I'm a translator, mainly between English and Spanish. A few days ago I translated a document from Spanish to English for the Central American branch of a big US corporation. In a paragraph having to do with corporate social responsibility, the Spanish original referred to "poor families", and that's what I wrote in English. A native English speaker who edited my translation marked "poor" as politically incorrect and noted that I should have written "economically disadvantaged".
Does anyone know if "poor" is in fact considered to be politically incorrect nowadays?
If so, I think this is silly (like many other instances of what is politically correct/incorrect). In my view, calling someone "economically disadvantaged" doesn't make them any less poor. What ought to be politically incorrect is doing nothing about poverty.

Perhaps the person who told you "poor" was politically incorrect was politically incorrect in their representation. Basically, because "poor" has so many definitions one of which is a person of low quality, using the word "poor" could be conceived as politically incorrect. Had you preceeded the word with "economically" then it is the truth and cannot be perceived in any way but the truth from your perception. But then what is economically poor? $1K a week would be economically poor to some and financially rich to others. There is a famous quote, "Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the kingdom". Is there anything that we as humans can say, write or think that would not cause someone somewhere mental discomfort? I think not.

As far as political correctness goes, this is a new one by me. I just finished reading the 2008 Associated Press Stylebook. In it, writers are advised to use word like "elderly," "disabled" and "handicapped" with caution, but there is no commentary regarding the word "poor."

Personally, I don't find the word "poor" offensive, but at the same time, I don't find it hard to believe that an overly cautious editor might.

If you write a sentence using "economically disadvantaged families", I really don't know what kind of family you are mentioning. It is because rich family may go through a "economically disadvantaged" period. If you use "poor families", I will know exactly what you are talking about.

Why would poor in spirit mean dependent upon God? What does spirit mean?

---

"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin‘ it." Festus

Why would they use the word Spirit when they meant Soul?
It would seem those who's lives are driven by God would be spiritually rich. While those devoid of God would be spiritually poor.

---

"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin‘ it." Festus

Unfortunately the English language is being sterilized of many meaningful and legitimate words, all to serve some groups' agendas. Poor is a perfectly suitable word to describe someone of limited financial means. I think it's safe to say most poor people are already quite aware of their being poor, so where is the offense? Perhaps the more offensive action here is editors and politicians carefully crafting sentences and altering meaningful statements so as to dilute the reality of what is being said. Does it better serve society to pretend there are no social problems? Please notice my the use of the word 'problem' instead of the more acceptable and less meaningful word 'issue' that is floating around so many boardrooms these days. Does it make your widget any less defective if it has an issue instead of a problem? Perhaps things would be corrected more quickly if Gary or Gail in R&D was told there's a serious problem with the design of something rather than using diluted euphemistic words like 'challenges' and 'issues.' The Tacoma Narrows bridge had a problem. There's nothing offensive about that, it's an accurate statement. Society would benefit from more clarity and less dilution and distraction in our daily language.

Who is in charge of Political Correctness?

---

"Supposin' I was to go to work and learn how to... to read writin'. Well, how'd I know that the feller that... that wrote the writin' was a writin' the writin' right? See it could be that he wrote the writin' all wrong. Here I'd be just a readin' wrong writin', don't ya see? You probably been doin' it your whole life, just a readin' wrong writin' and not even knowin‘ it." Festus

I agree with kaliedel. From a policy perspective, describing a family (or a people, neighborhood, school system, whatever) as "poor" is vague. Describing the family as in "poverty" at least provides an idea of their income in relation to the district as a whole, as each administrative district in the US has a "poverty line." But this still doesn't account for or engage with the cause of the poverty. Describing a family as "economically disadvantaged" suggests that resources can be and should be provided to off-set and balance the disadvantages. While I don't think "poor" is a politically incorrect term in the sense of demeaning, I do think that it's simply not a very meaningful term in terms of policy making.

But what does "poor" mean in this instance? Are they unemployed? Living in debt? On welfare? Is their yearly salary below a certain designation? Do they live in what many consider to be an impoverished area? Are they homeless, even?

My point is, "poor" could mean any number of things, and needs to be specified.

Luftmarque is right. Here's the paragraph as I translated it into English:
"In Honduras, Corporation XYZ and Association So-and-So joined to collect and donate provisions with the objective of improving the nutritional situation of 55 poor families."
As you can see, this is a third-world situation. The scene is possibly a rural village (or an impoverished area in a city). It's a matter not just of families who are in debt etc. but a more chronic social situation of underdevelopment, typical of many third-world places. In my view, the word "poor" is perfectly clear and accurate in this context. So, if it's not "politically incorrect" (as I gather the consensus seems to indicate), I think I will leave it as it is.
Thank you very much for your contributions.
P.S. - To Richard: Hey, I know my Bible too and I see you have a point, but let's not drift into that because the subject of the thread is different. The parallel passage in Luke 6:20, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God," clearly refers to those who are socially poor, as most scholars would interpret. I think Fred has touched the key nerve in all this--who determines what is politically correct? Why do we have to comply with anyone's assertion that any given word is politically incorrect?

Love the quote, Mark. :) Truer words were never spoken.

---

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." -- Mark Twain

To me, this is about the way of thinking of who suppose description is rather important than definition. influence differs in this way and this style is formal as well, and arrogant way. They even can't stand to hear the word "poor", so they try to pretend everybody is like them and nobody suffers from money that they have so much in their pocket which is hold in order to double it without thinking poors.

---

What a run, what a run!

Well said!

I wouldn't consider use of the word "poor" to describe a person (or people) living in poverty as politically incorrect, but my view of political correctness/incorrectness is slightly skewed from what I think most other people believe.

Calling someone "economically disadvantaged" seems a little pointless, given the current state of the economy, where everyone is at an "economic disadvantage" based purely on the fact that we are in the midst of a recession. It sounds to me like your editor is trying to make light of the conditions of the poor, or at least to euphemize their poverty, to make it less offensive to fat cat businessmen who have no desire to do anything about it.

---

It's like a book elegantly bound, but in a language that you can't read just yet. "I Will Possess Your Heart," Death Cab for Cutie

In by far, the vast majority of cases, political correctness is an excessive amount of male bovine excrement.

---