Lampooning Politically Correct Speak
Paul Esposito
Most of us have either done it, or laughed at the more inane examples,
often emanating from government, or some wag's imagination.
I was watching some old episode of The Simpsons recently in which
Sprigfield is taken over by Zombies, and Lisa says to Bart "Oh my god
... Zombies!" and Bart replies "Please ... they prefer to be called
'the living impaired'."
A character in a Jasper Fforde novel, "The Eire Affair", when called
"evil", describes himself as "morally challenged".
All very amusing without doubt. A perverse thought struck me however.
Despite the fact that many of those who like to poke fun at 'political
correct-speak' are expressing their disdain at the politics that lies
behind the choice of ostensibly inclusive and non-derogating terms for
particular groups of people, that these people are capabale of
contriving such jokes, and that such humour is ubiquitously
comprehensible surely reflects a victory for the underlying objectives
of those promoting these new forms of speech.
After all, much of the rationale for changing the way we use language
in relation to specific communities of people reflects a desire for
people to acknowledge their existence "within the mainstream" rather
than at the margins of social life, and further, to debate the
particular ways in which their specific social needs may be addressed.
Thus, even those who object to having to worry about access to
buildings for those with "limited mobility" now acknowledge that this
is something at the centre of good design. If use of the phrase
"differently abled" is the starting point for a good joke, it also
acknowledges that people with physical and intellectual disabilites
are not merely to be turned into victims and dependants, whose
interests can safely be ignored.
It seems to me that once your issues make mainstream humour, then your
issues are firmly on the agenda. It has happened none too soon either.
PE
It seems to me that once you
Jacqui
> A character in a Jasper Fforde novel, "The Eire Affair", when
> called "evil", describes himself as "morally challenged".
The *Eyre* Affair, for goodness' sake. If you've read it far enough to
know about "morally challenged" you'll know why it's Eyre. If you
haven't, try reading it and you'll discover a few more choice turns of
phrase.
Jac
Laura F Spira
I think I have just made a grave error. While trapped at Heathrow and
looking for a second book so that I could buy the latest Janet Evanovich
and take advantage of a reduced price offer, I picked up "The Well of
Lost Plots". It is highly entertaining but I think I would enjoy it even
more had I read the two previous books first. I could suspend reading it
until I've acquired the others but I promised myself that my next book
purchaes would be the Alexander McCall Smiths that I haven't read yet.
Holiday reading can be so problematic...
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Alan Walker
> In recent years it has become the fashion to lampoon "PC" language.
> Most of us have either done it, or laughed at the more inane examples,
> often emanating from government, or some wag's imagination.
>
snip>
> All very amusing without doubt. A perverse thought struck me however.
> Despite the fact that many of those who like to poke fun at 'political
> correct-speak' are expressing their disdain at the politics that lies
> behind the choice of ostensibly inclusive and non-derogating terms for
> particular groups of people, that these people are capabale of
> contriving such jokes, and that such humour is ubiquitously
> comprehensible surely reflects a victory for the underlying objectives
> of those promoting these new forms of speech.
snip
And probably most people here can adduce absurd examples. My
favourite comes from a friend who was a teacher in London. She
quickly learnt that she had to describe tea or coffee as "with" or
"without". It was unacceptable to describe them as black or white.
Cheers
AW
No offense intended to anyone from a regional or demographic group in
which "cheers" is not common usage. I apologise to those from a
non-English speaking background who, despite their rich heritage and
important contribution to global culture, may be unable to read this
post.
D.G. Porter
> Most of us have either done it, or laughed at the more inane examples,
> often emanating from government, or some wag's imagination.
>
> I was watching some old episode of The Simpsons recently in which
> Sprigfield is taken over by Zombies, and Lisa says to Bart "Oh my god
> ... Zombies!" and Bart replies "Please ... they prefer to be called
> 'the living impaired'."
>
> A character in a Jasper Fforde novel, "The Eire Affair", when called
> "evil", describes himself as "morally challenged".
Yesterday a few of us got together for the first time in about a year
to plan how to revialize our group. I edit our newsletter and I'm
also the only "more or less able-bodied" guy there (I don't count my
rotten eyesight as a true "disability"). Attending were two people in
wheelchairs, one blind person and a guy with a prosthetic arm.
Nothing bugs us more than this bullshit "PC" language. There is
nothing wrong with the word "disability."
But your post reminds me of a strip of "Get Fuzzy" that was on the
page with the crossowrd I brought with me. Bucky the Siamese cat says
something to Rob's guests about "This is a closed set" and "No
rubberneckers or papparazzi!" The male guests tells his S.O. "That's
the cat I was telling you about. He's insane." The S.O. replies,
"Well, he's DIFFERENTLY sane." And Satchel the loony dog says, "No,
he's just a CAT! Ha ha!" Ummm, wait, that makes sense...
Wm James
wrote:
The company who purchased Warner Bros took Speedy Gonzalas off the air
"forever" claiming it was offensive to mexicans. Rhey soon met the
wrath of mexicans who love the cartoon and withing a few days, put it
back.
William R. James
AB
> Cheers
>
> AW
>
> No offense intended to anyone from a regional or demographic group in
> which "cheers" is not common usage. I apologise to those from a
> non-English speaking background who, despite their rich heritage and
> important contribution to global culture, may be unable to read this
> post.
Sure it's funny now. But just wait until such disclaimers are _mandated_.
If that sounds crazy, think about "he/she" et al. for a second. In many
places, particularly the social sciences which are dogmatically feminist,
gender neutral language is enforced militantly.
NewSpeak, anyone?alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english,alt.activism,alt.politics
Gary Eickmeier
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9986a35.03072...@posting.google.com...
> But your post reminds me of a strip of "Get Fuzzy" that was on the
> page with the crossowrd I brought with me. Bucky the Siamese cat says
> something to Rob's guests about "This is a closed set" and "No
> rubberneckers or papparazzi!" The male guests tells his S.O. "That's
> the cat I was telling you about. He's insane." The S.O. replies,
> "Well, he's DIFFERENTLY sane." And Satchel the loony dog says, "No,
> he's just a CAT! Ha ha!" Ummm, wait, that makes sense...
The main problem with PC talk is that it dilutes the language and makes it
less communicative. A term we all once understood is converted into
something which changes the meaning or communicates nothing. One that got to
me was a newscast about dwarfs and dwarfism. The announcer, apparently
attempting PC, referred to them as "short statured." I think there is a
world of difference between being short and being a dwarf.
Gary Eickmeier
Paul Esposito
My apologies for clumsy typoing. Sorry, couldn't resist. I think it's
partly Freudian as I've been reading up on all this stuff on Ireland.
PE
meirman
wal...@netcon.net.au (Alan Walker) posted:
>humani...@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) wrote in message news:<af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>> In recent years it has become the fashion to lampoon "PC" language.
>> Most of us have either done it, or laughed at the more inane examples,
>> often emanating from government, or some wag's imagination.
>>
>
>snip>
>
>> All very amusing without doubt. A perverse thought struck me however.
>> Despite the fact that many of those who like to poke fun at 'political
>> correct-speak' are expressing their disdain at the politics that lies
>> behind the choice of ostensibly inclusive and non-derogating terms for
>> particular groups of people, that these people are capabale of
>> contriving such jokes, and that such humour is ubiquitously
>> comprehensible surely reflects a victory for the underlying objectives
>> of those promoting these new forms of speech.
>
>snip
>
>And probably most people here can adduce absurd examples. My
>favourite comes from a friend who was a teacher in London. She
>quickly learnt that she had to describe tea or coffee as "with" or
>"without". It was unacceptable to describe them as black or white.
Absurd. In NYC regular is with cream and sugar. Otherwise it's black
or with cream (or whatever you have, they mumble).
>Cheers
>
>AW
>
>No offense intended to anyone from a regional or demographic group in
>which "cheers" is not common usage.
When I was little, we took one big trip a summer to see my
grandmother. That meant the house was empty. Before we returned, my
mother wrote our next-door neighbor, from England, and gave her a list
of groceries to buy so there would be food. (Don't forget that
markets were only open from about 8 or 9 until 5 then. And not on
weekends afaicr?? or at least not on Sundays.)
My mother sealed the envelope and then realized she had forgotten
Cheerios. So she wrote on the envelope "and Cheerios". Mrs. Lewis
got all the other items and when my mother was leaving her house after
picking them up, Mrs. Lewis said, "And cheerio to you too."
> I apologise to those from a
>non-English speaking background who, despite their rich heritage and
>important contribution to global culture, may be unable to read this
>post.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
meirman
<wrjames...@spamreaper.org> posted:
>>
>>No offense intended to anyone from a regional or demographic group in
>>which "cheers" is not common usage. I apologise to those from a
>>non-English speaking background who, despite their rich heritage and
>>important contribution to global culture, may be unable to read this
>>post.
>
>
>The company who purchased Warner Bros took Speedy Gonzalas off the air
>"forever" claiming it was offensive to mexicans. Rhey soon met the
>wrath of mexicans who love the cartoon and withing a few days, put it
>back.
They took Roadrunner off the air saying it was offensive to birds.
>William R. James
kidding.
Paul Esposito
> humani...@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) wrote in message news:<af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > In recent years it has become the fashion to lampoon "PC" language.
> > Most of us have either done it, or laughed at the more inane examples,
> > often emanating from government, or some wag's imagination.
> >
> > I was watching some old episode of The Simpsons recently in which
> > Sprigfield is taken over by Zombies, and Lisa says to Bart "Oh my god
> > ... Zombies!" and Bart replies "Please ... they prefer to be called
> > 'the living impaired'."
> >
> > A character in a Jasper Fforde novel, "The Eire Affair", when called
> > "evil", describes himself as "morally challenged".
>
> Yesterday a few of us got together for the first time in about a year
> to plan how to revialize our group. I edit our newsletter and I'm
> also the only "more or less able-bodied" guy there (I don't count my
> rotten eyesight as a true "disability"). Attending were two people in
> wheelchairs, one blind person and a guy with a prosthetic arm.
> Nothing bugs us more than this bullshit "PC" language. There is
> nothing wrong with the word "disability."
>
> But your post reminds me of a strip of "Get Fuzzy" that was on the
> page with the crossowrd I brought with me. Bucky the Siamese cat says
> something to Rob's guests about "This is a closed set" and "No
> rubberneckers or papparazzi!" The male guests tells his S.O. "That's
> the cat I was telling you about. He's insane." The S.O. replies,
> "Well, he's DIFFERENTLY sane." And Satchel the loony dog says, "No,
> he's just a CAT! Ha ha!" Ummm, wait, that makes sense...
>
It is often the case that those for whom the "inclusive-speak" is
contructed aren't all that fussed, and and slightly mystified by it
all, if not downright miffed.
On the other hand, "hearing-impaired" and "sight-impaired" are almost
certainly more accurate than "deaf" or "blind", "non-english-speaking
background" more accurate than "foreigner", "disabled" more accurate
and less derogatory than "crippled". Having "learning difficulties" is
more constructive, pointing as it does to a remedy, than being
"thick", and we now know enough about autism to give "differently
abled" some application. I heard a woman on the radio recently who had
prospered in agriculature and animal husbandry give a radio interview
in which she spoke rather more lucidly and insightfully than did her
interviewer about achievements of hers many times more substantial
than his, despite his status as "normal".
Sometimes of course, it is patronising, tokenistic, self-serving (on
the part of the bureaucracies involved) and just plain farcical.
That's wahat makes it a proper subject of satire, often by those
ostensibly "protected" by it.
PE
meirman
dgpo...@pacbell.net (D.G. Porter) posted:
>humani...@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) wrote in message news:<af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>> In recent years it has become the fashion to lampoon "PC" language.
>> Most of us have either done it, or laughed at the more inane examples,
>> often emanating from government, or some wag's imagination.
>>
>> I was watching some old episode of The Simpsons recently in which
>> Sprigfield is taken over by Zombies, and Lisa says to Bart "Oh my god
>> ... Zombies!" and Bart replies "Please ... they prefer to be called
>> 'the living impaired'."
>>
>> A character in a Jasper Fforde novel, "The Eire Affair", when called
>> "evil", describes himself as "morally challenged".
>
>Yesterday a few of us got together for the first time in about a year
>to plan how to revialize our group. I edit our newsletter and I'm
>also the only "more or less able-bodied" guy there (I don't count my
>rotten eyesight as a true "disability"). Attending were two people in
>wheelchairs, one blind person and a guy with a prosthetic arm.
>Nothing bugs us more than this bullshit "PC" language. There is
>nothing wrong with the word "disability."
How do you feel about "handicapped"?
>
>But your post reminds me of a strip of "Get Fuzzy" that was on the
>page with the crossowrd I brought with me. Bucky the Siamese cat says
>something to Rob's guests about "This is a closed set" and "No
>rubberneckers or papparazzi!" The male guests tells his S.O. "That's
>the cat I was telling you about. He's insane." The S.O. replies,
>"Well, he's DIFFERENTLY sane." And Satchel the loony dog says, "No,
>he's just a CAT! Ha ha!" Ummm, wait, that makes sense...
>
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
Paul Esposito
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:28:02 -0700, Alan Walker wrote:
>
>
> > Cheers
> >
> > AW
> >
> > No offense intended to anyone from a regional or demographic group in
> > which "cheers" is not common usage. I apologise to those from a
> > non-English speaking background who, despite their rich heritage and
> > important contribution to global culture, may be unable to read this
> > post.
>
> Sure it's funny now. But just wait until such disclaimers are _mandated_.
> If that sounds crazy, think about "he/she" et al. for a second. In many
> places, particularly the social sciences which are dogmatically feminist,
> gender neutral language is enforced militantly.
>
Technically speaking, the term "he/she" is not so much gender neutral
as gender inclusive. It's either, rather than neither. And why
shouldn't being considered (another word for participation) in those
matters of legitimate interest to you
be "militantly" enforced. This would be an example of gender democracy
wouldn't it? It would reflect a disinclination to be measured in terms
of one's correspondence with some notion of masculine virtue.
An extra syllable where necessary sound like a fairly minimal
concession.
Having said that, I do remember laughing at the well-known scen from
The Life of Brian.
"...it is the right of every man ..."
Stan (interjecting): "...or woman"
"Why are you always on about women Stan?"
...
<cuts to chase>
Stan: "I want to have babies"
...
Judith: "While we can't give Stan the chance to have babies ... we can
agree that he has the right to have babies ..."
"It shall be the right of every man (or woman) ..."
PE
> NewSpeak, anyone?alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english,alt.activism,alt.politics
david56
Nelson Mandela was once introduced, to a US audience, as "that great
African American, Nelson Mandela". And the white man did terrible
things to the indigenous peoples of North America; calling them
"Indians" comes rather a long way down the list.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I change it periodically.
david56
> On the other hand, "hearing-impaired" and "sight-impaired" are almost
> certainly more accurate than "deaf" or "blind", "non-english-speaking
> background" more accurate than "foreigner",
In UK English, there is no relationship between "foreigner" and an
ability to speak English. There are plenty of foreigners for whom
English is a first language.
CyberCypher
news:af187846.03072...@posting.google.com:
[...]
> On the other hand, "hearing-impaired" and "sight-impaired" are
> almost certainly more accurate than "deaf" or "blind",
I am both hearing-impaired and sight-impaired because my aural
acuity is less than normal and because I need glasses to read, to
drive, and to see people's face clearly when they are two or three feet
away from me, so I don't buy these two labels at all at all. They are
bullshit. There are people who are "totally blind" and those who are
only "legally blind":, but they are both in the sub-category
"blind". There are folks with only one functional eye --- perhaps the
other one is glass or just covered over with a patch. They might
have perfect vision in that one functional eye, so they are in the
category "blind in one eye". "Sight-impaired" does not do justice to
anyone whose vision is not normal. If you want to be a jet fighter
pilot, you have to have perfect vision in both eyes, so anyone
whose vision is not perfect is "sight-impaired" to the people who
train jet fighter pilots
> "non-english-speaking background" more accurate than "foreigner",
More bullshit. Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, South Africans,
etc., are all "foreigners" in the USA despite their various
English-speaking backgrounds --- unless, of course, they have
multiple nationalities (I had a girlfriend once who had three:
Canadian, British, and Australian, but she was still a foreigner to
me, and vice-versa). There are plenty of native-born American citizens
who cannot speak English. They're just cultural foreigners in the USA.
> "disabled" more accurate and less derogatory than "crippled".
Not all "disabled" people are "crippled". When that was a popular term
in the USA, it meant someone who suffered from arms or legs (or both)
that were nonfunctional or only partially functional because of disease
(eg, polio) or birth defects. People who are colorblind are also
"disabled" but not "crippled" --- never were.
> Having "learning difficulties" is more constructive, pointing as
> it does to a remedy, than being "thick",
Stupidity is a serious learning difficulty for which there is no
remedy, and not all stupidity can be classified as some kind of
developmental disability --- just look at Dan Quayle, for one perfect
example, and George W Bush for a lesser light in the same category.
Dyslexia, on the other hand, is a serious learning difficulty which can
be overcome to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon the
individual concerned. Not all learning difficulties can be overcome;
some are caused by neurofunctional disorders for which there are no
cures.
> and we now know enough about autism to give
> "differently abled" some application.
Autism is hardly a learning disability. The Autism Society of America
http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer
defines it as "a complex developmental disability that typically
appears during the first three years of life. The result of a
neurological disorder that affects the functioning of the brain, autism
impacts the normal development of the brain in the areas of social
interaction and communication skills. Children and adults with autism
typically have difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication,
social interactions, and leisure or play activities.
Autism is one of five disorders coming under the umbrella of Pervasive
Developmental Disorders (PDD), a category of neurological disorders
characterized by "severe and pervasive impairment in several areas of
development," including social interaction and communications skills
(DSM-IV-TR)" (and there's more on this).
But "differently abled" is another bullshit term that means nothing.
There are people without arms who can paint, write, and draw
beautifully with their feet. They are also "differently abled", but
they are not autistic. It doesn't make sense to put these two groups of
people into the same category. We can make any number of different fine
discriminations between human abilities so that we can put people like
Michael Jordan into the "differently abled" category without any
argument.
> I heard
> a woman on the radio recently who had prospered in agriculature
> and animal husbandry give a radio interview in which she spoke
> rather more lucidly and insightfully than did her interviewer
> about achievements of hers many times more substantial than his,
> despite his status as "normal".
When I was in grammar school, the skinny was that boys were always
bigger and better and faster and taller and stronger and smarter than
girls. It didn't take long to realize that this wasn't true. Maybe the
interviewer was "normal", but there is no necessary connection between
"normality" and achievement, lucidity, or insight. The reason that the
guy was interviewing the woman was because she had achieved something
worth talking about on the radio, not because she was an autistic
person who had succeeded in living a "normal" life, but because she was
an outstanding person in her field (in spite of or because of or
totally unrelated to her autism).
And by using this woman as an example of an autistic person who is
"differently abled" and even more lucid than a "normal" person (god, I
hate that term "normal" --- I suppose because I don't consider myself
"normal" --- and whenever I see it applied to human controls in the
medical papers I edit, I change it to "healthy"), you seem to me to be
patronising autistic people just the way the Taiwanese patronize me
when they see that I can write Chinese ("Oh! You can write Chinese!
Your characters are even better than mine!" Pure bullshit. My wife's
characters are beautiful; mine are ugly but readable; my son's are the
work of a 7-year-old with "alternative artistic talent" (Ha!)).
Not all autistic people can be more lucid and insightful than all or
most non-autistic people --- not every autistic person is the Rain Man.
Autistic people show a wide variation of abilities, including the
ability to live independently. The same can be said for non-autistic
people: some non-autistic people just can't seem to get a job or keep
one once they get one. And I know lots of non-autistic folks who cannot
survive alone --- Americans, Japanese, Taiwanese --- and constantly
need the support of friends and family. Autism, like non-autism, is a
complex state of being. Each individual must be taken for what he or
she is and not stereotyped as "normal/abnormal". Everything in label-
land is a statistical construct
> Sometimes of course, it is patronising, tokenistic, self-serving
> (on the part of the bureaucracies involved) and just plain
> farcical. That's wahat makes it a proper subject of satire, often
> by those ostensibly "protected" by it.
The only good thing about PC is, that when it started out, it made a
lot of people aware of their ignorance and prejudice. Now that it has
become a kind of bigotry on its own, it protects no one except the
effete practitioners of the code, individuals whose ears are so
sensitive because their hearts go out to everyone they feel is beneath
them.
rewboss
af187846.03072...@posting.google.com...
> All very amusing without doubt. A perverse thought struck me however.
> Despite the fact that many of those who like to poke fun at 'political
> correct-speak' are expressing their disdain at the politics that lies
> behind the choice of ostensibly inclusive and non-derogating terms for
> particular groups of people, that these people are capabale of
> contriving such jokes, and that such humour is ubiquitously
> comprehensible surely reflects a victory for the underlying objectives
> of those promoting these new forms of speech.
I have nothing against being careful with the way I phrase my English. But
quite often, the worst excesses of political correctness do more damage than
good.
In the days of Women's Lib, a story went around that feminists wanted the
English city of Manchester to be renamed Personchester. This was, of course,
a joke, told in an effort to discredit the feminist movement (although they
did come up with some bizarre stuff, such as the word "humankind" when we
already had a perfectly good gender-neutral term "humanity"). So when I
heard that PETA had written to the mayor of Hamburg to get him to rename the
city Veggieburg, I disbelieved it... until I looked at PETA's official
website.
As a foreigner in Germany, I find it amusing to see how politically correct
attitudes often miss the mark entirely. Sometimes, I am handled like cut
glass, as people refrain from such crassly "racist" attitudes as "foreigners
should learn German if they are going to live in Germany, which I happen to
think is not racist at all: it's common sense. Many shops and businesses
have stickers in the window, informing me, in about 5 languages, that if I
am ever the victim of racial harrassment, I can find help and protection
within. Yet, if I politely decline the offer of a cup of tea on the grounds
that I can't stand the stuff, eyebrows shoot up so quickly I can distinctly
feel the air move. And if I suggest that Llantrisant is not in England (on
the grounds that it isn't), people shake their heads and mutter something
about "England, Wales, what's the difference?" It's like saying Orlando is
in Alabama.
Berlin, at least, isn't quite so bad because there are so many immigrants
and other foreigners living here, so the locals are used to us. Except, of
course, that we are not one huge homogenous mass off "non-Germans", we come
from different places all over the world and often have very little to do
with one another.
Wesley Groleau
> It is often the case that those for whom the "inclusive-speak" is
> contructed aren't all that fussed, and and slightly mystified by it
> all, if not downright miffed.
My friend liked to say, "I'm not blind, I'm delighted!"
4B
"Wm James" <wrjames...@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
news:msb8iv456pkjuro6m...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Jul 2003 11:28:02 -0700, wal...@netcon.net.au (Alan Walker)
> wrote:
>
>
> The company who purchased Warner Bros took Speedy Gonzalas off the air
It's Speedy Gonzales.
http://www.hispaniconline.com/a&e/people/speedy.html
regards,
4B
D.G. Porter
> dgpo...@pacbell.net (D.G. Porter) wrote in message news:<9986a35.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > humani...@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) wrote in message news:<af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > to plan how to revialize our group. I edit our newsletter and I'm
> > also the only "more or less able-bodied" guy there (I don't count my
> > rotten eyesight as a true "disability"). Attending were two people in
> > wheelchairs, one blind person and a guy with a prosthetic arm.
> > Nothing bugs us more than this bullshit "PC" language. There is
> > nothing wrong with the word "disability."
> >
>
> contructed aren't all that fussed, and and slightly mystified by it
> all, if not downright miffed.
The guy with the prosthetic arm with the open-and-shutting double-hook
-- he lost his arm when a neighboring garage blew up (meth lab or
something I think) -- first, he got tired of the drab beige color so
he painted it "camouflage," and he makes no bones about using it as a
weapon, such as when some jerk is bugging him and all he has to do is
"walk into them." He also has a Sunday School class, and there is
this one bully, he tells me, and all he has to do to get him to knock
off the bullshit is get that HOOK in the kids face for a few minutes!
Steve Hayes
>Nelson Mandela was once introduced, to a US audience, as "that great
>African American, Nelson Mandela".
Do you have any evidence for that - or is it just an urban legend.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
david56
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:47:35 +0100, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Nelson Mandela was once introduced, to a US audience, as "that great
> >African American, Nelson Mandela".
>
> Do you have any evidence for that - or is it just an urban legend.
It's a fair cop, gov. I think I heard it on the BBC steam wireless,
so I believed it, but I cannot find any respectable online
references.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On the other hand, "hearing-impaired" and "sight-impaired" are almost
>certainly more accurate than "deaf" or "blind",
Possibly. I'm sight impaired (I have to wear glasses), and I'm not blind.
I'm hearing impaired (I hadly ever watch TV with the family, because I'm
always turning the sound up, and they are always turning it down.
"non-english-speaking
>background" more accurate than "foreigner",
Oh, crap!
Americans and Brits speak English, but they are foreigners. Why is saying that
they are of "non-english-speaking background" more accurate than saying that
they are foreigners.
And there are plenty of people of "non-english-speaking background who are not
foreigners.
Your ethnocentrism is showing.
rewboss
MPG.198f752fb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> haye...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:47:35 +0100, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> >
> > >Nelson Mandela was once introduced, to a US audience, as "that great
> > >African American, Nelson Mandela".
> >
> > Do you have any evidence for that - or is it just an urban legend.
>
> It's a fair cop, gov. I think I heard it on the BBC steam wireless,
> so I believed it, but I cannot find any respectable online
> references.
On http://www.frameposters.com/Posters_African-American_History_Makers.html
posters featuring Nelson Mandela are listed in the African-American History
Makers section.
Mike Ellwood
Robert Bannister
> The only good thing about PC is, that when it started out, it made a
> lot of people aware of their ignorance and prejudice. Now that it has
> become a kind of bigotry on its own
I would almost agree with you, except I would rephrase it: When PC
started out, it was greeted with derision by most of us (men), and it
was, indeed, largely used in the beginning by women who were as bigoted
in their own way as the men they were complaining about. Now that PC has
died a death, many of us have learnt that it had a solid foundation and
we are now much more aware of the dangers of prejudice and try to be
more careful in our language.
--
Rob Bannister
Pat Durkin
"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ivd9iv4qck46mnobn...@4ax.com...
> >
> >snip
> >
> >And probably most people here can adduce absurd examples. My
> >favourite comes from a friend who was a teacher in London. She
> >quickly learnt that she had to describe tea or coffee as "with" or
> >"without". It was unacceptable to describe them as black or white.
>
> Absurd. In NYC regular is with cream and sugar. Otherwise it's black
> or with cream (or whatever you have, they mumble).
Does anyone ever use "coffee Boston" (double cream/milk) nowadays? I think
the sugar part of a coffee (short)order was dropped long ago, as the pouring
jars were always on the table in diners, etc. Nowadays, in many restaurants
the envelopes of sugar and sugar substitute are ever-present. But, of
course, I don't pretend to speak for anyplace near NYC.
John Varela
wrote:
> And probably most people here can adduce absurd examples.
My wife is a docent at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History,
where she guides people through the Human Origins hall. One of the
dioramas shows a hut in which early humans speculatively lived 100,000
or more years ago--in Africa, of course. The docents are instructed
not to call it a hut in order not to give offense, even though the
sign on the wall next to the diorama plainly calls it a hut.
--
John Varela
Paul Esposito
> humani...@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) burbled
> news:af187846.03072...@posting.google.com:
>
> [...]
>
> > On the other hand, "hearing-impaired" and "sight-impaired" are
> > almost certainly more accurate than "deaf" or "blind",
>
> I am both hearing-impaired and sight-impaired because my aural
> acuity is less than normal and because I need glasses to read, to
> drive, and to see people's face clearly when they are two or three feet
> away from me, so I don't buy these two labels at all at all. They are
> bullshit. There are people who are "totally blind" and those who are
> only "legally blind":, but they are both in the sub-category
> "blind". There are folks with only one functional eye --- perhaps the
> other one is glass or just covered over with a patch. They might
> have perfect vision in that one functional eye, so they are in the
> category "blind in one eye". "Sight-impaired" does not do justice to
> anyone whose vision is not normal. If you want to be a jet fighter
> pilot, you have to have perfect vision in both eyes, so anyone
> whose vision is not perfect is "sight-impaired" to the people who
> train jet fighter pilots
Absolutely. You make the point exactly. The terms are not designed to
tell people who (or how) they are. As you note below, they are
intended to educate others not to lump all of the particular facets of
an ostensible human feature under one broad and grossly inaccurate
generalisation. And yes, in an occupational sense I am "mobility
impaired" by comparison with professional sprinters and swimmers. I
have limited "fine motor competence" by comparison with a stenographer
or concert pianist. The point you foreshadow is an excellent one. The
whole category "normal" is philosophically misleading. Human social,
physical and intellectual heterogeneity is so great that to speak of
anyone as "normal" is inaccurate and almost certainly offensive. This
is precisely the debate that "politically correct-speak" encourages.
If people take this on board, then we will all be the better for it.
>
> > "non-english-speaking background" more accurate than "foreigner",
>
> More bullshit. Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, South Africans,
> etc., are all "foreigners" in the USA despite their various
> English-speaking backgrounds --- unless, of course, they have
> multiple nationalities (I had a girlfriend once who had three:
> Canadian, British, and Australian, but she was still a foreigner to
> me, and vice-versa). There are plenty of native-born American citizens
> who cannot speak English. They're just cultural foreigners in the USA.
Your objection is beyond dispute. But in Australia throughout the
1960's and even into the 1970's anyone who looked "non-Anglo" would
regularly be asked "so where are you from?" (regardless of whether
their families had been here for generations). If their speech was
inflected in a way that suggested any origin but the UK, NZ or
Australia they were "those Asians" "Iyaties" (Italians -- I was one of
them) or if you weren't confident "those foreign people down the
road". I don't endorse this of course, quite the opposite. I was
drawing attention to this as the (ignorant) practice.
>
> > "disabled" more accurate and less derogatory than "crippled".
>
> Not all "disabled" people are "crippled". When that was a popular term
> in the USA, it meant someone who suffered from arms or legs (or both)
> that were nonfunctional or only partially functional because of disease
> (eg, polio) or birth defects. People who are colorblind are also
> "disabled" but not "crippled" --- never were.
>
Again, you make the point. During the 1970s in Australia, the
predisposition amongst "able-bodied" people was to refer to the
disabled as "cripples" or with words even more derogating and
ignorant. Again, the unspoken assumption was a standard of "normalcy"
by comparison with which people who were apparently disabled were
"cripples". Even as a child I can remember being reguarly hurried past
people in wheelchairs by teachers on excursion saying "come on
children don't stare at the spastic". It was appalling, but it was
something like the social consensus.
> > Having "learning difficulties" is more constructive, pointing as
> > it does to a remedy, than being "thick",
>
> Stupidity is a serious learning difficulty for which there is no
> remedy, and not all stupidity can be classified as some kind of
> developmental disability --- just look at Dan Quayle, for one perfect
> example, and George W Bush for a lesser light in the same category.
>
Again though, the tendency was (and to a lesser extent still is) to
collapse all forms of learning difficulty into the one category
"stupid" or "thick". I'm not exactly sure what, in precise terms, is
meant by intelligence -- I think most of us regard it as covering a
whole multitude of things in which we have varying degrees of
accomplishment. Still less sure how many of these things can be
imporved with appropriate training. Measuring mental states is (at the
moment anyway) impossible. One can at best, measure PERFORMANCE on
tasks that people assume are indicators of intelligence (or the lack
thereof). So even if someone really is "thick" (whatever that means)
one is still ethically obligated to assume that their want of
performance in key areas of accomplishment can be lifted with
appropriate education, in order that their opportunity to lead
autonomous lives can be improved.
> Dyslexia, on the other hand, is a serious learning difficulty which can
> be overcome to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon the
> individual concerned. Not all learning difficulties can be overcome;
> some are caused by neurofunctional disorders for which there are no
> cures.
>
True, and so the challenge then is how to increase the scope for them
to have choices in their lives, given that this is likely to narrow
their life-chances in practice.
> > and we now know enough about autism to give
> > "differently abled" some application.
>
> Autism is hardly a learning disability. The Autism Society of America
>
> http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer
>
> defines it as "a complex developmental disability that typically
> appears during the first three years of life. The result of a
> neurological disorder that affects the functioning of the brain, autism
> impacts the normal development of the brain in the areas of social
> interaction and communication skills. Children and adults with autism
> typically have difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication,
> social interactions, and leisure or play activities.
>
Well it can certainly make acquiring knowledge and skill though the
processes available in the mainstream more difficult. That would meet
the standard for a learning disability wouldn't it? The conclusion?
Having recognised the problem, change the learning system to
accommodate their needs.
> Autism is one of five disorders coming under the umbrella of Pervasive
> Developmental Disorders (PDD), a category of neurological disorders
> characterized by "severe and pervasive impairment in several areas of
> development," including social interaction and communications skills
> (DSM-IV-TR)" (and there's more on this).
>
> But "differently abled" is another bullshit term that means nothing.
> There are people without arms who can paint, write, and draw
> beautifully with their feet. They are also "differently abled", but
> they are not autistic.
Well, like most people, I'm not currently capable of doing any
recognisable painting with my feet, so they must be "differently
abled" from most people. Autism may also be associated with a range of
"different abilities" but I didn't say that it was interchangeable
with "differently abled".
It doesn't make sense to put these two groups of
> people into the same category. We can make any number of different fine
> discriminations between human abilities so that we can put people like
> Michael Jordan into the "differently abled" category without any
> argument.
>
I totally agree. See above.
> > I heard
> > a woman on the radio recently who had prospered in agriculature
> > and animal husbandry give a radio interview in which she spoke
> > rather more lucidly and insightfully than did her interviewer
> > about achievements of hers many times more substantial than his,
> > despite his status as "normal".
>
> When I was in grammar school, the skinny was that boys were always
> bigger and better and faster and taller and stronger and smarter than
> girls. It didn't take long to realize that this wasn't true. Maybe the
> interviewer was "normal", but there is no necessary connection between
> "normality" and achievement, lucidity, or insight.
Yes. See above
The reason that the
> guy was interviewing the woman was because she had achieved something
> worth talking about on the radio, not because she was an autistic
> person who had succeeded in living a "normal" life, but because she was
> an outstanding person in her field (in spite of or because of or
> totally unrelated to her autism).
Well that's not quite right. In dealing with her autism, she developed
techniques that she applied in another field, taking her own life
experience and the perspective that went with it and applying it in
ways not hitherto considered by people in animal husbandry. And the
mental techniques that she was obliged to develop in order to function
allowed her to channel her energies systematically to give life to her
vision in ways that people who've had things handed to them on a plate
might not have found the discipline to carry through. And I didn't
want to imply that she nevertheless "led a normal life". On the
contrary, she is to be admired for leading her life, which, as it
turns out, is highly valued by others in her field of endeavour as
well.
>
> And by using this woman as an example of an autistic person who is
> "differently abled" and even more lucid than a "normal" person (god, I
> hate that term "normal" --- I suppose because I don't consider myself
> "normal" --- and whenever I see it applied to human controls in the
> medical papers I edit, I change it to "healthy"), you seem to me to be
> patronising autistic people just the way the Taiwanese patronize me
> when they see that I can write Chinese ("Oh! You can write Chinese!
> Your characters are even better than mine!" Pure bullshit. My wife's
> characters are beautiful; mine are ugly but readable; my son's are the
> work of a 7-year-old with "alternative artistic talent" (Ha!)).
Not at all. See above.
>
> Not all autistic people can be more lucid and insightful than all or
> most non-autistic people --- not every autistic person is the Rain Man.
> Autistic people show a wide variation of abilities, including the
> ability to live independently. The same can be said for non-autistic
> people: some non-autistic people just can't seem to get a job or keep
> one once they get one. And I know lots of non-autistic folks who cannot
> survive alone --- Americans, Japanese, Taiwanese --- and constantly
> need the support of friends and family. Autism, like non-autism, is a
> complex state of being. Each individual must be taken for what he or
> she is and not stereotyped as "normal/abnormal". Everything in label-
> land is a statistical construct
>
I totally agree.
> > Sometimes of course, it is patronising, tokenistic, self-serving
> > (on the part of the bureaucracies involved) and just plain
> > farcical. That's wahat makes it a proper subject of satire, often
> > by those ostensibly "protected" by it.
>
> The only good thing about PC is, that when it started out, it made a
> lot of people aware of their ignorance and prejudice.
And that's all changing language can ever do. Ask us to think about
the intellectual and ethical validity of our assumptions.
> Now that it has
> become a kind of bigotry on its own, it protects no one except the
> effete practitioners of the code, individuals whose ears are so
> sensitive because their hearts go out to everyone they feel is beneath
> them.
Quite.
Regards
PE
Paul Esposito
> On 27 Jul 2003 22:50:49 -0700, humani...@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito)
> wrote:
>
> >On the other hand, "hearing-impaired" and "sight-impaired" are almost
> >certainly more accurate than "deaf" or "blind",
>
> Possibly. I'm sight impaired (I have to wear glasses), and I'm not blind.
>
> I'm hearing impaired (I hadly ever watch TV with the family, because I'm
> always turning the sound up, and they are always turning it down.
>
>
> "non-english-speaking
> >background" more accurate than "foreigner",
>
> Oh, crap!
>
> Americans and Brits speak English, but they are foreigners. Why is saying that
> they are of "non-english-speaking background" more accurate than saying that
> they are foreigners.
>
> And there are plenty of people of "non-english-speaking background who are not
> foreigners.
>
> Your ethnocentrism is showing.
No, actually, I'm reflecting on the ignorant cultural practices of
Australia during the sixties and early seventies. As an "NESB" person
myself, when I wasn't being politely referred to as a foreigner, I was
described as one of the following: "wog" "dago" "spic" "reffo"
"greaseball" based on nothing more than my name, and regardless of the
fact (known to others) that I was born here and had one anglo-parent.
It never occurred to me to refer to cultural difference in this way,
partly because I was one of the "foreigners". My mother, bless her,
thought the way to deflect cultural abuse was to speak better English
than my peers, but it made not a scrap of difference to most of them,
who concluded that in addition to being a wog, I was also "camp as a
row of tents" (there's a phrase you don't hear that often).
This turned out to be an advantage as I got to talk to their
girlfriends without being suspected of trying to have my way with
them.
Rednecks ruled.
PE
CyberCypher
news:3F25C0D2...@it.net.au:
This seems to me to be a reasonable assessment. I don't think there
is only one way to look it at. And while I might agree that it has
died one death, I am afraid that it has 8 more to go unless we use a
wooden stake or silver bullet to finish it off.
Michael West
"CyberCypher" <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
> [...] And while I might agree that it [PC talk] has
> died one death, I am afraid that it has 8 more to go unless we use a
> wooden stake or silver bullet to finish it off.
Why not use those object on bigotry, insensitivity,
and ethnocentrism? Then PC will just wither away.
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
Steve Hayes
Ah well, democracy is an American invention you know. Americans ought to get
the credit for the introduction of democracy to South Africa, and anywhere
else.
Wm James
I make more typoes than most. :)
William R. James
CyberCypher
news:wOnVa.21147$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> "CyberCypher" <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
>
>
>> [...] And while I might agree that it [PC talk] has
>> died one death, I am afraid that it has 8 more to go unless we
>> use a wooden stake or silver bullet to finish it off.
>
> Why not use those object on bigotry, insensitivity,
> and ethnocentrism? Then PC will just wither away.
PC is just another form of bigotry, I fear, and like all the
wide-eyed idealists I've met, you seem to believe that a perfect
world is within our grap if we can just remove the slippery slime
of humanity from the tips of our fingers and the pits of our palms.
'Tain't so.
CyberCypher
news:3f25f26a...@news.saix.net:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:04:12 +0200, "rewboss"
> <rew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>>MPG.198f752fb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>>> haye...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>>>
>>> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:47:35 +0100, david56
>>> > <bass.b...@ntlworld.com>
>>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >Nelson Mandela was once introduced, to a US audience, as
>>> > >"that great African American, Nelson Mandela".
>>> >
>>> > Do you have any evidence for that - or is it just an urban
>>> > legend.
>>>
>>> It's a fair cop, gov. I think I heard it on the BBC steam
>>> wireless, so I believed it, but I cannot find any respectable
>>> online references.
>>
>>On
>>http://www.frameposters.com/Posters_African-American_History_Makers
>>.html posters featuring Nelson Mandela are listed in the
>>African-American History Makers section.
>
> Ah well, democracy is an American invention you know. Americans
> ought to get the credit for the introduction of democracy to South
> Africa, and anywhere else.
No, you missed the point and the context of that particular remark.
The introducer was an African American who was confused about the
source of great black people in the world who speak refined English.
It had nothing to do with Mandela's democratic leanings.
Michael West
> world is within our grap if we can just remove the slippery slime
> of humanity from the tips of our fingers and the pits of our palms.
> 'Tain't so.
However I seem, I don't believe that for a minute.
I do think PC is a relatively trivial sort of bigotry
as compared to some others. I observe that most
of the people who complain bitterly about it (I do
not include anyone in this group) are the ones who
most need to stop and think about it.
Charles Riggs
Fuckin' A, Bro!
CyberCypher
news:RlpVa.21292$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
You might want to ask Bill Maher and the Dixie Chicks about that.
Unfortunately, the serious side of PC, which began to bother me as
early as the HUAC hearings (I was 9 or 10) and then again in 1968
when it raised its ugly head on the left, is not trivial. If we were
merely talking about the unassailable right to use words widely
recognized as unnecessarily offensive racist, sexist, ageist,
lookist, and other forms of bigoted, we would still not be talking
about something trivial in any respect. PC is an attitude of moral
superiority, a self-righteousness that has always been with us and
always will be with us. It is one side of human nature, the side that
allows the government, the Church, Society in general, the
Establishment --- whatever you want to call it --- to define what sorts
of bigotry are and are not allowed. I don't find this trivial.
Fran
"PC talk" can certainly be "singlemindedly intolerant towards rival
creeds" (one dictionary definition of bigotry) but as this discussion
shows, it need not be. I think your generalisation here is too
sweeping.
Nor do I think it mere idealism that a more perfect world than the one
we have is impossible. (I withhold judgement on whether a perfect
world is achievable on the grounds of being too much a part of this
one to imagine what such a world might look like). Working for
improvements in the way we get things done is basic rational and
pragmatic behaviour. And when all is said and done, is there really
anything more fundamental than the way we treat each other, the basic
question of "fairness". We may disagree on what fairness entails, but
in order for a judgement to be made on that a discussion must take
place. This is such a discussion.
Finally, it is not our "humanity" that is the source of unfair
dealing. It is our lack of it -- the fact that our human impulses are
constantly in conflict with and undermined by our desire for a
predictable and comfortable environment -- which in a world of
material scarcity, puts us at odd with each other along lines of
class, culture, gender, ethnicity and a host of other human features.
Our "humanity" tells us that we are dealing with fellow humans, and
that they should be treated with the respect that we demand for
ourselves. Our desire in a cold and often cruel world to gather about
ourselves people who we perceive as sufficiently like us to make
community of interest possible (and thus our welfare more secure)
predisposes us to feel threatened by difference and to discriminate,
to circle the wagons -- in short, to behave selfishly and often in
ignorance.
"PC language", as Paul Esposito suggested below, is often fatuous,
self-serving and cynical -- but behind it lies an important idea --
that as much as possible we should take the interests of all people
into account when making decisions affecting them, and should approach
this task without pre-conception about what their needs may be. That's
not idealistic. That's just good sense.
FRAN
Steve Hayes
wrote:
When I went to England I was often called a wog, occasionally a foreigner.
The appellations were quite accurate, but "non-English-speaking background"
would not have been.
CyberCypher
news:95f168b0.03072...@posting.google.com:
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93C7963B6...@130.133.1.4>...
>> "Michael West" <mbw...@removebigpond.net.au> burbled
>> news:wOnVa.21147$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>
>> >
>> > "CyberCypher" <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
>> >
>> >
>> >> [...] And while I might agree that it [PC talk] has
>> >> died one death, I am afraid that it has 8 more to go unless we
>> >> use a wooden stake or silver bullet to finish it off.
>> >
>> > Why not use those object on bigotry, insensitivity,
>> > and ethnocentrism? Then PC will just wither away.
>>
>> PC is just another form of bigotry, I fear, and like all the
>> wide-eyed idealists I've met, you seem to believe that a perfect
>> world is within our grap if we can just remove the slippery slime
>> of humanity from the tips of our fingers and the pits of our
>> palms. 'Tain't so.
>
> "PC talk" can certainly be "singlemindedly intolerant towards
> rival creeds" (one dictionary definition of bigotry) but as this
> discussion shows, it need not be. I think your generalisation
> here is too sweeping.
I wasn't talking about this discussion, Fran. You are the first person
to uncritically advance the PC line in this discussion. The first
sentence of your second paragraph sees to that.
> Nor do I think it mere idealism that a more perfect world than the
> one we have is impossible. (I withhold judgement on whether a
> perfect world is achievable on the grounds of being too much a
> part of this one to imagine what such a world might look like).
Strictly ObAUE, if we can make a "more perfect world than the one we
have", then we must have a "perfect world". The adjective "perfect" is
ungradable, even though in loose talk we understand what we mean when
we use it in a gradable fashion. This discussion, however, is not an
occasion for such loose talk. While I can agree that the world we live
in can be made better in some ways, I cannot agree that it can be "more
perfect" simply because it is not "perfect" to begin with.
> Working for improvements in the way we get things done is basic
> rational and pragmatic behaviour.
And a more perfect expression of the ideology of technique one could
not ask for.
> And when all is said and done,
> is there really anything more fundamental than the way we treat
> each other, the basic question of "fairness".
"Fairness" [1] is not a basic question, although I suppose we could
argue about whther King Solomon's wise decision about the baby claimed
by two women was a lesson in "fairness" or "justice" or "wisdom". I am
inclined to believe it was about wisdom rather than justice or
fairness.
> We may disagree on what fairness entails,
I doubt that we would disagree in principle but only in specific
instances, a fact that ought to establish the value of principle in
questions that are about the specifics in one's everyday life rather
than about the high-minded statements of principle that usually becloud
such discussions.
> but in order for a judgement to be made on that a
> discussion must take place. This is such a discussion.
It could be, but it isn't. The issue of "fairness" had not been raised
at all until your post. JFK's remark that "life is unfair" is probably
one of the most apt in history, not only because of the course of his
life, but also because it is true everywhere at all times. Fairness is
an artificial concept based upon the delusion of "equality". While I
can certainly agree that all humans ought to be equal before the law, I
know that is wishful thinking. I don't even want to get into what the
proposition that "all men are created equal" might have meant to
Jefferson and those he borrowed it from, but it certainly wasn't the
unbridled notion of egalitarianism ascribed to him these past two
centuries.
> Finally, it is not our "humanity" that is the source of unfair
> dealing. It is our lack of it
Ooops! You have just made a serious rhetorical mistake. You have
assumed an equality of understanding of the word "humanity" between you
and all your readers. That equality of understanding does not exist.
You must first define what you mean by "humanity". The last time I
looked, it meant "conceived in vivo or in vitro by the union of a human
egg and a human sperm" but was threatening to be expanded to include
"Adult DNA cloning (a.k.a. reproductive cloning) . . . a technique
intended to produce a duplicate of an existing animal. . . . The DNA
from an ovum is removed and replaced with the DNA from a cell removed
from an adult animal. Then, the fertilized ovum, now called a pre-
embryo, is implanted in a womb and allowed to develop into a new
animal." This is a 20th-century notion of humanity.
> -- the fact that our human impulses
> are constantly in conflict with and undermined by our desire for a
> predictable and comfortable environment -- which in a world of
> material scarcity, puts us at odd with each other along lines of
> class, culture, gender, ethnicity and a host of other human
> features.
So you see one's "humanity" as distinct from one's "human impluses"?
That is most interesting and contradictory, as lovely as the idea of
original sin and its consequences --- we are all depraved because ot
it.
> Our "humanity" tells us that we are dealing with fellow
> humans, and that they should be treated with the respect that we
> demand for ourselves.
Your ideology has got the better of your argument, I'm afraid. You talk
in terms of what "should be" instead of what in reality "is".
> Our desire in a cold and often cruel world
The world is neutral from my vantage. It is only the people in it who
are cold and cruel at times, sometimes deliberately and sometimes not.
It might be poetic but it certainly isn't helpful to anthropomorphise
Mother Nature.
> to gather about ourselves people who we perceive as sufficiently
> like us to make community of interest possible (and thus our
> welfare more secure) predisposes us to feel threatened by
> difference and to discriminate, to circle the wagons -- in short,
> to behave selfishly and often in ignorance.
The history of the human race in a nutshell. But you dismiss this
universal tendency of humans to act thus as some sort of aberration,
some sort of anti-human and anti-humane behavior. It is also the way
all the rest of the life forms on Earth behave, and unless you are a
believer in Creationism, it should come as no surprise that the basic
aspect of human nature and and the natures of other animals are related
so intimately.
> "PC language", as Paul Esposito suggested below, is often fatuous,
> self-serving and cynical -- but behind it lies an important idea
Yes, but that idea was abandoned and left for dead decades ago.
> -- that as much as possible we should take the interests of all
> people into account when making decisions affecting them, and
> should approach this task without pre-conception about what their
> needs may be. That's not idealistic. That's just good sense.
It might be good sense if it meant anything concrete. Like all general
principles, though, the sticking point in is the application of this
general principle to specific instances of individual or group action.
There are the unanticipated consequences of purposive social action to
consider, and because they are unanticipated, we have no idea whether
they will be better or worse than those we can anticipate.
Because you are a parent, you know very well that you cannot predict
with any degree of certainty how what you specifically say and do will
affect how your children turn out. All you can do is act in ways that
you think will have better than worse effects and trust that your
judgments have been correct. If we only knew what the consequences of
our actions would be, we would know how to act, and then the aboriginal
peoples in the New World would have not only refused to welcome the
Europeans who landed on their shores beginning in the 15th century,
they would have slaughtered them as they eventually were slaughtered by
them, their fellow humans. That would have delayed the apparently
inevitable by only a few decades, though.
Next time you want to argue about popular but vacuous terms, please
remember to define them for the benefit of all your readers.
[1] From W3NID:
synonyms FAIR, JUST, EQUITABLE, IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, DISPASSIONATE,
UNCOLORED, and OBJECTIVE can apply, in common, to judgments, judges, or
acts resulting from judgments, and signify freedom from improper
influence. FAIR, the most general of the terms, implies a disposition
in a person or group to achieve a fitting and right balance of claims
or considerations that is free from undue favoritism even to oneself,
or implies a quality or result in an action befitting such a
disposition *a fair trial for all offenders* *a fair distribution of
profits* *a fair judge in a criminal trial* *a fair estimate of his
achievements*
Peter Duncanson
Other "African-American History Makers" in the list are:
Abraham Lincoln
Albert Schweitzer
Anwar Sadat
Che Guevara
Fidel Castro
Helen Keller
Joan of Arc
John F. Kennedy
Mahatma Gandhi
Mark Twain
Menachem Begin
Mikhail Gorbachev
Mother Teresa
In the sense that our ancestors all came from Africa - long, long, ago - all
the above could be considered "African". However the designation "American"
would need to be stretched beyond credibility to fit all the above.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
Peter Duncanson
Please disregard this post. I had not realised that I had browsed to a
different category on the site.
Michael West
"CyberCypher" admonished:
> > Next time you want to argue about popular but vacuous terms, please
> remember to define them for the benefit of all your readers.
Perhaps you would care to define "PC talk," and specify
which manifestations of it you feel are particulary onerous,
and which prevent you from behaving as you feel you have
a right to behave, or enjoying what you wish to enjoy.
Wesley Groleau
> Perhaps you would care to define "PC talk," and specify
> which manifestations of it you feel are particulary onerous,
> and which prevent you from behaving as you feel you have
> a right to behave, or enjoying what you wish to enjoy.
While I don't object _that_ strongly to "PC talk,"
it does annoy me when gender-neutral language is so blatant
as to distract from what should have been the primary message
of a piece of prose.
The two worst manifestations are unfamiliar invented pronouns
and alternating the pronouns without thinking of the context.
I don't mean context interms of gender roles, but for example,
consider a PC article about things children say and do.
Alternating between "he" and "she" is OK until you get
to two pronouns that have the same child as antecedent.
One six-year-old really despised vegetables, so he
dropped her broccoli in his brother's milk.
Tony Cooper
>You might want to ask Bill Maher and the Dixie Chicks about that.
I do not see how you consider the Dixie Chick incident to be an
example of PCism. Using PC language means not using words that
(supposedly) cause offense to other people by their usage. Calling a
woman "sweetcakes" is non-PC. Calling a deaf person a dummy is
non-PC.
One of the Dixie Chicks made a statement that criticized the
President. It wasn't her phrasing that offended, but her statement
and that the statement was given additional impact by her celebrity
status. It was related to politics, and some people felt it was a
politically incorrect viewpoint, but the "political" in that
assessment was the political postilion. Just because politics are
involved, and just because some felt the statement was incorrect, one
can't dump this in the Politically Incorrect category.
Unless you know of some other definition, Politically Incorrect
statements are statements that are considered by some to be derogatory
by the use of words with offensive meaning or connotation within
context. Political *comments* are not Politically Incorrect unless
they contain words that are demeaning by their usage in the context.
A positive comment, even a complimentary one, can be Politically
Incorrect if it contains a word or phrase that some consider
offensive.
I don't know which Maher comment you are referring to. Maher is
usually critical of the Administration. He can *always* be critical
of the Administration and never be Politically Incorrect in his
criticism.
It seems to me that you have extended the concept of Political
Incorrectness to an area where it doesn't apply at all.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93C6B9298...@130.133.1.4>...
>> humani...@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) burbled
>> news:af187846.03072...@posting.google.com:
[...]
>> > "non-english-speaking background" more accurate than
>> > "foreigner",
>>
>> More bullshit. Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, South Africans,
>> etc., are all "foreigners" in the USA despite their various
>> English-speaking backgrounds --- unless, of course, they have
>> multiple nationalities (I had a girlfriend once who had three:
>> Canadian, British, and Australian, but she was still a foreigner
>> to me, and vice-versa). There are plenty of native-born American
>> citizens who cannot speak English. They're just cultural
>> foreigners in the USA.
>
> Your objection is beyond dispute. But in Australia throughout the
> 1960's and even into the 1970's anyone who looked "non-Anglo"
> would regularly be asked "so where are you from?" (regardless of
> whether their families had been here for generations).
If you read the archives from soc.culture.asian.american, you will
see that the same thing happens with chilling regularity to most of
the American posters there as well. That's one of the reasons my
wife and son and I live in Taiwan: while my son's non-ethnic-Chinese
father does no go unnoticed, he is without a doubt a native-born and
raised Taiwanese based on his mother tongue (Taiwanese) and culture
(Taiwanese). And his choice is to answer the questions "Are you an
American?" and "Are you Taiwanese?" with a "Yes" and a "Yes", if he
decides to answer them at all --- sometimes he doesn't bother
acknowledging them.
> If their
> speech was inflected in a way that suggested any origin but the
> UK, NZ or Australia they were "those Asians" "Iyaties" (Italians
> -- I was one of them) or if you weren't confident "those foreign
> people down the road". I don't endorse this of course, quite the
> opposite. I was drawing attention to this as the (ignorant)
> practice.
You seem to think that this is unusual behavior, but, believe me,
its perfectly normal human behavior all over the world. It typified
American behavior and attitudes when I lived there, Japanese
attitudes when I lived there, and Taiwanese attitudes now that I
live here.
One of the interesting aspects of molecular biology is
the ability of micro-organisms to recognize and act on minute
differences between themselves and all other types of cells. That
entire organisms (read "human beings") do so as well is not only not
unusual but both natural and "normal". The problem is a social and
political one generated by what some folks think is "right" and
"good" and "fair" and "just" and, well, PC. It is also generated by
unpleasant people who think they're better than everyone else, which
is what characterizes white trash everywhere in the Old South and
bluestocking-types (pretentious) everywhere.
CyberCypher
news:pqtVa.21862$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
What? You mean you didn't read my reply to Mr Esposito? His post was
filled with "PC talk" and, if I remember correctly, I commented on
every phrase he used. How should I characterize it so that you will
understand not only what I meant by what I said in a few hundred words
in that post, but also what I think is particularly onerous about it.
I'll get to the questions of "and which prevent you from behaving as
you feel you have a right to behave, or enjoying what you wish to
enjoy" later.
PC talk is gratuitous euphemism, illustrated by all the examples in Mr
Esposito's post. Particularly egregious is the term "differently abled"
simply because it contains within it the assumption that there are
people who are not "differently abled" --- and what may we call them,
"similarly abled"? Of what use are these vague terms that try not to
offend by being so bland as to be not only vague but nearly invisible
(the real meaning of "transparent") but succeed only in offending
because of their patronizing tone and meaninglessness.
What is onerous about it? That it expresses a fatuous and vicious
ideology in language that communicates nothing more or less than that
which is communicated by treacle made with saccharin. It debases the
language for ideological reasons, just as all the awful business,
political, technical, military, and other jargons current in the mass
media debase the language for other reasons having to do with the same
sort of expediency. It is onerous because of the superior attitude
taken by those who insist upon its use.
And now to "(1) and which prevent you from behaving as you feel you
have a right to behave, or (2) enjoying what you wish to enjoy"?
(1) I don't live anywhere that enforces PC talk, so I cannot say that
the PC police prevent me from behaving (read "speaking") in ways that I
want to behave. I have always said what I wanted to say wherever and
whever I wanted to say it. But I am quite capable of gauging how the
words I choose to use will affect my audience. And if I am wrong, I
don't need some self-righteous asshole to tell me how I should say what
I want to say or to insist that I eliminate the possibility that I
might offend someone by using words with no content. I have the right
to learn from my own mistakes. It's like the issue of temptation. You
can attack it in one of three ways: remove temptation (the PC answer
by eliminating all the potentially offensive words in English), give in
to temptation (by failing to recognize that what one says and how one
says it may have unanticipated consequences), or learn about the
consequences of one's speech from making one's own mistakes.
(2) I wish to enjoy English uncluttered by the vapidities introduced by
PC talk and to be free of people who think they are asking the most
devastating question in the world when they say "And just how does PC
(talk) prevent you from living the life you want to live?" The
implication there is always that "You must be one of those people who
want to use the #-word in public because you're a twisted bigot". The
implication there is always that anyone who opposes as good and
positive as the PC desire not to offend anyone with language is
depraved. I know that's what you think; if you didn't, you wouldn't
have asked that insulting and offensive question. And if you protest
that it isn't what you think, then you simply mean that you do not
think about the meaning of what you say. It doesn't matter how you
respond.
Peter
| Of what use are these vague terms that try not to offend by
| being so bland as to be not only vague but nearly invisible
| (the real meaning of "transparent") but succeed only in offending
| because of their patronizing tone and meaninglessness.
Full ack for your whole post represented by the above paragraph. Just
one amendment:
PC assumes that language determines thought. That premise is quite
uninformed by any scientific understanding of language. Put bluntly,
it's bullshit.
--
Peter
Jerry Friedman
> Paul Esposito <humani...@hotmail.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> af187846.03072...@posting.google.com...
>
> > All very amusing without doubt. A perverse thought struck me however.
> > Despite the fact that many of those who like to poke fun at 'political
> > correct-speak' are expressing their disdain at the politics that lies
> > behind the choice of ostensibly inclusive and non-derogating terms for
> > particular groups of people, that these people are capabale of
> > contriving such jokes, and that such humour is ubiquitously
> > comprehensible surely reflects a victory for the underlying objectives
> > of those promoting these new forms of speech.
>
> I have nothing against being careful with the way I phrase my English. But
> quite often, the worst excesses of political correctness do more damage than
> good.
>
> In the days of Women's Lib, a story went around that feminists wanted the
> English city of Manchester to be renamed Personchester. This was, of course,
> a joke, told in an effort to discredit the feminist movement (although they
> did come up with some bizarre stuff, such as the word "humankind" when we
> already had a perfectly good gender-neutral term "humanity"). So when I
> heard that PETA had written to the mayor of Hamburg to get him to rename the
> city Veggieburg, I disbelieved it... until I looked at PETA's official
> website.
Hamburg, New York, that is. According to
<http://www.peta.org/liv/c/79.html>, the suggestion was an
"opportunity to share our message with a little humor."
...
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul Esposito
Some proponents of PC implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) make
this claim, but most simply run causality the other way -- thought
determines language. Their aim is to change thought by asking people
to reflect on those matters that underpin their choice of language.
This lends their efforts a socio-political character, and it is on
that basis that such campaigns ought properly to be judged.
Can people's language choices be characterised in the ways they claim?
If they do, is this a bad thing? If it is, what is the best way of
responding to it?
PE
Is the desire to challenge
Dr Robin Bignall
It gets so ludicrous that one can only laugh at it, Wesley. I hate the pain
of tearing my hair out. There are some pretty stupid people in this
world...
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Dr Robin Bignall
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:04:12 +0200, "rewboss" <rew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>>MPG.198f752fb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>>> haye...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>>>
>>> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:47:35 +0100, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com>
>>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >Nelson Mandela was once introduced, to a US audience, as "that great
>>> > >African American, Nelson Mandela".
>>> >
>>> > Do you have any evidence for that - or is it just an urban legend.
>>>
>>> It's a fair cop, gov. I think I heard it on the BBC steam wireless,
>>> so I believed it, but I cannot find any respectable online
>>> references.
>>
>>On http://www.frameposters.com/Posters_African-American_History_Makers.html
>>posters featuring Nelson Mandela are listed in the African-American History
>>Makers section.
>
>Ah well, democracy is an American invention you know. Americans ought to get
>the credit for the introduction of democracy to South Africa, and anywhere
>else.
Democracy an American invention? It was actually invented in ancient
Athens. See, for example,
http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/Demokratie/Grundkurs2/Antike/athen.htm
Peter
> Some proponents of PC implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) make
> this claim, but most simply run causality the other way -- thought
> determines language. Their aim is to change thought by asking people
> to reflect on those matters that underpin their choice of language.
> This lends their efforts a socio-political character, and it is on
> that basis that such campaigns ought properly to be judged.
That would, indeed, be quite reasonable. OTOH, I have never heard any PC
proponent make such a claim. In fact, "asking people" only very rarely
enters such debates, if at all.
--
Peter
Fran
> franb...@mail.com (Fran) burbled
> news:95f168b0.03072...@posting.google.com:
>
> > CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns93C7963B6...@130.133.1.4>...
> >> "Michael West" <mbw...@removebigpond.net.au> burbled
> >> news:wOnVa.21147$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "CyberCypher" <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> [...] And while I might agree that it [PC talk] has
> >> >> died one death, I am afraid that it has 8 more to go unless we
> >> >> use a wooden stake or silver bullet to finish it off.
> >> >
> >> > Why not use those object on bigotry, insensitivity,
> >> > and ethnocentrism? Then PC will just wither away.
> >>
> >> PC is just another form of bigotry, I fear, and like all the
> >> wide-eyed idealists I've met, you seem to believe that a perfect
> >> world is within our grap if we can just remove the slippery slime
> >> of humanity from the tips of our fingers and the pits of our
> >> palms. 'Tain't so.
> >
> > "PC talk" can certainly be "singlemindedly intolerant towards
> > rival creeds" (one dictionary definition of bigotry) but as this
> > discussion shows, it need not be. I think your generalisation
> > here is too sweeping.
>
> I wasn't talking about this discussion, Fran. You are the first person
> to uncritically advance the PC line in this discussion.
I don't think I do advance it "uncritically". My comments towards the
end of the post make this plain:
" 'PC language', as Paul Esposito suggested below, is often fatuous,
self-serving and cynical -- but behind it lies an important idea --"
In short, there is a dichotomy between the FORMS in which the idea may
be expressed, the reasons (sometimes ignoble) people use this language
and the
substance from which it issued. In this respect "PC" is no different
from almost every other social and political trend of which we are
aware. People think think free speech a very fine idea (I'm one of
them). Nike is currently claiming that the First Amendment relieves
its executives in practice from the obligation not to mislead buyers
of its products. Does this mean that the First Amendment is wrong, or
the way it is being applied in this case? I don't endorse "political
correctness". I endorse people being conscious of the ethical
dimension of the the ideas they propose.
> The first
> sentence of your second paragraph sees to that.
Here it is:
"Nor do I think it mere idealism that a more perfect world than the
one
we have is impossible."
I assert that this is not the best of all possible worlds --
specifically in this case, because there is a need for us to consider
more consciously the ethical substrates of our dealings with others.
How does one infer "uncritical" endorsement of PC-speak from that?
>
> > Nor do I think it mere idealism that a more perfect world than the
> > one we have is impossible. (I withhold judgement on whether a
> > perfect world is achievable on the grounds of being too much a
> > part of this one to imagine what such a world might look like).
>
> Strictly ObAUE, if we can make a "more perfect world than the one we
> have", then we must have a "perfect world". The adjective "perfect" is
> ungradable, even though in loose talk we understand what we mean when
> we use it in a gradable fashion. This discussion, however, is not an
> occasion for such loose talk.
Point taken -- it does have a boolean character. Perhaps I should have
said "a world with more of the features one might expect in a perfect
world". I'm not sure why you beleive that this particular discussion
excludes the more vernacular register adopted. This isn't a discussion
on absolutes in language. You weren't confused about my use of the
term.
While I can agree that the world we live
> in can be made better in some ways, I cannot agree that it can be "more
> perfect" simply because it is not "perfect" to begin with.
>
Bearing in mind your wish for linguistic and analytic precision I'll
point out that this contradicts your above statement. If this world
were perfect one could hardly make it more so. Perfection is the
zenith of possibilities. It's a little like the football coach who
claims to want "110%" from all the players. I find myself wondering
why such coaches have set their sights so low. If 110% is possible,
why not 111% or even more. I've heard 1000% asserted by some. So
perfection cannot be a cause or precursor to "more pefection". That
would demand a "perfection scale", would it not?
> > Working for improvements in the way we get things done is basic
> > rational and pragmatic behaviour.
>
> And a more perfect expression of the ideology of technique one could
> not ask for.
>
I'm unclear on your point here.
> > And when all is said and done,
> > is there really anything more fundamental than the way we treat
> > each other, the basic question of "fairness".
>
> "Fairness" [1] is not a basic question, although I suppose we could
> argue about whther King Solomon's wise decision about the baby claimed
> by two women was a lesson in "fairness" or "justice" or "wisdom". I am
> inclined to believe it was about wisdom rather than justice or
> fairness.
Fairness is one of those things around which there is a broad notional
consensus in theory, but which, at the margins, there is some
controversy, particularly when one examines attempts to give effect to
fairness in practice.
For many, wisdom (a kind of Benthamite 'greatest good for the greatest
number' exercise) is one of the concepts bundled up with fairness and
justice. Being wise involves ensuring that as far as possible,
everyone's legitimate needs are met, and where they can't be, the
resultant burden of suffering is apportioned according to the capacity
of each to bear it. This is pretty close to notions of "justice",
"fairness" and even "equality". Wisdom of course, need not operate at
a social level. It may simply operate at the individual level, in
which one carefully ways risks and opportunities and behaves in ways
that tend to maximise personal benefit. And it is at this point that
our discussion returns to the ideas that lay behind contemporary
PC-speak. The idea is for each of us to recognise the needs of others,
and behave so as to maximise the possibility of effective
collaboration, even if, in the short term, we feel threatened by their
perceived difference from ourselves.
>
> > We may disagree on what fairness entails,
>
> I doubt that we would disagree in principle but only in specific
> instances, a fact that ought to establish the value of principle in
> questions that are about the specifics in one's everyday life rather
> than about the high-minded statements of principle that usually becloud
> such discussions.
>
It demonstrates the need to match the ethical principle as closely in
time and space as possible with the specific behaviour and practice.
If we are continually conscious of the principle and its importance,
then we can avoid mindlessly endorsing all behaviours ostensibly
associated with it.
> > but in order for a judgement to be made on that a
> > discussion must take place. This is such a discussion.
>
> It could be, but it isn't. The issue of "fairness" had not been raised
> at all until your post. JFK's remark that "life is unfair" is probably
> one of the most apt in history, not only because of the course of his
> life, but also because it is true everywhere at all times.
I hold no view on whether life is inherently "unfair". I presume by
"life" JFK meant "social life" -- the way people treat each other on
the whole in practice. I think as a matter of practice, if this
interpreation is correct, then he was almost certainly right. Yet he
seemed also to imply (as you do in quoting him) that this was
inevitable, and I'm not at all convinced of that. It is within the wit
and wisdom of humans to deal fairly with each other. JFK's statement
might be interpreted as encouraging a fatalist acceptance of "what is"
in lieu of "what might be". If we're quoting famous American figures I
might refer you to the famous words attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt
(very apt given the broader discussion going on) that it was better to
light a candle than complain about the darkness.
> Fairness is an artificial concept based upon the delusion of "equality".
> While I can certainly agree that all humans ought to be equal before the
> law, I know that is wishful thinking. I don't even want to get into what the
> proposition that "all men are created equal" might have meant to Jefferson
> and those he borrowed it from, but it certainly wasn't the unbridled notion
> of egalitarianism ascribed to him these past two centuries.
I'm supposing that as a religious person, Jefferson was probably
asserting that "all men were of equal virtue before God". While
egalitarianism certainly draws upon the notion of humans as ethical
equals (ie beings with an equal claim to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness to put it in expressly American terms) it goes further,
seeking, at the basic and practical level, to create conditions in
which ethical equality can be realised de facto as well as de jure.
You say it is "wishful thinking". If it is to be realised and become
part of the lived experience of people, it must be translated into
wishful action.
>
> > Finally, it is not our "humanity" that is the source of unfair
> > dealing. It is our lack of it
>
> Ooops! You have just made a serious rhetorical mistake. You have
> assumed an equality of understanding of the word "humanity" between you
> and all your readers. That equality of understanding does not exist.
> You must first define what you mean by "humanity".
I'm glad you started your declaration with "Ooops!". We already have
your definition to rely on, the very one to which I was responding.
"Like all the wide-eyed idealists I've met, you seem to believe that a
perfect
world is within our grap if we can just remove the slippery slime of
humanity from the tips of our fingers and the pits of our palms."
The last time I
> looked, it meant "conceived in vivo or in vitro by the union of a human
> egg and a human sperm" but was threatening to be expanded to include
> "Adult DNA cloning (a.k.a. reproductive cloning) . . . a technique
> intended to produce a duplicate of an existing animal. . . . The DNA
> from an ovum is removed and replaced with the DNA from a cell removed
> from an adult animal. Then, the fertilized ovum, now called a pre-
> embryo, is implanted in a womb and allowed to develop into a new
> animal." >
This is very clever. Curious though, that despite its status as the
defintion of "humanity" last time you looked, it didn't occur to you
to deploy it in response to the Michael West! Perhaps it wouldn't have
suited your rhetorical purpose.
> This is a 20th-century notion of humanity.
ONE twentieth century notion of humanity -- a taxonomic one, or a
biological one, but by no means the only one or that most pertinent to
YOUR use of it to the Michael. You used (and I responded to) a
definition of humans in terms of their shared sense of self, a
cultural definition if you will. Your view, implicit here, and
duplicated in the endorsement above that "life is unfair everywhere at
all times" that human nature (rather than malleable human practice)is
to be in part "unfair" determines your choice of metaphor -- "the
slippery slime of humanity from the tips of our fingers and the pits
of our palms". You say it is the nature of humans to foul everything
they touch with their humanity. For you, humanity is a foul and
unclean and contagious thing. It's a common religious view. Most
religions see humans in this way and forever in this world. Perfection
is possible only in the afterlife (ie when we are no longer human).
You are entitled to your quasi-religious view and the misanthropy that
attends it. I don't share it.
> > -- the fact that our human impulses
> > are constantly in conflict with and undermined by our desire for a
> > predictable and comfortable environment -- which in a world of
> > material scarcity, puts us at odd with each other along lines of
> > class, culture, gender, ethnicity and a host of other human
> > features.
>
> So you see one's "humanity" as distinct from one's "human impluses"?
> That is most interesting and contradictory, as lovely as the idea of
> original sin and its consequences --- we are all depraved because ot
> it.
>
I think it interesting (as per the above) that you reach for the idea
of original sin here. I see our humanity as a cultural product -- the
intersection of several distinct human features -- (our capacity as
individuals to learn, to empathise and our desire as individuals to
survive) -- with our material setting -- the natural and built
environments. The human features are a constant. The value of these
features and of the environment are variants. How we play out our
impulses becomes a kind of wild card. But we can create circumstances
that tend towards greater human freedom and happiness in general. What
effects will this have on the distinct human features listed above and
then in turn on the new "built environment"? It's unclear, but I'm
willing to take the journey to find out. It looks to be a more
promising road.
> > Our "humanity" tells us that we are dealing with fellow
> > humans, and that they should be treated with the respect that we
> > demand for ourselves.
>
See "empathy" above
> Your ideology has got the better of your argument, I'm afraid. You talk
> in terms of what "should be" instead of what in reality "is".
>
I would say that your ideology is masquerading as pragmatism. You want
to foreclose what might be on the basis of what you believe "is".
> > Our desire in a cold and often cruel world
>
> The world is neutral from my vantage.
I'm largely discussing the social world and the material scarcity that
marks it. That you regard it as neutral only means that you feel the
social needs of your milieu are being adequately met.
> It is only the people in it who
> are cold and cruel at times, sometimes deliberately and sometimes not.
> It might be poetic but it certainly isn't helpful to anthropomorphise
> Mother Nature.
>
See above -- not "mother nature" the social world. Did you really
invoke the female as creator metaphor? Interestingly the word "matter"
comes from "mater" Latin for Mother.
> > to gather about ourselves people who we perceive as sufficiently
> > like us to make community of interest possible (and thus our
> > welfare more secure) predisposes us to feel threatened by
> > difference and to discriminate, to circle the wagons -- in short,
> > to behave selfishly and often in ignorance.
>
> The history of the human race in a nutshell. But you dismiss this
> universal tendency of humans to act thus as some sort of aberration,
> some sort of anti-human and anti-humane behavior.
Because it is irrational in the long term, though people's lives are
lived in the short term. There's the conundrum.
It is also the way
> all the rest of the life forms on Earth behave, and unless you are a
> believer in Creationism, it should come as no surprise that the basic
> aspect of human nature and and the natures of other animals are related
> so intimately.
>
As per above -- I don't think that human nature, in the sense that you
depoly it, is fixed.
> > "PC language", as Paul Esposito suggested below, is often fatuous,
> > self-serving and cynical -- but behind it lies an important idea
>
> Yes, but that idea was abandoned and left for dead decades ago.
>
Not at all. It's the stuff of common discourse.
> > -- that as much as possible we should take the interests of all
> > people into account when making decisions affecting them, and
> > should approach this task without pre-conception about what their
> > needs may be. That's not idealistic. That's just good sense.
>
> It might be good sense if it meant anything concrete. Like all general
> principles, though, the sticking point in is the application of this
> general principle to specific instances of individual or group action.
> There are the unanticipated consequences of purposive social action to
> consider, and because they are unanticipated, we have no idea whether
> they will be better or worse than those we can anticipate.
>
We have some idea, but of course we must try things out if they pass
basic feasibility analysis, to be sure, and then review to see if the
aims were achieved, or outcomes can be further improved.
> Because you are a parent, you know very well that you cannot predict
> with any degree of certainty how what you specifically say and do will
> affect how your children turn out. All you can do is act in ways that
> you think will have better than worse effects and trust that your
> judgments have been correct.
With some confidence -- otherwise why not act at random? Your belief
must be based on something. But otherwise, I'd agree.
If we only knew what the consequences of
> our actions would be, we would know how to act, and then the aboriginal
> peoples in the New World would have not only refused to welcome the
> Europeans who landed on their shores beginning in the 15th century,
> they would have slaughtered them as they eventually were slaughtered by
> them, their fellow humans. That would have delayed the apparently
> inevitable by only a few decades, though.
I guess it depends how far ahead they got the good dope. Maybe they'd
have prepared better, and secured better terms for their
dispossession.
>
> Next time you want to argue about popular but vacuous terms, please
> remember to define them for the benefit of all your readers.
>
As you'd defined the terms already, I felt that was unnecessary.
> [1] From W3NID:
>
> synonyms FAIR, JUST, EQUITABLE, IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, DISPASSIONATE,
> UNCOLORED, and OBJECTIVE can apply, in common, to judgments, judges, or
> acts resulting from judgments, and signify freedom from improper
> influence. FAIR, the most general of the terms, implies a disposition
> in a person or group to achieve a fitting and right balance of claims
> or considerations that is free from undue favoritism even to oneself,
> or implies a quality or result in an action befitting such a
> disposition *a fair trial for all offenders* *a fair distribution of
> profits* *a fair judge in a criminal trial* *a fair estimate of his
> achievements*
See above for my discussion.
Regards
FRAN
Paul Esposito
> humani...@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) wrote in message news:<af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > In recent years it has become the fashion to lampoon "PC" language.
> > Most of us have either done it, or laughed at the more inane examples,
> > often emanating from government, or some wag's imagination.
> >
>
> snip>
>
> > All very amusing without doubt. A perverse thought struck me however.
> > Despite the fact that many of those who like to poke fun at 'political
> > correct-speak' are expressing their disdain at the politics that lies
> > behind the choice of ostensibly inclusive and non-derogating terms for
> > particular groups of people, that these people are capabale of
> > contriving such jokes, and that such humour is ubiquitously
> > comprehensible surely reflects a victory for the underlying objectives
> > of those promoting these new forms of speech.
>
>
> And probably most people here can adduce absurd examples. My
> favourite comes from a friend who was a teacher in London. She
> quickly learnt that she had to describe tea or coffee as "with" or
> "without". It was unacceptable to describe them as black or white.
>
> Cheers
>
> AW
Since you raise it, I wonder what people here make of the use of
"black" and "white" in common discourse.
The words "black" and "dark" are almost always negative, while "white"
is almost always positive. A person who takes a company that was "in
the red" and puts it "into the black" is considered successful as it
is now running at a profit rather than at a loss. Apart from this I
can think of no other positives.
Thus to be "black-balled" or "blacklisted" is to be excluded in some
way, a "blackout" is a power outage that is even worse than a
"brown-out" a power supply reduction. Black magic is evil, surely,
pace Star Wars, evidence that you have gone over to "the dark side".
The "black plague" happened during the "dark ages". To blacken
someone's name or engage in "black propaganda" is to derogate (in the
second case possibly with resort to some subterfuge). To black out is
dangerous, and a black bag job is one you don't ususally boast about.
Saddam Hussein is the Ace of Spades in the American deck. To think
dark thoughts is to brood or be morose. To be the black sheep of the
family is to be the one family embarrassment and to be "a bit of a
dark horse" is to be an unknown quantity". In Australia this sometimes
used ironically to refer to hidden talents. I suppose that could be
positive. In snooker one sinks the black ball last of all to complete
the frame, but in pool you lose if you sink it prematurely or go "in
off the black".
On the other hand, to be "pure as the driven snow" conjures up an
image of overwhelming whiteness. A white witch is a good one. Images
of angels are almost uniformly dressed in white. One corrects mistakes
manually on paper using "white-out". The traditional christian bride
dresses in white. Government discussion papers come in a range of
colours, including white, but never black.
Undoubtedly, the reasons for this balance have much to do with the
light/dark metaphor and hardly anything to do with race relations.
Light enables vision and thus clarity and insight, whereas the
darkness obstructs the operation of the principal functional sense
organ of most people, and leaves us feeling less in control.
Additionally, as things become unclean by attracting particulate
matter, they commonly become darker in colour. It is easy to conclude
that the operation of these two observable phenomena explain much
about our metaphorical use of blackness and darkness.
I wonder though how many exceptions there are to this general rule? I
also wonder if this same metaphor operates in Amharic or Swahili or
other languages commonly spoken African people.
Does anyone here know?
PE
Michael West
> PC talk and to be free of people who think they are asking the most
> devastating question in the world when they say "And just how does PC
> (talk) prevent you from living the life you want to live?" The
> implication there is always that "You must be one of those people who
> want to use the #-word in public because you're a twisted bigot". The
> implication there is always that anyone who opposes as good and
> positive as the PC desire not to offend anyone with language is
> depraved. I know that's what you think; if you didn't, you wouldn't
> have asked that insulting and offensive question. And if you protest
> that it isn't what you think, then you simply mean that you do not
> think about the meaning of what you say. It doesn't matter how you
> respond.
Good; then you won't mind my saying that
you don't know what the hell you're talking
about.
NanaNJ
> In alt.english.usage on 27 Jul 2003 12:04:15 -0700
> dgpo...@pacbell.net (D.G. Porter) posted:
>
> >humani...@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) wrote in message news:<af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> >> In recent years it has become the fashion to lampoon "PC" language.
> >> Most of us have either done it, or laughed at the more inane examples,
> >> often emanating from government, or some wag's imagination.
> >>
> >> Sprigfield is taken over by Zombies, and Lisa says to Bart "Oh my god
> >> ... Zombies!" and Bart replies "Please ... they prefer to be called
> >> 'the living impaired'."
> >>
> >> A character in a Jasper Fforde novel, "The Eire Affair", when called
> >> "evil", describes himself as "morally challenged".
> >
> >Yesterday a few of us got together for the first time in about a year
> >to plan how to revialize our group. I edit our newsletter and I'm
> >also the only "more or less able-bodied" guy there (I don't count my
> >rotten eyesight as a true "disability"). Attending were two people in
> >wheelchairs, one blind person and a guy with a prosthetic arm.
> >Nothing bugs us more than this bullshit "PC" language. There is
> >nothing wrong with the word "disability."
>
> How do you feel about "handicapped"?
>
> s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
> say if you are posting the same response.
>
> Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
> Indianapolis, 7 years
> Chicago, 6 years
> Brooklyn NY 12 years
> Baltimore 17 years
Well, here in the U.S. you can get handicapped license plates and
placards so that you can park in handicapped parking spaces and if you
park in said handicapped parking spaces without a plate or placard,
you will earn a parking ticket. If you do park in said parking spaces
and do have a plate or placard but no visible handicap, you will earn
dirty looks. You'll also earn dirty looks in the previous scenario but
it will also cost you more.
Nell
Paul Esposito
Perhaps the request was implicit, or maybe you're moving amongst the
wrong people.
In addition, often people remember when they get attacked, but don't
score or count when they are praised or ignored. So if 20 people shrug
their shoulders at what you say, or say something constructive, and
two people turn into loudmouthed condescending pains in the rear, it's
those two you're tempted to define the group with.
Regards
PE
CyberCypher
news:hLJVa.195$bo1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
No, I don't mind your saying it. It was predictable. You cannot
demonstrate that what you say is true, so you attempt to mask that
fact with a vigorous denial short on everything. But you are
certainly free to console yourself with the knowledge that there are
millions of others who ought to know better than to reiterate that
old chestnut as well as millions of others too young to know that it
is a rotten old chestnut. Better that you fall into the second
category, of course.
And you cannot say "Hey, I really wanted to know the answer to that
question", because the question itself is a vapid cliché after 30
years of being asked by the PC police. It's like trying to convince
anyone that any statement beginning with "Some of my best friends
are #" is actually not an anti-# statement when (generic) *you* say
it, but that it is when everyone else says it.
Cheers.
Daniel James
news:<af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>, Paul
> > That would, indeed, be quite reasonable. OTOH, I have
> > never heard any PC proponent make such a claim. In fact,
> > "asking people" only very rarely enters such debates, if
> > at all.
>
> Perhaps the request was implicit, or maybe you're moving
> amongst the wrong people.
Surely you mean "differently right" people?
One of the real victims of all this PC nonsense is poor old
"differently"; an innocent and useful word that has (the SOED
informs me) been a good citizen of the language and kept its
meaning more-or-less intact since Late Middle English, but is
now faced with becoming synonymous with Wayne's terminal "not!"
I've heard:
"He's differently capable" - he's inept.
"He's differently intelligent" - he's stupid.
and even:
"He's differently present" - he's not here.
"He differently survived the accident" - he was killed.
All in jest, of course; but these examples do highlight the
damage to the language that can occur when people force new
usages for reasons, rather than just letting the development of
the language follow its course. Poor old "differently" is in
danger of becoming differently meaninged.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Peter
| Perhaps the request was implicit, or maybe you're moving amongst the
| wrong people.
Not at all. No people I move amongst have ever insisted on any form of
PC talk whatsoever.
It's only in the media or the political arena that I witnessed such
demands. They were invariably daft and claiming that using a certain
word was tantamount to racist, fascist, sexist, you-name-it behaviour.
As CyberCypher said, the offensiveness is in the mind, not the word, of
the offender. Banning the word from his mouth won't get the thought out
of his head. And what's more, psychology, in that case, will work
actively against you.
I have no love for people who knowingly offend others. See any recent
thread that features AB. But don't try to convert any of them via PC. It
won't work. And annoy many a good person while not doing it.
--
Peter
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
I read Steve's "Ah well, democracy is an American invention you know" as
being ironic/sarcastic.
CyberCypher
news:vsbfivk5jm60en3ql...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:36:40 +0100, Dr Robin Bignall
> <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:59:49 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:04:12 +0200, "rewboss"
>>><rew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>>>>MPG.198f752fb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>>>>> haye...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:47:35 +0100, david56
>>>>> > <bass.b...@ntlworld.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >Nelson Mandela was once introduced, to a US audience, as
>>>>> > >"that great African American, Nelson Mandela".
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Do you have any evidence for that - or is it just an urban
>>>>> > legend.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fair cop, gov. I think I heard it on the BBC steam
>>>>> wireless, so I believed it, but I cannot find any respectable
>>>>> online references.
>>>>
>>>>On
>>>>http://www.frameposters.com/Posters_African-American_History_Make
>>>>rs.html posters featuring Nelson Mandela are listed in the
>>>>African-American History Makers section.
>>>
>>>Ah well, democracy is an American invention you know. Americans
>>>ought to get the credit for the introduction of democracy to
>>>South Africa, and anywhere else.
>>
>>Democracy an American invention? It was actually invented in
>>ancient Athens. See, for example,
>>
>>http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/Demokratie/Grundkurs2/Antike/
>>athen.htm
>
> I read Steve's "Ah well, democracy is an American invention you
> know" as being ironic/sarcastic.
Of course it was, but it didn't work, now, did it.
Michael West
Daniel James wrote:
> One of the real victims of all this PC nonsense is poor old
> "differently";[...]
> All in jest, of course; but these examples do highlight the
> damage to the language that can occur when people force new
> usages for reasons, rather than just letting the development of
> the language follow its course. Poor old "differently" is in
> danger of becoming differently meaninged.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over "damage
to the language." If the forms aren't
useful they won't survive.
Your examples are, as you say, "in jest
of course." I wonder if there are any
examples of this insidious threat that
people call PC that aren't either "in jest"
or the incompetent, futile, inconsequential
mucking about of bureaucrats. I look about
but I don't see them. But then I've never
been abducted by aliens either.
CyberCypher
news:jHOVa.658$bo1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
And you've never lived in America, where people lose their jobs
because they use language that is not PC. That is supposed to be the
Landf of the Free and Freedom of Speech, but those freedoms mean
nothing if you are fired for what you say. Your vision is too
limited, Mr West. The world is bigger than Australia.
eggie
an excellent website that researches urban legends and categorizes them as
true, false, of uncertain origin or dubious origin.
They will uncover the truth!
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f250d62...@news.saix.net...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:47:35 +0100, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> >Nelson Mandela was once introduced, to a US audience, as "that great
> >African American, Nelson Mandela".
>
> Do you have any evidence for that - or is it just an urban legend.
> --
> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
> E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop
uk
Mark Browne
<af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>, Paul Esposito
<humani...@hotmail.com> writes
>It is often the case that those for whom the "inclusive-speak" is
>contructed aren't all that fussed, and and slightly mystified by it
>all, if not downright miffed.
>
>On the other hand, "hearing-impaired" and "sight-impaired" are almost
>certainly more accurate than "deaf" or "blind",
Accepted (well, not argued, at least)
> "non-english-speaking
>background" more accurate than "foreigner",
These two are totally different things. When I visit my parents-in-law,
I am a foreigner, but I definitely have an "English-speaking
background".
> "disabled" more accurate
>and less derogatory than "crippled".
That is very much a point-of-view thing. I know a disabled person who
refers to himself as a "crip" - he cannot walk.
>Having "learning difficulties" is
>more constructive, pointing as it does to a remedy, than being
>"thick", and we now know enough about autism to give "differently
>abled" some application. I heard a woman on the radio recently who had
>prospered in agriculature and animal husbandry give a radio interview
>in which she spoke rather more lucidly and insightfully than did her
>interviewer about achievements of hers many times more substantial
>than his, despite his status as "normal".
So what made her disabled in any way. It sounds like she was abusing
the status.
--
Mark Browne
If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the
"From" address will be rejected
Mark Browne
Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> writes
>When I went to England I was often called a wog, occasionally a
>foreigner.
Why were you called a wog? When I was young, that would have only been
applied to non-whites - from your web-page, I see (assume?) that you are
white, so this would seem to be an odd usage.
>The appellations were quite accurate, but "non-English-speaking
>background" would not have been.
Scott
"rewboss" <rew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On http://www.frameposters.com/Posters_African-American_History_Makers.html
> posters featuring Nelson Mandela are listed in the African-American History
> Makers section.
Not much more than a typo, really. Though titled "African-American
History Makers Frame Posters," the category is
Frame Posters > Ethnic / Multicultural > African-American/African >
--
to email *off-topic* responses, change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>>Ah well, democracy is an American invention you know. Americans ought to get
>>the credit for the introduction of democracy to South Africa, and anywhere
>>else.
>
>Democracy an American invention? It was actually invented in ancient
>Athens. See, for example,
Who invented irony?
rewboss
Xns93C8A5B59...@130.133.1.4...
> As nice as it would be to have traffic
> police officers compliment one for obeying instead of breaking the
> traffic laws (something that's never happened to me anywhere in the
> world)...
I remember once reading of a case where this did actually happen, but I do
know that the project ended a dismal failure.[*]
I can't remember where or when it was, but it was in one of those countries
where bad driving is particularly rife -- Greece, or somewhere like that.
The police introduced a scheme where particularly good and courteous drivers
would be rewarded with gift vouchers, or something similar.
For weeks they found nobody worthy of reward. Finally, one police unit
spotted a particularly careful and circumspect driver, whom they tried to
flag down in order to award the prize. The driver, though, assumed he was in
trouble and put his foot down, accellerating through a red light. The police
ended up having to book him.
[*] Did you notice how horribly ambiguous that sentence was? I think I
should insert an "as" after "ended".
rewboss
96efe132.03072...@posting.google.com...
Hamburg, Germany *as well*. And several other Hamburgs dotted around the
States. I saw the letter (a .pdf document -- purely by accident, by the way,
I'm not sure I could find it now).
When I saw it, though, they gave every impression of being deadly serious. I
think they just harmed their own case, because it made a lot of people laugh
*at* them, rather than *with* them.
Fresh Kills, NY, was another of their targets.
CyberCypher
news:bg90go$m0bce$1...@ID-185204.news.uni-berlin.de:
This is a wonderful story. :-)
> [*] Did you notice how horribly ambiguous that sentence was? I
> think I should insert an "as" after "ended".
I think that's perfectly acceptable British English. It is
ambiguous, but given the context, it seems unimportant.
Paul Esposito
> In article
> news:<af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>, Paul
> Esposito wrote:
> > > That would, indeed, be quite reasonable. OTOH, I have
> > > never heard any PC proponent make such a claim. In fact,
> > > "asking people" only very rarely enters such debates, if
> > > at all.
> >
> > Perhaps the request was implicit, or maybe you're moving
> > amongst the wrong people.
>
> Surely you mean "differently right" people?
>
> One of the real victims of all this PC nonsense is poor old
> "differently"; an innocent and useful word that has (the SOED
> informs me) been a good citizen of the language and kept its
> meaning more-or-less intact since Late Middle English, but is
> now faced with becoming synonymous with Wayne's terminal "not!"
>
Differently necessarily (sorry) Not necessarily ... Sometimes it
really does mean what it seems ... I'm thinking that Lance Armstrong
is "differently abled" when it comes to cycling than am I, though I
would be quite capable or riding along beside him, if he chose to
tolerate my company. Those who have developed the capacity to make
recognisable images with their feet are also "differently abled". The
truth is we are all individuals (apologies to "Brian") and so, all
differently abled.
> I've heard:
>
> "He's differently capable" - he's inept.
> "He's differently intelligent" - he's stupid.
>
> and even:
>
> "He's differently present" - he's not here.
> "He differently survived the accident" - he was killed.
>
> All in jest, of course; but these examples do highlight the
> damage to the language that can occur when people force new
> usages for reasons, rather than just letting the development of
> the language follow its course. Poor old "differently" is in
> danger of becoming differently meaninged.
>
Yes, but the word can survive the jest. It has a secure job.
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
Cheers
PE
rewboss
3f274d0a....@news.saix.net...
> Who invented irony?
I don't know, but it was some time after the bronzy age.
rewboss
Heimdall-226C2F...@rcache2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Not much more than a typo, really. Though titled "African-American
> History Makers Frame Posters," the category is
>
> Frame Posters > Ethnic / Multicultural > African-American/African >
Actually, if you read it carefully, that category is one level up. The
category is:
Frame Posters > Ethnic/Multicultural > African-American/African >
African-American History Makers
Fran
Far be it from me, a longstanding and fully paid up member of the far
left, to come to the defence of the US government, business or legal
community, but I find this rather hard to believe (much as I'd like to
at one level). Do you have any really clear documented cases? I'd love
to be able to cite them knowledgeably in discussion at some future
time on the next occasion someone asserts that the above-named
institutions are bulwarks of human freedom, by contra-distinction with
"socialist" countries.
FRAN
Michael West
"Fran" wrote
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
news:<Xns93C8D80F8...@130.133.1.4>...
> > And you've never lived in America, where people lose their jobs
> > because they use language that is not PC.
>
> Far be it from me, a longstanding and fully paid up member of the far
> left, to come to the defence of the US government, business or legal
> community, but I find this rather hard to believe (much as I'd like to
> at one level). Do you have any really clear documented cases? I'd love
> to be able to cite them knowledgeably in discussion at some future
> time on the next occasion someone asserts that the above-named
> institutions are bulwarks of human freedom, by contra-distinction with
> "socialist" countries.
There's the "niggardly" flap, which may or may not
be germane.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm
But, Fran, your correspondent has extended the
discussion of PC to include the malicious HUAC
madness of the 1950s (which really did interfere
with people's reputations and careers), so I think
you're not likely to get a satisfactory answer to
the "give me an example" question.
Your correspondent is likely tell you what you
"really" think, and where you have or haven't
lived for fifty years, without ever answering
the question.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>I wonder though how many exceptions there are to this general rule? I
>also wonder if this same metaphor operates in Amharic or Swahili or
>other languages commonly spoken African people.
>
>Does anyone here know?
It applies in Zulu.
Blackness (ubumnyama) is sometimes used metaphorically to refer to darkness in
the heart.
Steve Hayes
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, in message <3f261067...@news.saix.net>, Steve
>Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> writes
>>When I went to England I was often called a wog, occasionally a
>>foreigner.
>
>Why were you called a wog? When I was young, that would have only been
>applied to non-whites - from your web-page, I see (assume?) that you are
>white, so this would seem to be an odd usage.
I was told that wogs came from south of the Trent, and I came from a long way
south of it.
A fellow student who arrived at college the same time as I did was from New
Zealand, and several English student remarked that our hoods from "wog
colleges" didn't have fur on them.
I didn't mind being called a foreigner or a wog, because I was one. As I
pointed out elsewhere, I even crossed out "Alien" on my "Alien Registration
Certificate" and substituted Wog.
What I DID mind, however, was being called a "colonial", because I wasn't one.
>
>>The appellations were quite accurate, but "non-English-speaking
>>background" would not have been.
>--
>Mark Browne
>If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the
>"From" address will be rejected
--
Tony Cooper
<mbw...@removebigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Fran" wrote
>
>> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
>news:<Xns93C8D80F8...@130.133.1.4>...
>
>> > And you've never lived in America, where people lose their jobs
>> > because they use language that is not PC.
>>
>> Far be it from me, a longstanding and fully paid up member of the far
>> left, to come to the defence of the US government, business or legal
>> community, but I find this rather hard to believe (much as I'd like to
>> at one level). Do you have any really clear documented cases? I'd love
>> to be able to cite them knowledgeably in discussion at some future
>> time on the next occasion someone asserts that the above-named
>> institutions are bulwarks of human freedom, by contra-distinction with
>> "socialist" countries.
>
>
>There's the "niggardly" flap, which may or may not
>be germane.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm
I knew you'd use that. I wouldn't even count it as an example. The
word was misunderstood to be a version of "nigger". Is "nigger"
politically incorrect? I don't think so. "Nigger" is blatantly
insulting and demeaning. Terms that are considered to be politically
incorrect are terms that are the borderline terms that are considered
unacceptable because they suggest offense. "Nigger" is 'way beyond
that.
A politically incorrect term might be "Chinaman" when referring to
someone that is Chinese. The person referred to might be a Chinese
man, but it's politically incorrect to refer to him as a Chinaman.
It's a term that some find offensive and disturbing, so the
politically correct avoid using it. There are some that might find it
blatantly insulting, but the speaker probably doesn't realize this.
In the case of "nigger", the speaker clearly realizes the term is
insulting.
The guy wasn't fired because he used a politically incorrect term. He
was fired because he used a racial epithet. He didn't, but that's
beside the point of whether or not "nigger" is politically incorrect.
I don't see "nigger", "kike", "raghead", and "fag" as being
politically incorrect terms. They are insults plain and simple.
>Your correspondent is likely tell you what you
>"really" think, and where you have or haven't
>lived for fifty years, without ever answering
>the question.
A technique practiced by you so much that it should be called Franked
Up.
Now, other than the "niggardly" incident, where are all the examples
of people being fired from their jobs because of politically incorrect
usage?
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
Robert Bannister
> Well, here in the U.S. you can get handicapped license plates and
> placards so that you can park in handicapped parking spaces and if
> you park in said handicapped parking spaces without a plate or
> placard, you will earn a parking ticket.
Only a parking ticket. Here in Australia there is a fine of $5000.
If you do park in said parking spaces
> and do have a plate or placard but no visible handicap, you will earn
> dirty looks. You'll also earn dirty looks in the previous scenario
> but it will also cost you more.
True. I am very careful not to take advantage when I am not with my
mother, for whose benefit I have the correct thingie*, but I am certain
many other people do and I am getting very good at giving black looks.
* Didn't know what to call it. It's not a plate or a placard. It's a
laminated (plastic encased) piece of paper a bit larger than a cigarette
packet. It is supposed to adhere to the windscreen by static
electricity, but the one I have now won't, so it just lies on the dashboard.
--
Rob Bannister
Dr Robin Bignall
Gosh! I must have had my irony-checker disabled, but it was after midnight.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Dr Robin Bignall
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:48:06 GMT, Mark Browne <ne...@kafana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, in message <3f261067...@news.saix.net>, Steve
>>Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>When I went to England I was often called a wog, occasionally a
>>>foreigner.
>>
>>Why were you called a wog? When I was young, that would have only been
>>applied to non-whites - from your web-page, I see (assume?) that you are
>>white, so this would seem to be an odd usage.
>
>I was told that wogs came from south of the Trent, and I came from a long way
>south of it.
>
All that goes to show, Steve, is that there are a lot of stupid English
shits north of the Trent, then and now (and, incidentally, south of it,
too). I know, for I was born just about five miles north of that particular
river, so I'm an expert!
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
Very true, Peter. I have often thought that there seem to be too many
people with too much time and not enough sense. I am always reminded of the
old adage "Empty vessels make the most sound".
Wesley Groleau
>> On the other hand, "hearing-impaired" and "sight-impaired" are almost
>> certainly more accurate than "deaf" or "blind",
Perhaps sometimes. Others? Well, Becky's sight
is not impaired--it's non-existent. And she does
not get offended at the word blind. But I think
she considers an unnecessary three extra syllables
kind of stupid.
Dr Robin Bignall
[..]
>Well, here in the U.S. you can get handicapped license plates and
>placards so that you can park in handicapped parking spaces
That is true of every European country, too...
>and if you
>park in said handicapped parking spaces without a plate or placard,
>you will earn a parking ticket.
In England, you *may* get a parking ticket if the area is
warden-controlled, but except for central London[1], few parking wardens
bother.
>If you do park in said parking spaces
>and do have a plate or placard but no visible handicap, you will earn
>dirty looks.
That is true of England, too.
(But a similar thing happens in Accident and Emergency wards in English
hospitals. If you are brought in in an ambulance via a 999 (911) call, and
there are not fountains of blood or limbs hanging off, you can be ignored
for hours. Even as a registered-disabled person, unable to walk more than a
few yards without an elbow-crutch, with the title 'doctor', I had total
urinary blockage twice in 2000 (eventually having to have a TURP operation)
and on both occasions was left until the pain made me scream for them to
bring me my own fucking catheter before my bladder burst, at one of
London's largest teaching hospitals. On both occasions the urine came out
red because all of the capillaries in my bladder had burst. A&W wards are
mostly staffed by juniors, particularly at night, for nobody with any
seniority wants to work late hours or overnight.)
[1] The opposite applies in the City of Westminster (central London). On
two occasions in April 2003 I had to park outside what is often considered
as one of the best private hospitals in England (the London Clinic), with
blue disabled badge displayed, for diagnosis and treatment of a kidney
problem, and collected an £80 ($120) fine on each occasion. I have no other
way of getting there except by car, but the Westminster council do not give
a shit. I paid the first (only £40 if paid within a few days) even though I
had not driven in central London since November, 1992 until this occasion)
but refused the second, and told them I'd rather go to prison than pay. I
just yesterday got a lecture (in a letter) about parking rules in
Westminster (as if I didn't know them), but absolutely no reference to the
fact that I told them that I was having treatment at the hospital and had
no other way of getting there; and a dismissal of the fine "on this
occasion".
The irony is that if I had been able to walk the 20 yards to the hospital
door unaided, and my wife had been able to sit in the car, they could not
have given me a ticket. But, as my wife, she was just a little bit
interested in what the consultant said and did!
Michael West
mis-attributed my words to CyberCypher/Franke in the
thread below. Or so it appears; I can think of no other
explanation.
I agree with Tony and Fran on this issue; I disagree with
Franke. I also disagree with Franke on the question of
whether I have ever lived in America -- though I suppose
it is, like anything else, a matter on which he or she is
entitled to its own opinion.
--
Michael West
Resident in Melbourne, Australia
after a half-century in the US.
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:15pgivcp33osuae97...@4ax.com...
CyberCypher
news:95f168b0.03073...@posting.google.com:
You are perfectly free to do your own research. Start with Texaco.
> Do you have any really clear documented
> cases? I'd love to be able to cite them knowledgeably in
> discussion at some future time on the next occasion someone
> asserts that the above-named institutions are bulwarks of human
> freedom, by contra-distinction with "socialist" countries.
If that were true, you would have already done the research.
CyberCypher
news:95f168b0.03072...@posting.google.com:
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93C7BBC2D...@130.133.1.4>...
>> franb...@mail.com (Fran) burbled
>> news:95f168b0.03072...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns93C7963B6...@130.133.1.4>...
>> >> "Michael West" <mbw...@removebigpond.net.au> burbled
>> >> news:wOnVa.21147$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "CyberCypher" <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> [...] And while I might agree that it [PC talk] has
>> >> >> died one death, I am afraid that it has 8 more to go unless
>> >> >> we use a wooden stake or silver bullet to finish it off.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why not use those object on bigotry, insensitivity,
>> >> > and ethnocentrism? Then PC will just wither away.
>> >>
>> >> PC is just another form of bigotry, I fear, and like all the
>> >> wide-eyed idealists I've met, you seem to believe that a
>> >> perfect world is within our grap if we can just remove the
>> >> slippery slime of humanity from the tips of our fingers and
>> >> the pits of our palms. 'Tain't so.
>> >
>> > "PC talk" can certainly be "singlemindedly intolerant towards
>> > rival creeds" (one dictionary definition of bigotry) but as
>> > this discussion shows, it need not be. I think your
>> > generalisation here is too sweeping.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about this discussion, Fran. You are the first
>> person to uncritically advance the PC line in this discussion.
>
> I don't think I do advance it "uncritically". My comments towards
> the end of the post make this plain:
>
> " 'PC language', as Paul Esposito suggested below, is often
> fatuous, self-serving and cynical -- but behind it lies an
> important idea --"
>
> In short, there is a dichotomy between the FORMS in which the idea
> may be expressed, the reasons (sometimes ignoble) people use this
> language and the
> substance from which it issued. In this respect "PC" is no
> different from almost every other social and political trend of
> which we are aware. People think think free speech a very fine
> idea (I'm one of them). Nike is currently claiming that the First
> Amendment relieves its executives in practice from the obligation
> not to mislead buyers of its products. Does this mean that the
> First Amendment is wrong, or the way it is being applied in this
> case? I don't endorse "political correctness". I endorse people
> being conscious of the ethical dimension of the the ideas they
> propose.
>
>> The first
>> sentence of your second paragraph sees to that.
>
> Here it is:
>
> "Nor do I think it mere idealism that a more perfect world than
> the one we have is impossible."
>
> I assert that this is not the best of all possible worlds --
> specifically in this case, because there is a need for us to
> consider more consciously the ethical substrates of our dealings
> with others. How does one infer "uncritical" endorsement of
> PC-speak from that?
>>
>> > Nor do I think it mere idealism that a more perfect world than
>> > the one we have is impossible. (I withhold judgement on whether
>> > a perfect world is achievable on the grounds of being too much
>> > a part of this one to imagine what such a world might look
>> > like).
>>
>> Strictly ObAUE, if we can make a "more perfect world than the one
>> we have", then we must have a "perfect world". The adjective
>> "perfect" is ungradable, even though in loose talk we understand
>> what we mean when we use it in a gradable fashion. This
>> discussion, however, is not an occasion for such loose talk.
>
> Point taken -- it does have a boolean character. Perhaps I should
> have said "a world with more of the features one might expect in a
> perfect world". I'm not sure why you beleive that this particular
> discussion excludes the more vernacular register adopted. This
> isn't a discussion on absolutes in language. You weren't confused
> about my use of the term.
>
> While I can agree that the world we live
>> in can be made better in some ways, I cannot agree that it can be
>> "more perfect" simply because it is not "perfect" to begin with.
>
> Bearing in mind your wish for linguistic and analytic precision
> I'll point out that this contradicts your above statement.
Huh?
> If this world were perfect one could hardly make it more so.
Well, we could have got to that little problem after dealing with
your assertion that it's possible to have a "more perfect world".
One problem at a time.
> Perfection is
> the zenith of possibilities. It's a little like the football coach
> who claims to want "110%" from all the players. I find myself
> wondering why such coaches have set their sights so low. If 110%
> is possible, why not 111% or even more. I've heard 1000% asserted
> by some. So perfection cannot be a cause or precursor to "more
> pefection". That would demand a "perfection scale", would it not?
So now you're telling me about what "perfection" is and is not? I
think it's a bit late for that. You blew it in your previous post
and may not succeed in grabbing some kind of moral high ground by
delivering a lecture on what you forgot the first time you used it.
>> > Working for improvements in the way we get things done is basic
>> > rational and pragmatic behaviour.
>>
>> And a more perfect expression of the ideology of technique one
>> could not ask for.
>>
>
> I'm unclear on your point here.
Just a little word play and an allusion to _The Technological
Society_ by Ellul. Not a big deal.
>
>> > And when all is said and done,
>> > is there really anything more fundamental than the way we treat
>> > each other, the basic question of "fairness".
>>
>> "Fairness" [1] is not a basic question, although I suppose we
>> could argue about whther King Solomon's wise decision about the
>> baby claimed by two women was a lesson in "fairness" or "justice"
>> or "wisdom". I am inclined to believe it was about wisdom rather
>> than justice or fairness.
>
> Fairness is one of those things around which there is a broad
> notional consensus in theory, but which, at the margins, there is
> some controversy, particularly when one examines attempts to give
> effect to fairness in practice.
> For many, wisdom (a kind of Benthamite 'greatest good for the
> greatest number' exercise) is one of the concepts bundled up with
> fairness and justice. Being wise involves ensuring that as far as
> possible, everyone's legitimate needs are met, and where they
> can't be, the resultant burden of suffering is apportioned
> according to the capacity of each to bear it. This is pretty close
> to notions of "justice", "fairness" and even "equality". Wisdom of
> course, need not operate at a social level. It may simply operate
> at the individual level, in which one carefully ways risks and
> opportunities and behaves in ways that tend to maximise personal
> benefit. And it is at this point that our discussion returns to
> the ideas that lay behind contemporary PC-speak. The idea is for
> each of us to recognise the needs of others,
Great. I recognize that I have a choice about how I meet the needs
of everyone other than myself, jujst as they have a choice about how
they meet my needs. I recognize that everyone seems to have a core
of basic needs when interacting/communicating with others and I do
my best to meet them given the context in which we find ourselves.
> and behave so as to
> maximise the possibility of effective collaboration,
I do not view interactions with strangers or even colleagues as
"collaboration". I do not feel compelled to maximise the
effectiveness of my contacts with others unless it is called for.
Sometimes I'd rather be left alone that have to deal with others, so
sometimes my needs and the needs of others are in direct conflict.
> even if, in the short term, we feel threatened by
> their perceived difference from ourselves.
I never feel threatened by these differences, perceived or
otherwise. Unless the other guy has a gun, and even on those
occasions (3 or 4 in my life) I didn't feeel threatened.
>> > We may disagree on what fairness entails,
>>
>> I doubt that we would disagree in principle but only in specific
>> instances, a fact that ought to establish the value of principle
>> in questions that are about the specifics in one's everyday life
>> rather than about the high-minded statements of principle that
>> usually becloud such discussions.
>>
> It demonstrates the need to match the ethical principle as closely
> in time and space as possible with the specific behaviour and
> practice. If we are continually conscious of the principle and its
> importance, then we can avoid mindlessly endorsing all behaviours
> ostensibly associated with it.
I am totally lost by this little pearl of wisdom. Could you
translate it into clear, simple, plain English?
>> > but in order for a judgement to be made on that a
>> > discussion must take place. This is such a discussion.
>>
>> It could be, but it isn't. The issue of "fairness" had not been
>> raised at all until your post. JFK's remark that "life is unfair"
>> is probably one of the most apt in history, not only because of
>> the course of his life, but also because it is true everywhere at
>> all times.
>
> I hold no view on whether life is inherently "unfair". I presume
> by "life" JFK meant "social life" -- the way people treat each
> other on the whole in practice.
We'll never know exactly what he meant when he said it, but I'm sure
he meant more than that. We all know people who seem to have it all
and others who seem to have nothing. Very often, those who have
little or nothing complain that 'it isn't "fair" that X has brains,
beauty, talent, and wealth, but I have none of those things. X has
too much'.
> I think as a matter of practice,
> if this interpreation is correct, then he was almost certainly
> right. Yet he seemed also to imply (as you do in quoting him) that
> this was inevitable, and I'm not at all convinced of that. It is
> within the wit and wisdom of humans to deal fairly with each
> other.
That's not what he meant. Had he meant that, he would have said,
"People are unfair to each other" or "Society is unfair". He said
"Life is unfair", and he meant that life from the cradle to the
grave was unfair for everyone. But it is about as probable that
humans will deal fairly with each other as they will love their
neighbor as themselves, not kill, not commit adultery, and not covet
their neighbor's spouse. Humans have had thousands of years to meet
those piddling standards and have failed miserably.
> JFK's statement might be interpreted as encouraging a
> fatalist acceptance of "what is" in lieu of "what might be".
It's not fatalistic to accept what is. Without first doing that, it
is impossible to understand what can and cannot be changed. Without
first understanding what is, one is bound to arrive at some absurdly
utopian notion of what might be.
> If
> we're quoting famous American figures I might refer you to the
> famous words attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt (very apt given the
> broader discussion going on) that it was better to light a candle
> than complain about the darkness.
I love those old chestnuts.
>> Fairness is an artificial concept based upon the delusion of
>> "equality". While I can certainly agree that all humans ought to
>> be equal before the law, I know that is wishful thinking. I don't
>> even want to get into what the proposition that "all men are
>> created equal" might have meant to Jefferson and those he
>> borrowed it from, but it certainly wasn't the unbridled notion
>> of egalitarianism ascribed to him these past two centuries.
>
> I'm supposing that as a religious person, Jefferson was probably
> asserting that "all men were of equal virtue before God".
I don't know where you got the idea that Jefferson was a religious
person. At worst he was a Deist, and only because that to admit, as
Thomas Paine did, that one was an atheist in the 18th century was
politically inexpedient. Jefferson was a politician, and he was
reacting to the British class system. He was all for educating the
educable regardless of their social standing. He believed in brains,
not blue blood. It had nothing to do with virtue or God. His ideal
elites were made up of people who merited their positions rather
than those who were born with silver spoons in their mouths. He
advocated meritocracy rather than aristocracy and recognized no
divine right of kings.
> While
> egalitarianism certainly draws upon the notion of humans as
> ethical equals (ie beings with an equal claim to life, liberty and
> the pursuit of happiness to put it in expressly American terms)
The only difference between those allegedly American terms and John
Locke's British terms was what each man wrote that men were born
with equal rights to pursue. Locke said "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of wealth". Jefferson changed "wealth" to "happiness". There
is no need to get nationalistic about this. Jefferson did not create
all the ideas he expressed. He borrowed most of them from John Locke
and Rousseau.
> it
> goes further, seeking, at the basic and practical level, to create
> conditions in which ethical equality can be realised de facto as
> well as de jure. You say it is "wishful thinking". If it is to be
> realised and become part of the lived experience of people, it
> must be translated into wishful action.
What a misunderstanding of Jefferson. The man was not a saint. He
wanted everyone in the USA to have the same opportunity to be
educated regardless of their birth. That would be good for the
nation and not some New Age way for the individual to realize his
full potential. Equality does not exist in the USA or anywhere else.
It never has and it never will. I have no idea what you mean by
"ethical equality". Please define it.Do you mean equality before the
law? Equality of opportunity in the job market? Equal pay for equal
work? Quotas based on the makeup of the general population? Just
what the hell is "ehtical equality"? I have never heard or read the
phrase before seeing it in this post.
>> > Finally, it is not our "humanity" that is the source of unfair
>> > dealing. It is our lack of it
>>
>> Ooops! You have just made a serious rhetorical mistake. You have
>> assumed an equality of understanding of the word "humanity"
>> between you and all your readers. That equality of understanding
>> does not exist. You must first define what you mean by
>> "humanity".
>
> I'm glad you started your declaration with "Ooops!". We already
> have your definition to rely on, the very one to which I was
> responding.
>
>> "Like all the wide-eyed idealists I've met, you seem to believe
>> that a perfect world is within our grap if we can just remove the
>> slippery slime of humanity from the tips of our fingers and the
>> pits of our palms."
>> The last time I
>> looked, it meant "conceived in vivo or in vitro by the union of a
>> human egg and a human sperm" but was threatening to be expanded
>> to include "Adult DNA cloning (a.k.a. reproductive cloning) . .
>> . a technique intended to produce a duplicate of an existing
>> animal. . . . The DNA from an ovum is removed and replaced with
>> the DNA from a cell removed from an adult animal. Then, the
>> fertilized ovum, now called a pre- embryo, is implanted in a womb
>> and allowed to develop into a new animal." >
>
> This is very clever. Curious though, that despite its status as
> the defintion of "humanity" last time you looked, it didn't occur
> to you to deploy it in response to the Michael West! Perhaps it
> wouldn't have suited your rhetorical purpose.
>
>> This is a 20th-century notion of humanity.
>
> ONE twentieth century notion of humanity -- a taxonomic one, or a
> biological one, but by no means the only one or that most
> pertinent to YOUR use of it to the Michael. You used (and I
> responded to) a definition of humans in terms of their shared
> sense of self, a cultural definition if you will. Your view,
> implicit here, and duplicated in the endorsement above that "life
> is unfair everywhere at all times" that human nature (rather than
> malleable human practice) is to be in part "unfair" determines
> your choice of metaphor -- "the slippery slime of humanity from
> the tips of our fingers and the pits of our palms". You say it is
> the nature of humans to foul everything they touch with their
> humanity.
No, I say it is the teachings of Western Civilization and its
wretched notion that human beings are depraved and so must be
perfected by the application of unrealistic prinicples of behavior.
I think that most people are okay regardless of their cultural
background and that there is no way to make them any better than
they already are. I say that the wide-eyed idealists want to deny
human nature (therein lies our humanity, which means that, for a
variety of reasons, certain people lack even that which is basic to
allow them to be called human); human nature is the slippery slime
of our humanity.
> For you, humanity is a foul and unclean and contagious
> thing. It's a common religious view.
Yes, it is a common religious view and it is the common view of
those working for the perfection of the human race, be they priests
or eugenicists. But you aren't seriously accusing me of holding such
a religious view, are you? That view is one of the reasons that I
despise almost all religions.
> Most religions see humans in
> this way and forever in this world. Perfection is possible only in
> the afterlife (ie when we are no longer human). You are entitled
> to your quasi-religious view and the misanthropy that attends it.
> I don't share it.
I am not convinced.
>
>> > -- the fact that our human impulses
>> > are constantly in conflict with and undermined by our desire
>> > for a predictable and comfortable environment -- which in a
>> > world of material scarcity, puts us at odd with each other
>> > along lines of class, culture, gender, ethnicity and a host of
>> > other human features.
>>
>> So you see one's "humanity" as distinct from one's "human
>> impluses"? That is most interesting and contradictory, as lovely
>> as the idea of original sin and its consequences --- we are all
>> depraved because ot it.
>>
> I think it interesting (as per the above) that you reach for the
> idea of original sin here. I see our humanity as a cultural
> product -- the intersection of several distinct human features --
> (our capacity as individuals to learn, to empathise and our desire
> as individuals to survive) -- with our material setting -- the
> natural and built environments. The human features are a constant.
Ah, yes. The cultural anthropology view. "To be human," Clifford
Geertz learned from one of his informants 35 or 40 years ago, "is to
be Balinese!" And it's true. Whatever you are defines your specific
brand of humanity. You cannot be human outside of a particular
cultural context. The cultural context of Western Civilization
allows for humanity as a depraved condition of being: original sin.
I don't believe in sin.
> The value of these features and of the environment are variants.
> How we play out our impulses becomes a kind of wild card. But we
> can create circumstances that tend towards greater human freedom
> and happiness in general.
Some can and some cannot.
> What effects will this have on the
> distinct human features listed above and then in turn on the new
> "built environment"? It's unclear, but I'm willing to take the
> journey to find out. It looks to be a more promising road.
Each to their own road.
>> > Our "humanity" tells us that we are dealing with fellow
>> > humans, and that they should be treated with the respect that
>> > we demand for ourselves.
>>
>
> See "empathy" above
>
>
>> Your ideology has got the better of your argument, I'm afraid.
>> You talk in terms of what "should be" instead of what in reality
>> "is".
>
> I would say that your ideology is masquerading as pragmatism. You
> want to foreclose what might be on the basis of what you believe
> "is".
Poppycock! I want to foreclose nothing. Only Scrooge got to see what
"might be", but that was just a fiction, as much a fiction as the
"might be"s that all wide-eyed idealists can foresee in their rody
crystal balls.
>> > Our desire in a cold and often cruel world
>>
>> The world is neutral from my vantage.
>
> I'm largely discussing the social world and the material scarcity
> that marks it. That you regard it as neutral only means that you
> feel the social needs of your milieu are being adequately met.
After many decades of trying to figure out how to have them met,
yes, they are being met, but nothing really has changed in my
outside world, only in the way I see things and understand them. In
fact, my world is one of greater material scarcity than I have ever
experienced in one sense. But I live my life in a different way than
I have ever done before..
>
>> It is only the people in it who
>> are cold and cruel at times, sometimes deliberately and sometimes
>> not. It might be poetic but it certainly isn't helpful to
>> anthropomorphise Mother Nature.
>>
> See above -- not "mother nature" the social world. Did you really
> invoke the female as creator metaphor?
Another little joke. Too bad you missed it.
> Interestingly the word
> "matter" comes from "mater" Latin for Mother.
>
>> > to gather about ourselves people who we perceive as
>> > sufficiently like us to make community of interest possible
>> > (and thus our welfare more secure) predisposes us to feel
>> > threatened by difference and to discriminate, to circle the
>> > wagons -- in short, to behave selfishly and often in ignorance.
>>
>> The history of the human race in a nutshell. But you dismiss this
>> universal tendency of humans to act thus as some sort of
>> aberration, some sort of anti-human and anti-humane behavior.
>
> Because it is irrational in the long term, though people's lives
> are lived in the short term. There's the conundrum.
Human beings are not rational. Were we, we would have no wars and no
crime. Anti-social behavior would come only from emotionally
disabled, and we would all value happiness and joy more than sex and
money and power.
>> It is also the way
>> all the rest of the life forms on Earth behave, and unless you
>> are a believer in Creationism, it should come as no surprise that
>> the basic aspect of human nature and and the natures of other
>> animals are related so intimately.
>>
> As per above -- I don't think that human nature, in the sense that
> you depoly it, is fixed.
There you go denying human nature and your humanity. If it weren't
fixed, then people from all cultures would have different basic
needs and we would not be able to understand each other any more
than we are really able to understand animal behaviors, as much as
we know about them. Is human nature evolving? Probably, but it will
not happen quickly, at least not until Malthus' predictions about
famine and pestilence are manifest and the human race is depleted
until it reaches a reasonable number on the Earth again. But that
won't happen for at least another 100 years or so, and then all the
unfit will die out. I will, of course, already be long dead by then.
>> > "PC language", as Paul Esposito suggested below, is often
>> > fatuous, self-serving and cynical -- but behind it lies an
>> > important idea
>>
>> Yes, but that idea was abandoned and left for dead decades ago.
>
> Not at all. It's the stuff of common discourse.
Only in America and possibly Europe. The rest of the world has more
basic things to be concerned with.
[...]
>> Next time you want to argue about popular but vacuous terms,
>> please remember to define them for the benefit of all your
>> readers.
>
> As you'd defined the terms already, I felt that was unnecessary.
And as you misunderstood the definitions, your feeling was wrong.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:17:21 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:48:06 GMT, Mark Browne <ne...@kafana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, in message <3f261067...@news.saix.net>, Steve
>>>Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>When I went to England I was often called a wog, occasionally a
>>>>foreigner.
>>>
>>>Why were you called a wog? When I was young, that would have only been
>>>applied to non-whites - from your web-page, I see (assume?) that you are
>>>white, so this would seem to be an odd usage.
>>
>>I was told that wogs came from south of the Trent, and I came from a long way
>>south of it.
>>
>All that goes to show, Steve, is that there are a lot of stupid English
>shits north of the Trent, then and now (and, incidentally, south of it,
>too). I know, for I was born just about five miles north of that particular
>river, so I'm an expert!
Aye, but the ones who used "wog" had a sense of irony. The ones who used
"colonial" didn't.
Tony Cooper
<mbw...@removebigpond.net.au> wrote:
>It probably matters only to me, but Tony Cooper has
>mis-attributed my words to CyberCypher/Franke in the
>thread below. Or so it appears; I can think of no other
>explanation.
Re-reading it, I'm not sure who brought up the "niggardly" reference a
being a PC issue. I disagree with the poster, no matter who it was.
I am an equal opportunity disagreerer. I was directing the comments
to Frank, though, and not you.
If you were the poster, I retract the "Franked Up" bit. It represents
Frank, but not you.
>I agree with Tony and Fran on this issue; I disagree with
>Franke. I also disagree with Franke on the question of
>whether I have ever lived in America -- though I suppose
>it is, like anything else, a matter on which he or she is
>entitled to its own opinion.
--
Tony Cooper
>> Far be it from me, a longstanding and fully paid up member of the
>> far left, to come to the defence of the US government, business or
>> legal community, but I find this rather hard to believe (much as
>> I'd like to at one level).
>
>You are perfectly free to do your own research. Start with Texaco.
A weasel. Rather than state the alleged incident(s), point out how
people were fired for making politically incorrect statements, and
making his point, Cyber does some vague hand-waving in Texaco's
direction. Texaco has been involved in a number of flaps over
treatment of minorities, but none - that I recall - about firing
employees for politically incorrect comments. That is the charge,
isn't it?
Fran
The article seems to contradict both points. His resignation was
"accepted". There was no indication that it was demanded. Maybe he was
made an offer? And he claims to have used the word "niggardly" which,
as pointed out had no racial connotations (except perhaps
phonetically) and was describing budgets, so even in context it's hard
to credit. His rationale was from perception, but it was his own. I
think he should have dug in his heels, but finally, it was a matter
for him.
He didn't, but that's
> beside the point of whether or not "nigger" is politically incorrect.
>
> I don't see "nigger", "kike", "raghead", and "fag" as being
> politically incorrect terms. They are insults plain and simple.
>
>
Correct
> >Your correspondent is likely tell you what you
> >"really" think, and where you have or haven't
> >lived for fifty years, without ever answering
> >the question.
>
> A technique practiced by you so much that it should be called Franked
> Up.
>
> Now, other than the "niggardly" incident, where are all the examples
> of people being fired from their jobs because of politically incorrect
> usage?
That's what I'd like to know. One hears people say this. I have an
open mind, but I'd like to see some data before participating in
tabloid mythmaking.
FRAN
Tony Cooper
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>NanaNJ wrote:
>
> > Well, here in the U.S. you can get handicapped license plates and
> > placards so that you can park in handicapped parking spaces and if
> > you park in said handicapped parking spaces without a plate or
> > placard, you will earn a parking ticket.
>
>Only a parking ticket. Here in Australia there is a fine of $5000.
The fine for parking in a handicapped space here (Orlando) is
US$250.00. (About A$500?) Considerably more than a regular parking
ticket.
Your fine is A$5,000 or US$2,500?
Tony Cooper
>> The guy wasn't fired because he used a politically incorrect term. He
>> was fired because he used a racial epithet.
>
>The article seems to contradict both points. His resignation was
>"accepted". There was no indication that it was demanded.
I think his resignation was purely a matter of allowing him to save
some face. He was fired, but allowed to resign. I have that
impression not from this story, but from remembering all of the
stories. I think he was re-hired later, wasn't he?
> He didn't, but that's
>> beside the point of whether or not "nigger" is politically incorrect.
The "he didn't" was kind of moved out of the flow, there. He didn't
use a racial epithet, but someone thought he did and that's why there
was a firing/resignation.
There was a similar situation with a school teacher. In that case,
she brought up the word "niggardly" as a discussion point. Some
parents, hearing part of the story and not being familiar with the
word, demanded her resignation.
That's really closer to be being a politically correct issue than the
New York story. Was it politically correct to even bring up the word
in an attempt to teach? If "politically incorrect" is defined as
something that might bring offense to others, then she might have
considered that others would be offended if they didn't know the
meaning. I don't fault her intent, but an experienced teacher would
never underestimate her student's ability to deliver half a story
home, and for parents to jump to wrong conclusions. It's unfortunate,
but often true.
Paul Esposito
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, in message
> <af187846.03072...@posting.google.com>, Paul Esposito
> <humani...@hotmail.com> writes
> >It is often the case that those for whom the "inclusive-speak" is
> >contructed aren't all that fussed, and and slightly mystified by it
> >all, if not downright miffed.
> >
> >On the other hand, "hearing-impaired" and "sight-impaired" are almost
> >certainly more accurate than "deaf" or "blind",
>
>
> > "non-english-speaking
> >background" more accurate than "foreigner",
>
> These two are totally different things. When I visit my parents-in-law,
> I am a foreigner, but I definitely have an "English-speaking
> background".
>
See my remarks above in another post on the point. Briefly, I was
pointing to the way Australians in the sixties and early seventies
dealt with those OSTENSIBLY from non-English speaking societies,
regardless of their actual nationality.
> > "disabled" more accurate
> >and less derogatory than "crippled".
>
> That is very much a point-of-view thing. I know a disabled person who
> refers to himself as a "crip" - he cannot walk.
>
The point is to think about our humanity, rather than our ostensible
features. If he's happy with "crip" (and happy for some others to
address him in that way) I see no problem. I wonder how he'd react if
someone said to him "sorry mate, you'll want the crips' entrance?".
> >Having "learning difficulties" is
> >more constructive, pointing as it does to a remedy, than being
> >"thick", and we now know enough about autism to give "differently
> >abled" some application. I heard a woman on the radio recently who had
> >prospered in agriculature and animal husbandry give a radio interview
> >in which she spoke rather more lucidly and insightfully than did her
> >interviewer about achievements of hers many times more substantial
> >than his, despite his status as "normal".
>
> So what made her disabled in any way. It sounds like she was abusing
> the status.
I don't think she was claiming the status. She was actually in town to
talk about her stuff on animal husbandry, but in as much as the
inspiration for some of her innovations was born in her experience of
her autism, and she had also lectured in this field, it was raised.
She seemed a little miffed that that was what the interviewer wanted
to discuss, but she was patient with a stream of very dumb questions.
She talked about autism, but not disability, and didn't use the term.
PE