Just a periodic reminder that 'Beyond the Pale' is a pro-colonialist phrase that many believe was was part of Britain's Centuries-long campaign to eliminate Irish culture.
That claim is not supported in the source you linked. In fact, it's directly contradicted several times. For example, toward the end, it quotes the OED:
"The theory that the origin of the phrase [‘beyond the pale’] relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale … or the Pale of Settlement in Russia … is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization.”
Throughout, your source draws a distinction between the histories of the separate phrases "beyond the pale" and "pale of settlement".
So I guess your statement might be true in the narrow sense that "many believe" the false etymology, just as you can find many who believe that the earth is flat. But that's not a good reason to go around chiding people for using a common expression.
Hmm, so if you're interested in my answer, I guess I would ask you how you want to proceed. Do we want to accept that OED is an trustworthy catalog of etymological facts, or not? If not, why? Do you think the quotes it pulls from the 1700's are fabricated? Do you think it's suppressing an earlier usage of "pale of settlement"? What is your claim, exactly?
You're the one whose source was quoting from OED, so you tell me. It'll be easier if we're starting from a shared ground truth.
Where exactly is the reference to colonization in the Mackenzie quote? This one: "when we would be blessed beyond the pale of reason, we are blessed imperfectly". Sorry, I'm not seeing it.
"Many people believe..."
Name one. Have a free do-over: pick a source you actually agree with this time. Make sure it doesn't quote any reference books that you distrust.
The phrase seems to refer to journeying "beyond the established border" of the settlement. Even if this is from a colonialist perspective, that doesn't obviously make it "pro-colonialist".
> Also keep in mind that the major doubter is the Oxford English Dictionary
So we are to disregard English opinion on the English language?..
As for the relationship between the two expressions, the OED has this to say:
“The theory that the origin of the phrase [‘beyond the pale’] relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale … or the Pale of Settlement in Russia … is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization.”
Also from the article: a “pale” is a fence. “Beyond the pale” used to require a suffix (e.g., “beyond the pale of reason”) but eventually by itself started to be short for “beyond the pale of acceptable behavior”.
Metaphorical boundaries of things like reason and acceptable behavior. “Beyond the pale” means outside the fence. Being “beyond the Pale of Settlement” (that is, outside the ghetto) would be a good thing.
You have successfully repeated the opinion of the Oxford English Dictionary after reading an entire article about how the British used Pales to colonize areas and define boundaries, but I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as you want it to be.
I'm saying you didn't read the source because you cited a source and it clearly contradicted what you said.
I don't know why you're still typing, you're not convincing anybody, you're not getting any karma, and nobody is gonna respect you more for refusing to acknowledge how blatantly wrong you are. The best you can do here is admit (to yourself) you screwed up and that you have a lot of trouble admitting when you're wrong, and then working on that character flaw -- your life will go a lot smoother.
Isn't this a forum for the intellectually curious?
I made no call to action.
I guess I should have known any time the information is something certain people would consider 'woke' it elicits a strong emotional reaction beyond the information itself.
Indeed, we're even curious enough to read your link! And to discover that it says the opposite of what you claimed! What you're seeing is in fact a strong emotional reaction to misinformation.
And your implicit call to action was crystal clear. Don't be coy.
I’m willing to believe that because so much of our language is tainted in that way, however the blog you are referencing here doesn’t support what you are saying. You mention “many people” believe this so surely there are better sources.
As someone else who doesn't deal in identity politics, please know I don't care what you think of it and was trying to share information on a forum for the intellectually curious.
There isn't much to "colonialism". It's just the establishment of colonies. In the many historical cases where the subject peoples were cannibals, I would have supported colonization.
"The theory that the origin of the phrase [‘beyond the pale’] relates to any of several specific regions, such as the area of Ireland formerly called the Pale … or the Pale of Settlement in Russia … is not supported by the early historical evidence and is likely to be a later rationalization.”
Throughout, your source draws a distinction between the histories of the separate phrases "beyond the pale" and "pale of settlement".
So I guess your statement might be true in the narrow sense that "many believe" the false etymology, just as you can find many who believe that the earth is flat. But that's not a good reason to go around chiding people for using a common expression.