Back to this Papal Bull thingie: the influence it’s had even to this very day, is the Constitutional requirement that any candidate for the office of POTUS be an AMERICAN-Born Citizen (the Descendant of an American Anchor Baby) further severing those old-country anchor chains. The prime example of severing old world anchor-chains would be the decision of Fletcher Christian to burn the HMS Bounty. The First Babies born on Pitcairin Island owed no allegience to the Countries of their Parents, nor were any of them taught that they were different or superior to any other of their countrymen/women.
    On the shoulders of the Papal Bull rests the authoritative document known as the Doctrine of Discovery; the Letters of Marque that Columbus sailed under in 1492 to allegedly discover the American Continent and it’s Inhabitants, per the dictates of the Papal Bull. and orders from Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain. See “NATIVE AMERICANS DISCOVERD AND CONQUERED” by Prof .Robt. J Miller. The text of Colubus’ log books would be quite helpful also. Especially the corresponce between himself and Queen Isabella, spelling out their intent for the Newly Discovered Indigenous Descendants of the prior Anchor Babies. I still wonder why Those People were never considered to be “VINELANDERS”?

Top