my linguist pet peeve

One thing that bugs me about linguists is represented well in This Wikipedia article. The way in which avoidance speech is represented in this is ritualistic and primitive, as if it is some strange superstitious thing to use a different lexicon with formal relations.
This is a generalized characteristic of language, using different words with acquaintances in formal positions, not something confined to tribal societies. When I go with damaskrose9 to visit her parents, I use more formalized language to describe everyday things, because of the formal nature of the relationship. It's as simple as that. That is avoidance language, not just for the Zulu anymore.
It just bugs me to no end when linguists or anthropologists observe "strange" behaviors among other people without relating them to western culture in a way that might help people understand human universals.(I'm not saying that there are large scale universals of culture, but I think that variable word choice based on listener status is one that applies across the board) Part of the point of cross-cultural study in my mind is to help people understand those universals(you mean the terrorists are nervous around their in-laws too? maybe they are human?) to help promote a more sympathetic approach to world problems.
But then, I'm just a latte-drinking, European-car-driving, east-coast liberal academic.