I'd not read too much into it. It isn't a political statement, so much as it is a reflection of natural changes in word usage frequency.A century ago, if you were using the word "confederate", odds were very good it was in the context of the then-still-recent American Civil War.But today, since we're further removed and no longer have reason to talk about the Civil War as frequently, we've reclaimed the word for more general usage: as it was originally used, before the Confederates co-opted it by association.In ordinary discourse in the present, we talk and think about a given person having "confederates" (typically in the context of crime) far more often than we talk about The Confederated States of America. Thus, a word processor is going to recommend the uncapitalized version, since it has become exceedingly unlikely that a person will use "Confederates" in the vast majority of test cases.Compare with "Mogul" / "mogul". The vast majority of people using the word today are simply talking about a generic important person - not specifically the Turco-Mongol Chagatai Muslim dynasty that ruled over most of India from 1526 to 1857.See also "Czar" / "czar". Although in both these examples, the improper noun developed out of the proper one - in contrast to "confederate" starting as an improper noun, becoming a proper one, and then reverting back to impropriety.
Post a Comment